AARoads Forum

Regional Boards => Pacific Southwest => Topic started by: andy3175 on July 20, 2016, 12:17:21 AM

Title: California
Post by: andy3175 on July 20, 2016, 12:17:21 AM
New thread for general California observations.

I'll begin with a column from the Sacramento Bee lamenting the slow down of highway construction in California over the past several decades, calling out the gap in SR 65, the gap in I-710 (SR 710), and the US 101 Eureka bypass.

http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/politics-columns-blogs/dan-walters/article76114332.html
Title: Re: California
Post by: Quillz on July 20, 2016, 12:55:19 AM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on July 20, 2016, 10:06:13 AM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on July 20, 2016, 04:10:07 PM
Dan Walters has been writing political analyses & columns for the Sacramento Bee for as long as I can remember; he was certainly doing so as a young reporter during the heyday of freeway construction during the later years of the Pat Brown gubernatorial administration ('59-'67).  He's pretty much an "old-fashioned liberal", preferring projects that benefit the larger population rather than directed toward one contingent or another, regardless of any perception of being aggrieved.  Excoriated on the right as a "tax-and-spend" proponent; and likewise on the left as insensitive & out of touch, he's been carrying on for about 50 years with no sign of slowing -- and there's hardly anyone who knows better how California government -- including the individual agencies -- really functions.  I read his column every time it's published on the Bee website; and I'm certainly not surprised to see him tackle the issue of underfunded highway development.
Title: Re: California
Post by: Quillz on July 20, 2016, 04:16:18 PM
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 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 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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: TheStranger on July 20, 2016, 04:31:06 PM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on July 20, 2016, 06:46:32 PM
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 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 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 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. 

Title: Re: California
Post by: ACSCmapcollector on July 20, 2016, 07:59:47 PM

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 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 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 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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: cahwyguy on July 20, 2016, 08:15:43 PM
I think one thing people forget -- especially people on the east coast -- is how big this state is. Driving I-5, from the southern to the northern border, without traffic, is at least a 10-12 hour drive (I know we did LA to Berkeley in about 5 hours). Going E - W is still about 4 hours, longer if you are crossing the Sierras or the deserts. That's a lot of road miles to maintain, many in areas that are expensive to maintain. Our maintenance workers and dollars are stretched to their limits.
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on July 20, 2016, 08:17:33 PM

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 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 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 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'm mainly just talking maintaining/improving theroutes that exist, not building something new that would plow through some lying Sierra foothills that isn't needed.  Really the northern 65 ought to just be renumbered and call it a day.  There is a surplus already that could be used for more road maintenance funding, things are certainly way better at least economically than they were when there was all that talk about shuttering most of the state parks.  You already know my thoughts on a road usage tax....pretty hard to justify something like that with the income and gas taxes being as high as they are. 
Title: California
Post by: jrouse on July 20, 2016, 10:29:53 PM
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
Title: Re: California
Post by: cahwyguy on July 20, 2016, 10:44:21 PM
Joe - The one thing this bbs lacks is a like button. Well said. I don't think most people understand how government funding and processes work. I support the DoD, and I see that all the time.
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on July 20, 2016, 11:05:02 PM
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

Wow that's a lot to type on a iPhone....yikes.  Anyways, my issue isn't with Caltrans operates it's with how Caltrans is funded versus how it COULD be funded.  You mentioned some excellent points like local sales tax increases to help prioritize corridors that counties or localities may want help on quicker.  I know the issue isn't as straight forward as many other states given the high volume of routes maintained at the state level rather than county or locality.  Personally I would prefer some of the recent surplus be earmarked for highway improvements along with a increase (despite what I said earlier) in the gas tax, sales taxes or even corporate taxes....multi-pronged across the board that hits as many places as possible with a wide distribution.  I know that tends to be a dirty word these days....."tax increases" but for me I would greatly prefer something like that to reinvest into infrastructure in general than say a usage tax which Scott has been touting like crazy in these threads.  The problem goes back to what others have said....apathy...in the legislature and in the general public for which anything infrastructure (including roads) has generally fallen out of favor.  So the question is...how to promote such a push for funding increases?...is it even possible in this modern climate when things like High Speed Rail are going to get much more positive reactions out of people?  Even in states like Arizona and Nevada where there is this huge push to get a new Interstate like I-11 going you get a crap ton of push back from people when you tell them their taxes are going to increase.  That's how the whole idea of a tolled I-11 came up and honestly given the brush back that those DOTs had it really isn't a bad idea. 

I guess for me personally a usage fee just has too many questions associated with privacy concerns versus a more conventional means of generating revenue.  The problem you run into with general tax increases be it gas, sales, property or commercial is you get just as much if not more push back from the parties involved.  But then again, I'm speaking from the perspective of someone who has historically driven 30,000 to 80,000 miles a year throughout his adult life.  There is actually an interesting thread in the General Section basically on highway usage taxes that I haven't opined on yet.  Yes taxes need to be increased for funding general, I would just prefer that everyone get affected as about equally as possible. Then again I don't know why I'm so invested in the topic considering on my 9th state and likely I'll be on the 10th in the next three years.  Anyways here is the thread from the General Section:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18419.0
Title: Re: California
Post by: Rothman on July 21, 2016, 11:02:49 AM
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. 

From here at NYSDOT, I can't believe this insanity.  NYSDOT thinks it already gives the locals/MPOs too much power and believes many other states dictate to counties/municipalities/MPOs what they will do in the STIP process.  Never knew there was a state stupid enough to actually give them more power than NYSDOT does!   :wow:

(personal opinion emphasized)
Title: Re: California
Post by: Henry on July 21, 2016, 11:10:08 AM
Even with the uncompleted I-710, aren't there enough freeways in L.A. already? It used to irritate me when I lived there, but now, not so much, and in fact, I can accept that the gap in South Pasadena may never be filled in.
Title: Re: California
Post by: Rothman on July 21, 2016, 11:12:36 AM
Even with the uncompleted I-710, aren't there enough freeways in L.A. already?

Napoleon, like anyone could even know that.
Title: Re: California
Post by: silverback1065 on July 21, 2016, 11:40:38 AM
is california 66 signed at all anywhere? 
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on July 21, 2016, 11:55:55 AM
is california 66 signed at all anywhere?

Was back in 2012 the last I saw a shield in San Bernardino. 
Title: Re: California
Post by: silverback1065 on July 21, 2016, 11:57:05 AM
is california 66 signed at all anywhere?

Was back in 2012 the last I saw a shield in San Bernardino.

I'm assuming it still exists, california is terrible at signing surface street state roads.
Title: Re: California
Post by: coatimundi on July 21, 2016, 11:57:36 AM
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."
Title: Re: California
Post by: silverback1065 on July 21, 2016, 12:08:43 PM
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
Title: Re: California
Post by: TheStranger on July 21, 2016, 12:09:27 PM
Even with the uncompleted I-710, aren't there enough freeways in L.A. already?

nothing new for above-ground routings is going to be built for the most part.  That's not news and hasn't been since the 105 project was finished ca. 1993.  (The tollways are in Orange County and even then 241 isn't going to reach 5 for the most part)

LA Metro has multiple light rail lines, several rapid bus lines (Silver Line in particular) and the two subway lines but the subway has only recently been given a green light to expand a modest distance west.  There's no money to expand it any further than that.  Light rail is a bit more flexible but also takes years to get anything done (LAX/Crenshaw for instance).

So there's no "enough" for infrastructure out there, only mitigating what existing traffic will be there regardless.  That isn't to say that capacity increases don't make a difference: I-5 through Orange County at its widest is certainly more effective at traffic flow than the narrow portion through Norwalk (which is being expanded in a multi-year project).

Title: Re: California
Post by: djsekani on July 21, 2016, 12:23:39 PM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on July 21, 2016, 07:36:58 PM
The CA 66 signage at the CA 83 interchange has been there at least since the mid-80's; I remember first seeing it on a business trip down there circa 1984 or so.  When I worked in Ontario in the early 2000's, my bank was on that corner, so I can attest that the signage was intact back then -- in fact, somewhere around 2005 or so there were actually square signs with printed green "spade" shields for both CA 66 and CA 83 posted westbound on CA 66/Foothill Blvd. at that time.  Never took a picture of them; was always in a hurry during lunch break (missed opportunity).  My immediate thoughts were that (a) the jigs for making cutout shields were starting to deteriorate, or (b) someone in District 8 got the bright idea to follow MUTCD specs to the letter!  Sure would be nice if someone who had time to do so would have some pix of these shields -- I can't recall that square shield signage was duplicated anywhere else!

Re any future freeway development in greater L.A.: The CA 71 upgrade through Pomona is likely to be the last full freeway built in metro LA unless there's a significant change in regional transportation priorities -- and I don't see that occurring in the foreseeable future.
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on July 21, 2016, 07:59:07 PM
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. 
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on July 21, 2016, 09:26:11 PM
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.


And I was right:

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.10833,-117.3006181,3a,75y,270h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sF7AORwpJpRtBiaYKb7CpLA!2e0!5s20120401T000000!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

Only problem is that the last time it's seen is in April of 2012...what a freaking shame.  :no:
Title: Re: California
Post by: Exit58 on July 21, 2016, 11:17:34 PM
Recently drove SR 66 and the only remaining shield is that one on the corner of Euclid. That sign was installed by the city of Upland fairly recently, IIRC. Sometime after the new Vons center was built on the northwest corner. Just before Upland requested, and received, relinquishment of both SR 66 and SR 83.

Ironically, Caltrans just installed a new SR 30 shield on the route in La Verne, despite being decommissioned 15+ years ago. They also just installed new guidance signs for I-15 in Rancho Cucamonga showing SR 66 spades for northbound traffic. Southbound doesn't have them for some reason. I believe the bridge log and pylons still have this marked as 15/66 Separation. Mile Markers and bridge pylons were also removed from LA County despite still being state maintained through La Verne and Pomona. Only two cities still have some posted: Upland and San Bernardino (SB portion is also still state maintained).
Title: Re: California
Post by: Quillz on July 22, 2016, 12:54:04 AM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: compdude787 on July 22, 2016, 12:56:12 AM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: mapman on July 22, 2016, 01:35:49 AM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: MarkF on July 22, 2016, 01:39:31 AM
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 think that is referred to as a prima facie speed limit.
Title: Re: California
Post by: coatimundi on July 22, 2016, 02:09:07 AM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on July 22, 2016, 08:20:43 AM
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.

I'm sure back when this was a newer traffic code it made more sense given the actual ability of the cars to hold the road was much more lacking and in turn the driver had to be more skilled.  Basically the problem you run into a straight highway like say 41 or 43 in the Central Valley is that road can hold more than 55 MPH no problem which leads to people leading due to lack of reassurance signs.  On mountain roads you get the opposite effect where people drive excessively slow because the last thing that they see with a speed limit is a yellow advisory sign.  It even took me awhile to figure out the End XX speed limit meant go back up to 55 MPH when I was working out here originally...turns out the GPS was actually right for once.
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on July 22, 2016, 08:24:16 AM
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
Title: Re: California
Post by: silverback1065 on July 22, 2016, 10:07:50 AM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: compdude787 on July 22, 2016, 11:24:40 AM
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?
Title: Re: California
Post by: Quillz on July 22, 2016, 11:59:59 AM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: Quillz on July 22, 2016, 12:00:44 PM
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?
A former portion, yes. Some of 210 was also once 66.
Title: Re: California
Post by: TheStranger on July 22, 2016, 12:18:48 PM

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 (so it's not like say 60/70/99 using the San Bernardino Freeway or 99 on the Golden State Freeway).  The only freeway portions of 66 that ever existed in California

- US 101/Hollywood Freeway from Santa Monica Boulevard to the Four-Level
- entirety of Arroyo Seco Parkway/Route 110 (Pasadena Freeway)
- a portion of the old Colorado Freeway/current Ventura Freeway (Route 134) just west of 210 was part of Alt US 66, from Exit 11 east to Exit 13A
- I-215 north of 5th Street in San Bernardino
- I-15 through Cajon Pass in the mid-1960s, alongside US 91 and US 395

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).

Title: Re: California
Post by: coatimundi on July 22, 2016, 12:25:47 PM
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).

The last image here claims that they were recently still there, although greened out.
http://socalregion.com/highways/la_highways/i-15/

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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: coatimundi on July 22, 2016, 12:36:42 PM
I'm taking the original thought for the topic of this thread and adding a general observation...

I saw this in the Monterey Herald:
Quote
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.

The section between Highway 1 and Castroville Boulevard is already divided, 4-lane and - except for a small portion at the very eastern end - a freeway. However, there are currently no barriers in the median except for near bridges.
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: jeffe on July 22, 2016, 04:16:52 PM
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.

Having driven on this section and measuring the distance on Google Satellite maps, you can see that the median on CA-156 is about 44 feet wide, while on CA-1 it is 80 feet wide.  The Caltrans "Freeway Median Barrier Study Warrant" calls for a study on medians of 75 feet or less.  At 44 feet a median barrier is warranted at an Average Daily Traffic Volume of 40,000.

So the median on CA-1 is wide enough that it does not require a median barrier.  However, there is some discussion of increasing the maximum to around 100 feet to match that of Oregon, Washington State, and Michigan.  Source: http://www.dot.ca.gov/research/researchreports/preliminary_investigations/docs/median_barriers_preliminary_investigation.pdf (http://www.dot.ca.gov/research/researchreports/preliminary_investigations/docs/median_barriers_preliminary_investigation.pdf)

As for a cable barrier, Caltrans has started to use them in rural areas.  There is a cable barrier on US-101 south of Soledad, and one on US-101 on the north coast as shown in this Caltrans video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27Snz_9ySH0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27Snz_9ySH0).
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on July 22, 2016, 07:32:59 PM
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?

Yes it does.

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.

That would be some tall money on a CA 66 if it ever showed up on market on eBay, likely would be listed at $500 dollars.  Most of the modern State Route shields get listed somewhere between $100 to $200....I guess people think that there is a California premium.  That's probably why I only have three spade shields myself, US Routes are even worse but so long as "California" isn't on an Interstate shield they usually are more reasonably priced.
Title: Re: California
Post by: MarkF on July 23, 2016, 01:47:31 AM
Back in early 2001, for some reason, Caltrans installed US 66 signs at some locations along Foothill in the Fontana area.  These are probably long gone.

(http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l200/mrkf/us66sign-fontana_zpsq01xxu6k.jpg)  (http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l200/mrkf/us66-sign-600-adj%20rsze_zps9rxy1hux.jpg)
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on July 23, 2016, 04:33:24 AM
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.     
Title: Re: California
Post by: Exit58 on July 23, 2016, 04:57:58 AM
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.

The older signs for the 15/40 split you are talking about did carry US 91 and US 66 shields. US 91 was kept for a short while until I-15 became the defacto number by locals. 66 shields were posted since the freeway was only a stub. It ended just outside Barstow IIRC, dumping travelers onto US 66/TEMP I-40. At most, US 66 and I-40 were only co-routed on modern I-40 from Barstow to Newberry Springs or Ludlow, and from the western end of the 95 overlap to state line. The old alignment was around long enough to be mile marked as Route 40.

Regarding the US 66 shields along SR 66, the last ones actually disappeared in 2009. Either city scrap or Caltrans removed them. I remember seeing one posted near the corner of Haven and Foothill until then (WB). Kinda funny Caltrans actually had left over signs. I wonder if they still have some left.
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on July 23, 2016, 09:52:31 AM
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.     

I would imagine every last single one they posted was probably stolen in short order.  I've always been suspicious about how NICE some of the California Cut-Out US 66 signs that I see on eBay are...that's because they were probably NOS that was jacked from the roadway.  There was online for $2,000 that I can't find the posting for now.
Title: Re: California
Post by: rte66man on July 23, 2016, 11:15:27 AM

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....

You are absolutely correct.  66 never was concurrent with 210 on any maps or other records that I have.
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on July 23, 2016, 11:55:45 AM
You're absolutely correct -- legislatively, the number 210 was never deployed over any of the previous US 66 (LRN 9 & LRN 161) alignment -- it was always a separate route along a similar trajectory.  Before 1998, it dipped, with its I-210 signage, down to its original I-10/Pomona terminus on what is now signed as the northern end of CA 57; after that, the 210 designation replaced the previous CA 30 designation all the way out to Redlands.
Title: Re: California
Post by: compdude787 on July 23, 2016, 05:27:49 PM
Since they mention Washington state as one of the places where they have the cable median barriers, I thought I could provide some input here. Between five and ten years ago, WSDOT put in cable median barriers was on I-5 between Marysville and Smokey Point (roughly Exits 199 to 206) in order to reduce the amount of median crossover crashes that were happening here. 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.

So, if Caltrans is going to start using cable median barriers, they need to make sure they are tall enough to effectively stop big SUVs and pickup trucks from barreling through them.
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on July 24, 2016, 01:27:08 AM
Back in the late '80's, after some cross-median commercial-vehicle smash-throughs on the portion of CA 99 featuring closely spaced oleander bushes as a median barrier -- pretty during floral season, but not terribly effective safety-wise -- Caltrans started putting cable barriers alongside the bushes' base; the cables were about 3 1/2 feet (42") off the ground.  While effective for smaller vehicles such as vans or small buses, it was less so for anything of bobtail size or larger; those would simply ride up the cables, bending them down with their weight, and still cross over (with the vehicle often leaning over at an angle!).  By the early 2000's most had been replaced by much taller (about 5 ft. or slightly higher) dual thrie-beam assemblies with very closely spaced support risers (one on each side of the bushes and slightly closer to the lane itself).  This seems to have done the job; reportedly median crossings in the affected area (between Delano and Tulare) were reduced considerably (I don't have the stats in front of me, but IIRC, the reduction figure exceeded 70%). 

It would be interesting to determine if the major factor in the lessening of crossover incidents was due to the properties of the thrie-beam barrier or simply the height difference;  I can't recall any studies being commissioned on this particular subject.
Title: Re: California
Post by: coatimundi on July 24, 2016, 02:27:22 AM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: jeffe on July 24, 2016, 04:08:30 AM
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.

It looks like there are two types of cable barrier systems -- a three cable and a four cable system.  The one shown there on I-5 looks like a three cable system and is rather short.  Single Slope concrete barriers are are normally 36 inches tall to prevent headlight glare, but must be at least 32 inches tall to meet crash standards.  This cable barrier looks like it is at most half the height of the concrete barrier, say 18 inches.

The ones used in California are four cable systems from the following companies:

Quote
The allowable HTCB must consist of one of the following or a Department-authorized equal:
  • 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
Source (http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/project_ads_addenda/11/11-406504/specs/11-406504sp.pdf)

The specification for the first manufacturer (http://www.brifenusa.com/files/presentation/19.html) has the top cable 36.5 inches high and the bottom cable 18 inches high.  This means the cable barrier is taller than the standard 36 inch concrete barrier (http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/project_plans/highway_plans/stdplans_US-customary-units_15/viewable_pdf/a76a.pdf) used in California as well as being taller than the 32 inch tall thrie beam (http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/project_plans/highway_plans/stdplans_US-customary-units_15/viewable_pdf/a78a.pdf).



Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on July 24, 2016, 09:50:07 AM
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.

Yeah those cable barriers went by the wayside on AZ 101 especially in the Salt River Tribal land.  There was actually a dispute going when the freeway opened up between DPS and the Tribe on who would actually patrol the road.  The consequence was that really nobody patrolled the freeway and if you didn't drive 90 MPH you would get run over, suffice to say it added to the wrecks big time....I remember watching a car careen into one of those cable barriers just north of Frank Lloyd Wright going south bound and just catching it perfect that the car pretty much shredded on impact.

I've seen that section of 99 before, I want to say it was between Fresno and Stockton.  I'm fairly certain that's where a dog was found living in the trees after falling out of a truck.
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on July 24, 2016, 10:27:19 AM
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!)
Title: Re: California
Post by: TheStranger on July 25, 2016, 02:28:45 AM
Saw this posted on the Freeways of LA facebook page: a 1960 map of the area, complete with the infamous Long Beach Freeway gap in South Pasadena marked with dashed lines!

http://www.lamag.com/citythinkblog/see-l-eyes-newcomer-1960s-map/
Title: Re: California
Post by: coatimundi on July 25, 2016, 09:37:07 AM
Quote
Norman describes the old and the new with the eye of a man visiting a bewildering foreign country.

I don't see that here. I see descriptions of tourist attractions.
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.

For a wide-eyed newcomer, as they seem to see him, the guy certainly had an obsession with freeways. Maybe that was just more reflective of the time. I love the "Freeway Information" up top. That's pretty useful, but obviously not overly reliable.
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on July 25, 2016, 10:51:44 AM
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!)

Galt is where that dog was found.  Apparently the coverage was thick enough for a dog to chill out there for several weeks with a broken leg....I want to say CHP called her Freeway Frida?  I posted a thread in off-topic about awhile back that had a decent video that showed the plants in the median....and of course dog.
Title: Re: California
Post by: cahwyguy on July 25, 2016, 11:19:24 AM
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.

No, we don't. I'm native Southern California: born here, lived all my life here. We do "the" in front of the freeway numbers, a holdover from the named days (e.g., the San Diego to the Harbor became the 405 to the 110).

Cali? I"ve only see that on T-shirts made by non-locals.
Title: Re: California
Post by: sdmichael on July 25, 2016, 11:22:29 AM
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.

No, we don't say "Cali" unless referring to a city in Columbia.
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on July 25, 2016, 02:48:15 PM
Up here in NorCal, you don't hear the term "Cali" unless it's uttered by a tourist -- or even an newbie.  Since we get a regular influx of kids (at my age, I can refer to anyone under 35 as a "kid"!!!!) in the tech industry, there seems to be a smattering of "Cali" talk early in their residency; it generally gets "whipped" out of them by their senior associates in short order!
Title: Re: California
Post by: coatimundi on July 25, 2016, 03:02:54 PM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on July 25, 2016, 08:30:17 PM
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. 
Title: Re: California
Post by: flowmotion on July 25, 2016, 10:50:32 PM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: Quillz on July 25, 2016, 11:04:11 PM
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. 
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on July 25, 2016, 11:17:58 PM
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:

Title: Re: California
Post by: flowmotion on July 26, 2016, 03:01:41 AM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on July 26, 2016, 07:16:00 AM
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.

"Hella" must've been hella lame.  :rolleyes:  I wanted the clip where Stan tells him to stop saying hella but couldn't find it.
Title: Re: California
Post by: AsphaltPlanet on August 16, 2016, 10:24:16 AM
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:

(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_108-1_south_Dec14_forum.jpg)

(http://www.asphaltplanet.ca/CA/I/5/I5_CA_dv_109_north_Dec14_forum.jpg)

(http://www.asphaltplanet.ca/CA/I/5/I5_CA_dv_110-45_north_Dec14_forum.jpg)

(http://www.asphaltplanet.ca/CA/I/5/I5_CA_dv_111_north_Dec14_forum.jpg)

(http://www.asphaltplanet.ca/CA/I/5/I5_CA_dv_113-6_north_Dec14_forum.jpg)

(http://www.asphaltplanet.ca/CA/I/5/I5_CA_dv_114-4_south_Dec14_forum.jpg)

I've put together a bunch of these photos on my website.  Some of my I-5 photos are older and not very good, but I think some of them are all right, despite the rather dreary day a lot of them were taken on.
http://www.asphaltplanet.ca/CA/I/5/Page4.html
http://www.asphaltplanet.ca/CA/I/5/index.html
Title: Re: California
Post by: djsekani on August 18, 2016, 12:26:47 PM
Orange County tends to have nice-looking freeways in general. I think the 5 looks actually inviting after slogging through the East L.A. Interchange, Commerce, and Norwalk.
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on August 18, 2016, 01:57:05 PM
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!
Title: Re: California
Post by: Occidental Tourist on August 18, 2016, 08:33:31 PM
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.

Ever critical that I am, I can find some flaws.

Some I-5 SoCal goodness:

(http://www.asphaltplanet.ca/CA/I/5/I5_CA_dv_108_south_Dec14_forum.jpg)
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_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.

Title: Re: California
Post by: MarkF on August 19, 2016, 02:01:24 AM
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
I just updated it with a video of the construction zone from late June.

Here's some stills from the video:

At Alondra Blvd:
(http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l200/mrkf/5N%20construction%2020160625-Alondra_zpshvh7v8wu.jpg)

At Carmenita Rd, all traffic (3 lanes each way) on the future northbound lanes:
(http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l200/mrkf/5N%20construction%2020160625-2-Carmenita_zps6bmwgkid.jpg)

At Norwalk Blvd, transitioning to the original northbound lanes:
(http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l200/mrkf/5N%20construction%2020160625-2_zpsfiwr3rom.jpg)

Much below the future roadway level near Imperial Hwy:
(http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l200/mrkf/5N%20construction%2020160625-1_zpsgcxvwnj8.jpg)
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on August 19, 2016, 03:36:56 AM
It certainly amazes me that Caltrans is managing to keep 3 lanes of traffic going in both directions during this expansion process, particularly the section through Norwalk!  No surprise that this section was the last to be addressed between 605 and 22/57; the lack of easement area on either side of the original 1956-57 alignment would render it the most difficult to expand in both political and fiscal terms.  It looks like most of the properties taken for the expansion are along the south side of the alignment (which makes sense considering the array of large-scale businesses and related facilities on the north side of the original freeway).

Thanks for the pix -- it'll be a while before I can get back down to the L.A. area to see all this for myself. 
Title: Re: California
Post by: AsphaltPlanet on August 19, 2016, 01:15:46 PM
I get the sense that CalTrans was really hoping to have the 710 debacle figured out before it came time to widen the 5 Freeway any further north into LA County.  An extension of the 710 Freeway would obviously have huge implications as to what form the interchange between the 5 and the 710 takes shape as.

I know this is a ways down the road... but i for one can't wait to see the East LA Interchange replaced with something modern.
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on August 19, 2016, 02:58:39 PM
Considering the topography, the transfer requirements of the freeways involved, and the land-use politics of East Los Angeles and environs, it's likely the East L.A. interchange (5/10/60/101) will remain largely as it is for the foreseeable future -- there's hardly enough room to expand the through-put lanes for I-5 much less a full revamping of the facility. 
Title: Re: California
Post by: AsphaltPlanet on August 19, 2016, 04:02:24 PM
^ 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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: SeriesE on August 19, 2016, 04:38:48 PM
^ 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.

Maybe someone will pull a fast one and declare the complex as historical, thus preventing any upgrades or rebuilds.  :-D
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on August 20, 2016, 01:16:25 PM
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. 
Title: Re: California
Post by: Exit58 on August 20, 2016, 06:23:07 PM
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.

Technically what is now the 5 is running on two different freeway. The 101 was originally the through route, in this case the Hollywood and Santa Ana Freeways which are still a through route. The Golden State was US 99 which actually went east on the San Bernardino. The connection from the San Bernardino to the Santa Ana was probably treated like the western segment of the San Bernardino is today: a connector. 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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: TheStranger on August 20, 2016, 08:38:53 PM
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)

Title: Re: California
Post by: mrsman on August 21, 2016, 07:18:44 AM
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)

Yes, the whole ELA interchange and SB Split interchange would make a lot more sense if it were designed in a way that provided for three main freeway routings with ramps connecting the three.  So for instance:

1) Hollywood <101> - San Bernardino <10>
2) Golden State <5> - Santa Ana <5>
3) Santa Monica <60> - Pomona <60>

To reinforce the point, the Santa Monica freeway would be 60 instead of 10.

(1) and (2) would interchange where the 5/10 interchange near County-USC Hospital.  It would be designed as a regular interchange with movements in all directions.  Since the interchange between (1) and (2) would provide the movement from Hollywood to Santa Ana, the 101 freeway between SB Split and the E LA interchange would be superflous and would be removed.

The interchange between (2) and (3) would now be much more simplified without the 101.  Essentially an east-west freeway interchanging with a north-south freeway that makes a sharp turn to the southeast just south of the interchange.  Again, movements in all directions would be provided.

There would be no direct interchange between (1) and (3).  For the most part (1) and (3) are parallel to each other and remain about 3-10 miles apart from the 110 all the way to where they meet in Beaumont.  Traffic between Hollywood and Pomona or between Santa Monica and San Bernardino could use any of the following freeways to connect between (1) and (3):  110, I-5, I-710, I-605, CA-57 or CA-71, I-15, or I-215. There is no good reason to funnel all of this traffic through I-5 as what is currently done by signing I-10 along the Golden State or on the 101 between SB Split and ELA interchange.

If this were done, there would be nothing special about the SB Split or ELA interchanges.  Instead they would be two regular freeway interchanges that happen to lie about 2-3 miles east of Downtown LA.

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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on August 21, 2016, 02:10:28 PM
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).  Until the I-5 throughput ramps were opened, the freeway temporarily terminated at Boyle Ave. near Hollenbeck Lake.  The I-10 through ramps from the Golden State to the westerly Santa Monica freeway opened right around Christmas of 1961; it simply directed traffic to Santa Fe Avenue (and, IIRC, was temporarily signed as such, minus any I-10 reference).  The entire Santa Monica viaduct south of downtown LA was completed to the Harbor Freeway (then US 6/CA 11) in late 1962; the ramps from the SE Santa Ana Freeway to the Santa Monica were opened at that time as well; all signage clearly indicated I-10.  The multiplex of I-5 and I-10 was acknowledged by a roadside BGS northbound; the only freestanding signage featuring both I-5 and I-10 shields was southbound immediately after the WB I-10 merge from the San Bernardino Freeway; that signage lasted several years but was gone by the late '60's. 

California Highways & Public Works gave sparse coverage to the interchange itself, but the coverage of the I-10/Santa Monica Freeway viaduct (then the longest such structure on the state highway system) was the subject of articles as well as multiple photographs.  Worth checking out! 
Title: Re: California
Post by: TheStranger on August 22, 2016, 06:50:54 AM
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).

Given that 101 and 5 remained concurrent in Orange County as late as 1967, I've always felt that the southbound 5/101 signage on the northernmost part of the Santa Ana Freeway was a vestige of that history.  (Similarly, I've seen a 1984 video on Youtube of I-80 west in San Francisco where the mainline is signed as "I-80/US 101" - which doesn't make sense from a modern perspective at all, but which likely was one of the few remaining hints at the intended 80/101 concurrency along the existing Central Freeway segment to the never-constructed Western Freeway)

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).

Wow, I never knew that the 1960s I-110 was signed in any way!  (Legislatively, it lasted until 1968; IIRC when the Century Freeway was added to the Interstate system, the Interstate mileage from this and from I-480 in San Francisco was transferred to the new project)

Was 1960s I-105 (the portion of US 101/Santa Ana Freeway between the San Bernardino Split and East Los Angeles Interchange) ever signed too?

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.

Another thought that has come to mind in looking at the layouts:

The I-10 routing snaking through the Golden State Freeway to connect the San Bernardino Freeway and Santa Monica Freeway seems to be a product of two things, 1. that the San Bernardino Freeway is the oldest east-west controlled access route in the area (and thus could easily be given the I-10 signage right away) whereas the Pomona Freeway was mostly constructed decades after the San Bernardino had been completed, and 2. while the Santa Monica Freeway had been proposed as Route 26/Olympic Parkway beforehand, by the time it opened, it had become part of the extended I-10.

The other factor that came to mind: the limited capacity of the Four-Level Interchange, with its 35 MPH ramps, and of the downtown freeways in general.  In theory, one can connect from the Santa Monica to San Bernardino freeways by staying on the left through lanes that connect 10 east to Harbor Freeway north, then head east on the Santa Ana Freeway to the San Bernardino Split (and vice versa westbound), but the heavy traffic that has plagued downtown since the 1950s makes this even less viable than going through a cramped, but Interstate-standard connection in East Los Angeles.  Likewise, while the Hollywood Freeway extension north of Route 134 that had been proposed in the 1950s (as US 6) did create a through north-south route from the San Fernando Valley into downtown, the narrow right of way of the downtown slot segment of the Santa Ana Freeway limits any capacity expansion to this day.

(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)

So much like the US 395/I-15 saga in the Inland Empire, or even the 1950s I-5/US 99 alignment planning in the San Joaquin Valley - where a bypass of an older through route was added to the Interstate system in order to fund new-build construction instead of in-place upgrades - it seems the Golden State Freeway south of today's Route 170 and the Santa Monica Freeway east of today's 110 both were intended as bypasses of already-existing through freeways that are even harder to widen/upgrade than the San Bernardino and Atwater/Merced examples I mentioned.  Even if that made the East Los Angeles Interchange itself rather complex, it provided for alternates to having to slog through the civic center and Hollywood areas.
Title: Re: California
Post by: coatimundi on August 23, 2016, 01:18:53 AM
(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)

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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on August 23, 2016, 03:14:37 AM
The first section of the Golden State Freeway (eventual I-5) to be constructed & opened was between Riverside Drive near the L.A. Zoo in Griffith Park and Alameda Ave. in Burbank; that was opened in early 1957.  By the end of that year it had been extended south to between Glendale Blvd. and Los Feliz Blvd, using temporary ramps to empty out onto Riverside Drive.  Included in that segment was the Colorado Blvd. extension (part of LRN 161/SSR 134).  By mid-1958 US 99/6 had been rerouted onto the freeway using the Colorado extension (an arrangement that lasted for about 3 years).  Northbound, US 99/6 remained on San Fernando Road (the original alignment) to the Colorado extension, then used that extension to the freeway mainline.  It went north on the freeway to Alameda, where it turned west with SSR 134 to Victory Blvd.  At Victory Blvd. the temporary routing turned north, using that street to the "Five Point" intersection of Victory Blvd., Burbank Blvd., and Victory Place.  While Victory Blvd. turned due west at that intersection, the 99/6 temporary routing continued north on Victory Place, which merged with the original San Fernando Road alignment east of Lockheed (now Hollywood/Burbank) airport.  This rerouting was necessary because northward construction on the Golden State Freeway used the alignment of Front Street, the former route, in central Burbank; the street was demolished in late 1957 to make room for the freeway, which was opened to traffic as far north as Burbank Blvd. in the spring of 1959. 

The segment along Riverside Drive, which included the SSR 2/Glendale Freeway interchange, was opened to traffic in the spring of 1961; southbound, it emptied all US 99/6 traffic onto the southbound Pasadena Freeway over the present ramp system bordering Elysian Park.  The first Golden State Freeway section to actually receive I-5 signage, between Broadway on the north and Boyle St. on the south (near Hollenbeck Lake, just north of Wilshire Blvd., and including the San Bernardino Freeway interchange), had opened in early 1960, with the I-5 ramps to the southbound Santa Ana Freeway (US 101) opening a year later.  The final section, between Broadway and just north of the Pasadena Freeway (including the interchange with that freeway, then US 66, and the L.A. river bridge) opened in late 1962. 

North of Burbank, the segment between Burbank Blvd. and Lankershim Blvd. in Sun Valley opened in the spring of 1961, extending north to Van Nuys Blvd. in early 1963 (this section included the inital ramps to the planned Hollywood Freeway -- originally intended to be part of US 6, but, after the '64 renumbering, becoming CA 170).  The final I-5 segment between Van Nuys Blvd. and the existing Golden State Freeway alignment north of Sylmar was opened to traffic in the fall of 1963, essentially finishing the freeway from its inception at the E.L.A. interchange to the point where it departed the San Fernando Valley. 

As a born & raised Glendale kid, I had front-row seating for the unfolding of this freeway -- I remember badgering my dad to drive me over the temporary Victory Blvd. alignment so I could see how it was signed (and as long as we were out that far in Burbank, to take me to Albin's Hobbies so I could see the new Lionel locomotives for '58 Xmas!).  If it was anything that rolled along the ground, it interested me as a youngster (some things never change!).
Title: Re: California
Post by: djsekani on August 23, 2016, 10:33:07 PM
Found an article that some of you have probably seen before talking about why Southern Californians add a "the" when talking about their freeways. Some cool old-school scans and photos in here too.

https://www.kcet.org/shows/lost-la/the-5-the-101-the-405-why-southern-californians-love-saying-the-before-freeway-numbers
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on August 24, 2016, 01:57:35 AM


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. 
Title: Re: California
Post by: sdmichael on August 24, 2016, 02:53:54 PM


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.

Also consider that large cliff is unstable, having slid quite substantially in the 1937. Yeah, it is a bit harrowing at times, but then it still somehow manages to carry that traffic. Caltrans has done some reworking of that ramp, mostly at the merge with SB 110 by adding a lane and reducing the amount of merging required for SB 5 to SB 110 traffic.
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on August 24, 2016, 03:47:06 PM
I'll have to admit that the (current) I-5 to SB CA 110 ramps have at least stood the test of time, despite the fact that the ramps contain two harrowing curves in each direction: the ones immediately prior to the 110 merge (SB) and the initial curve out of the tunnel (NB) -- and the parallel curves that snake along the hillside where the original ramps emptied out onto Riverside Drive, but were built in the present configuration to allow the relocated Riverside Drive to make an abrupt right-angle turn.  IMO, these are at least as bad as the curves right at 110.
Title: Re: California
Post by: AndyMax25 on August 24, 2016, 08:42:40 PM
Just saw this on a tweet from Caltrans D7. It's a non-standard US shield and missing Freeway Entrance sign. This is NB 101 on ramp from Universal Studios.  Never seen anything like this and strange that hey chose this anomaly for a public notice.
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160825/07b46db7222a9a5fe9e42ffe2e1b7f95.jpg)
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160825/c5984bcddfad54408347931b03618cc7.jpg)
Title: Re: California
Post by: jeffe on August 24, 2016, 10:56:19 PM
Just saw this on a tweet from Caltrans D7. It's a non-standard US shield and missing Freeway Entrance sign.

Stranger still, prior to November 2014 there were not any entrance assembly signs at this ramp at all, according to the pictures on Google Street View.  The only indications for this ramp was the sign directing traffic to North and South 101.

The side without the Freeway Entrance sign is on a square metal post, as opposed to a wood post for the complete assembly.  The City of Los Angeles uses square metal posts for all of their signs, so perhaps this is a City installation?

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)
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on August 25, 2016, 01:14:19 AM
Maybe the sign's from the prop department at Universal!  :biggrin:
Title: Re: California
Post by: Exit58 on August 25, 2016, 11:30:15 PM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: Occidental Tourist on August 26, 2016, 06:52:34 PM


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. 

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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on August 26, 2016, 09:41:29 PM
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.   
Title: Re: California
Post by: sdmichael on August 27, 2016, 12:35:13 AM
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.

Just to correct... the bridge in question - the NB State 110 bridge, is NOT a concrete multiple arch bridge. It is a steel girder bridge and from 1937 (minor correction there). You also have the SB bridge, also steel girder (Bethlehem Steel at that) which is higher than the NB bridge. To do anything more than what is there would require even the tunnel to have work done on it, hence why things remain as they are.
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on August 27, 2016, 03:20:59 AM
Could have sworn the original NB bridge was an arch!  Do recall the SB bridge as conventional girder.  Guess the old memory isn't what it used to be  :pan: -- been a long time (probably 25+ years) since I've actually been at ground level in that area -- pretty much up on I-5 since then on the way to somewhere else.  My mention of the grade of NB 110 being lower than that of SB meant that the SB bridge was higher (it had to be to clear the NB 110>5 ramp!).  Not many options for upgrades there, considering the topology, the tunnel, and the RR tracks below. 

Come to think of it, I probably conflated the mistaken arches on the 110 crossing with the street bridges downstream.  Mea culpa!
Title: Re: California
Post by: Occidental Tourist on August 29, 2016, 06:36:59 PM
Wouldn’t the riverbed be a perfect location for bridge bents?  There’s lots of places in the river and between roads, the Arroyo, and storm channels in the area for bridge bents.  Here’s just one roughed-out example of where you could place bridge bents that presumably conforms with Caltrans curve radii requirements for such a bridge.      

(http://i.imgur.com/1SKfmYZ.jpg)

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.

The other thing to consider is that although the southbound lanes are higher than the northbound lanes coming out of the tunnel, by the time you get to the Avenue 19 overcrossing, both northbound and southbound lanes are dropping such that they are almost parallel in height.  Any new bridge structure coming off the northbound 110 would be rising at a slight grade from the tunnel eastward, and should be able to easily clear both sets of lanes of the 110 as it curves northward at that point.

(http://i.imgur.com/aYdfbR9.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/GrI37V1.jpg)      

It’s the drop down over the Golden State Freeway and into the current distributor road to the 5 North that concerns me.  You’d probably have to raise that road significantly in order to marry it to the new bridge connection with an acceptable enough downgrade coming off the bridge.  That in turn leaves you with a likely too steep of a drop in too short of a distance to Riverside Drive to keep that offramp.

(http://i.imgur.com/fLPchs0.jpg)   
Title: Re: California
Post by: jeffe on August 30, 2016, 09:18:43 PM
That ramp alignment looks good!  It would also allow for the "kink" in the South I-5 to CA-110 connector ramp to be removed.  This ramp could also be widened to allow for a proper right shoulder and thus give better sight lines around the hill.

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.

1) Many of the power lines in this area were placed underground as part of the new traffic circle being built at the Figueroa and San Fernando intersection.  There is that triple circuit transmission line, but the towers could be raised to provide enough clearance.

2) Yeah, the Riverside Drive ramp might be a bit steep, but the ramps could be pushed back to intersect Riverside at the Oros intersection if needed.

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.

Based on your diagram it looks like this ramp could actually split off at the earth embankment prior to the bridge.  Thus, the two bridges would be completely separate structures.

====
There was a discussion about Freeway Entrance signs earlier in this thread.  Here's one in Oakland where it looks like there were issues with illegal U-turns.  The no U-turn sign should be an I-580 shield:
(http://i.imgur.com/jWko172.png)
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on August 31, 2016, 06:03:11 AM
As there is a currently planned city effort (spearheaded by the architect Frank Gehry) to return the Los Angeles River, including the area in question here, to a more "natural" state (which would entail removing much of the concrete channelization), construction of flyovers that would encroach on the riverbed may be a non-starter, given the current sociopolitical climate in L.A.  My guess would be that we'll all be living with the present cliff-hugging transitional ramps from 110 to 5 -- and vice-versa -- for the foreseeable future.
Title: Re: California
Post by: mrsman on September 02, 2016, 03:21:23 PM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: Exit58 on September 02, 2016, 03:36:28 PM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: Occidental Tourist on September 02, 2016, 04:00:32 PM
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
Title: Re: California
Post by: Exit58 on September 02, 2016, 04:25:28 PM
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

Wow they did such a great job of removing the off ramp it's practically gone! I forgot it was even there. I haven't been up that way in eons.
Title: Re: California
Post by: andy3175 on September 05, 2016, 12:35:24 AM
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
Title: Re: California
Post by: coatimundi on September 05, 2016, 01:15:31 AM
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

Santa Nella just needed to get in on all that: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.057404,-121.0163755,3a,75y,218.94h,76.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4z_ygnKvpxh_V1lgzOnGcw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Title: Re: California
Post by: sdmichael on September 05, 2016, 01:42:48 AM
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

There is google... and there is this:

http://socalregion.com/brawley-bypass/ (http://socalregion.com/brawley-bypass/)
Title: Re: California
Post by: coatimundi on September 05, 2016, 02:28:09 PM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: myosh_tino on September 05, 2016, 03:23:44 PM
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.

I figure Google's explanation for showing 84 and 880 as being multiplexed is because Caltrans' own signs seem to imply the same thing...

(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images084/ca-084_eb_exit_038_03.jpg)
Bonus points for anyone who noticed the "Craig County"-esque boo boo on this sign

(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images880/i-880_sb_exit_019_01.jpg)

(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images084/ca-084_eb_thornton_ave_01.jpg)

FWIW, there's supposed to be another discontinuity of CA-84 at US 101 but once again, both routes are signed on freeway entrance assemblies and reassurance markers...

(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images101/us-101_sb_exit_406_01.jpg)
Title: Re: California
Post by: coatimundi on September 05, 2016, 05:14:23 PM
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.

And here's the Street View link that I copied but didnt post, but it may just go to the map. I'll have to stop posting on my phone because nothing works very well and my autocorrect makes poor decisions.
https://goo.gl/maps/VFRTc6pAK532
Title: Re: California
Post by: silverback1065 on September 05, 2016, 08:12:57 PM
if it's signed as continuous, it's continuous.
Title: Re: California
Post by: coatimundi on September 05, 2016, 08:33:10 PM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: silverback1065 on September 05, 2016, 08:34:31 PM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: TheStranger on September 06, 2016, 05:01:22 AM

Why would caltrans want those small gaps anyway? That's super weird.

It isn't Caltrans themselves per se but the actual legislative definitions of routes.

Weirdly enough, looking at Cahighways.org, Route 84 from Route 1 east to I-680 was the pre-1963 Legislatively Route Number 107 (including the concurrencies today with US 101, I-880, and Route 238), while the portion from I-680 east to I-580 (and then along the never built/signed Vasco Road corridor) was LRN 108, and the portion of somewhat-signed Route 84 today north of Route 12 was LRN 99.

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). 

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?

Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on September 06, 2016, 09:48:25 AM
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). 

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?
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.

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) 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.   
Title: Re: California
Post by: TheStranger on September 06, 2016, 12:52:41 PM

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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on September 06, 2016, 03:56:31 PM

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.
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: cahwyguy on September 06, 2016, 09:21:47 PM
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.   

Note that I have a full chronology at http://www.cahighways.org/chronlgy.html  (to which Sparker's observation, above, will be added with attribution). Note that a number of legislative routes were established long before the state got the bright idea to number them legislatively (and that was long before they, or more rightly, the auto club, decided to sign them with numbers). Interestingly enough, these earliest routes weren't the single digit LRNs -- they were portions of LRN 11 (eventual US 50), LRN 18 (Route 140), LRN 11 (adding parts of eventual Route 16, eventual Route 51 / BR 80), LRN 40 (Route 120 and Route 108), LRN 13 (Route 108), LRN 20 (US 299, later Route 44), LRN 41 (Route 180), LRN 35 and LRN 36 (Route 3, Route 36, Route 194) and LRN 37 (US 40, later, of course, I-80). It wasn't until the first bond issue in 1909 that you got LRN 1.

Further, and perhaps this explains Sparker's observation, the bond issue noted: "The route or routes of said state highways shall be selected by the department of engineering and said route shall be selected and said highways so laid out and constructed or acquired as to constitute a continuous and connected state highway system running north and south through the state traversing the Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys and along the Pacific Coast by the most direct and practicable routes, connecting the county seats of the several counties through which it passes and joining the centers of population, together with such branch roads as may be necessary to connect therewith the several county seats lying east and west of said state highway."

Quote
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".
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on September 07, 2016, 04:45:11 PM
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. 

Coincidentally, the three U.S. routes that cross into Oregon, aside from US 199 (LRN 1) and US 99 (LRN 3) have successive numbers, west to east (US 101=LRN 71, US 97=LRN 72, and US 395=LRN 73), which suggests that they were commissioned at or near the same time -- although the original US 97 southern terminus used OR 66 from Klamath Falls to Ashland, and US 395 was SSR 7 until the late '30's, so their eventual status as US highways may well be a matter of later development regardless of the origin of the LRN "cluster".  It's likely LRN 72 got its start as a parallel road to the rerouted Southern Pacific main line to Oregon via Dorris and Klamath Falls (the original closely paralleled US 99 but had the disadvantage of having to surmount a series of steep grades), which was opened in 1927, a few years prior to the LRN 71-73 commissioning.   
Title: Re: California
Post by: coatimundi on September 07, 2016, 06:07:12 PM
So I'm a little curious on this one: why wouldn't LRN 1 and the Redwood Highway name be on 199?
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.

I don't know though: maybe I'm misunderstanding the discussion here.
Title: Re: California
Post by: cahwyguy on September 07, 2016, 06:20:44 PM
Sparker: I dropped a note to the fellow who has been investigating the history of US highways in Oregon (we've been going back and forth on US 199), pointing him to this discussion. Hopefully, he'll chime in with the answer to your question.
Title: Re: California
Post by: JasonOfORoads on September 07, 2016, 08:40:07 PM
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.

I'm not in front of all my documents, so I can only speak to what I have access to and from off the top of my head.

Oregon was the last of the 3 Pacific states to create a highway department (1913), and until the start of the 1930s most roadbuilding was done under county jurisdiction, with assistance from the state. However, the state did define 36 state highways in 1917, presumably to be under state jurisdiction. Our Hwy #1 was the Pacific Highway from Washington to California mostly along what became US-99E and US-99; #2 was the Columbia River Highway from Astoria to Umatilla along what became US-30; and #3 was the Coast Highway, originally the Roosevelt Military Highway, along what became US-101 from Astoria to the California line just south of Brookings. By comparison, what would eventually become US-199, the Grants Pass-Crescent City Highway, was #25 -- so if number is an indication of importance, Oregon clearly thought much more highly of the coastal route than the one through the redwoods. (Also, I imagine the state highway commission wanted to create a coastal highway with the same scenery and design standards as the Columbia River Highway, which had opened the previous year to great fanfare.)

I can't speak to the condition of the road in its early days, but I imagine that the quality was very poor around 1917. As previously mentioned, the counties and cities built roads back then; while segments of what became the Oregon Coast Highway did exist, they weren't considered a single highway with missing parts just yet. Therefore, the routes on the maps were considered temporary until properly surveyed. According to the 1920 state highway map, while the surveys were largely done for the other state highways, the Oregon Coast Highway (now #9) was the only one with sections marked as "under consideration". I imagine that the surveys simply took longer -- the terrain was difficult to traverse, the weather was largely unfavorable, and roads in coastal communities may not yet have connected to the rest of the state at all.

By 1920, the section from Gold Beach to the California line was marked as under consideration, then upgraded to "unimproved" in 1922 with a graded section around Cape Sebastian. By 1926, the Gold Beach-California section was either graded or rock- and gravel-surfaced, and by 1932 it was all oiled macadam. In fact, the 1930 state highway map shows roughly 95% of the highway being rock/gravel or better, with Florence still having graded and unimproved segments. (By comparison, Oregon's section of the Pacific Highway was paved border-to-border by 1922.) The Oregon Coast Highway became driveable from the state line to Astoria in 1936, when the last of five coastal ferries was replaced by a bridge (I forget which).

So I think it would be accurate to say that while a paved US-101 didn't fully exist until the mid-20th century, it did exist as a contiguous though tortuous route (save for the ferries) by 1922.

The Redwood Highway -- the current name for the Grants Pass-Crescent City Highway -- was similarly unimproved in 1922, save a graded section near the Illinois River -- probably for a bridge or in preparation of one. A roughly 5-mile section was graded from the California border northward by 1924, then made rock/gravel from the border to the Illinois River by 1926. The entirety of US-199 in Oregon was oiled macadam by 1930.
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on September 07, 2016, 11:43:13 PM
Thanks, Dan & Jason, for the info.  According to Dan's info on the commission date of LRN 71-72-73 (1931, with full route codification in 1935), Jason's Oregon timeline dovetails right into that scenario, with the full paving of the Gold Beach - state line section occurring in 1932; LRN 71/US 101 was, more or less, there to meet it.  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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: JasonOfORoads on September 08, 2016, 01:55:15 AM
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.

Oh that's very true. Also, on the recreational front, touring in cars was very popular in those days, and Oregon likely wanted to get coastal drivers to its new paved Pacific Highway traversing the backbone of the state. At least, that's the impression I'm getting from Oregonian articles at the time.
Title: Re: California
Post by: emory on September 08, 2016, 05:07:32 AM
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.

There are multiplexes all over California, but they're usually not for long distances or for more than two routes. Whether or not Caltrans chooses to sign them appears to be based on whatever Caltrans feels like doing. They sign CA 2 down US 101 in Hollywood, but they don't sign I-10 down I-5 near downtown LA, nor did they sign CA 170 down US 101 before it was truncated. Just don't expect Caltrans to multiplex an interstate and a US highway for over 50 miles or have a freeway with three route designations.

CA 33 multiplexes several times on its near 300 mile trek Ventura to Tracy. None of them are in the definition of Route 33, but it's actively signed across them all.
Title: Re: California
Post by: coatimundi on September 08, 2016, 02:12:52 PM

33 is a funny road. If you go look at the area around Santa Nella, that I posted a StreetView link to earlier in the thread, it's signed onto 152 east but, if you look at the I-5 interchange, it's signed only for eastbound and is left off of the westbound sign for northbound I-5, while it's left out entirely for southbound I-5. Past that, it's really sparingly signed, even for reassurance markers. A lot of it seems like it should be turned over for county maintenance in several places, where it largely functions as a local road, but I would guess it's probably another instance of the county not wanting it. I use it sometimes on busy weekends to avoid I-5, when that road gets crowded with Angelenos in Chevy Tahoes.

But I wasn't trying to assert that California has no multiplexes. The 49/108 multiplex in Stanislaus is both signed and official, and there are a few others. It's just the question of what defines a multiplex? Is it a sign, or is it the legal definition? I was just saying that the legally defined multiplexes are rare in California, even where they would be pretty useful. Most other states are not hesitant at all about keeping multiplexes both signed and defined, but California seems mostly adverse to the whole idea.

=====
So, back to the Redwood Highway, I wanted to sort of lead to the bias that we have now regarding routing decisions. I think we look at the choices made in that respect in a modern context as rational and reasoned, as in the way much of the interstate system was conceived. However, prior to about WWII, the country was much more corrupt. There are plenty of examples of railroads being routed based on bribes, lobbying or just favortism. Not that this didn't exist during the interstate system's planning, but it was certainly less extensive. My point was going to be that it's very possible that the Redwood Highway was put onto what is now 199 was either due to a town's or individual's or group's lobbying, and that could have even been the road's original owner. Maybe it was even some sort of spite against Oregon, if they had just completed their coastal route. But, then again, it could be that it was more reasoned than that; that California saw the benefit of bringing the highway into the more populated parts of Southern Oregon and away from the coast. Who knows.
Title: Re: California
Post by: TheStranger on September 08, 2016, 02:29:35 PM
I was just saying that the legally defined multiplexes are rare in California, even where they would be pretty useful.

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.e. US 101 is only in 2 segments statewide, while roads that are co-signed with it like Route and Route 84 break up into segments whenever they piggyback onto 101)
Title: Re: California
Post by: cahwyguy on September 08, 2016, 02:53:00 PM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: coatimundi on September 08, 2016, 04:16:53 PM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: sdmichael on September 08, 2016, 04:43:30 PM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: emory on September 08, 2016, 07:43:28 PM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: Quillz on September 10, 2016, 11:25:23 AM
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.
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: cahwyguy on September 10, 2016, 12:59:48 PM
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.

Well, it once did have that discontinuity. From my pages (you're seeing my raw format, folks):

Quote
%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.

So it did have the discontinuity when it was defined in the post 1964 numbering, but the legislature screwed that up when they adjusted it for the change in terminus of Route 210.

Title: Re: California
Post by: coatimundi on September 11, 2016, 12:09:05 AM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: Quillz on September 11, 2016, 12:35:50 PM
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.
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: Exit58 on September 11, 2016, 03:27:18 PM
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.

The Pomona Freeway was defined when US 60 was still in existence in California. US 60 also stuck around after the 1964 renumbering (although in that area not for very long). So it's possible that the 57/60 concurrency is simply following the post miles of the pre-freeway alignment (I can't recall if the milage along the freeway is realigned or not as I believe most/all routes still follow the post miles of their '64 routing) thus giving US (SR) 60 preference over SR 57.
Title: Re: California
Post by: coatimundi on September 11, 2016, 05:03:11 PM
So it's possible that the 57/60 concurrency is simply following the post miles of the pre-freeway alignment

Good point, and I hadn't thought how that would affect it. But I think the point there was regarding the existence of a concurrency/multiplex in the state route system as opposed to one route having discontinuity as multiplexes seem to normally in the state. Obviously they wouldn't actually post both postmiles (that would be so confusing) though.

I was thinking about it yesterday, and I know I've seen dual milemarkers on an interstate before, but definitely not in California. It may have been either 75/640 in Knoxville or 74/465 in Indianapolis. But I would hope that California would never put up two sets of milemarkers or postmiles. It's just too much.
Title: Re: California
Post by: jrouse on September 15, 2016, 08:57:45 PM
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
Title: Re: California
Post by: sdmichael on September 15, 2016, 09:03:00 PM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: roadfro on September 15, 2016, 11:04:56 PM
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 haven't noticed. Interesting though... Perhaps it's another way Caltrans is starting to get a little more in conformance with the national MUTCD...?
Title: Re: California
Post by: myosh_tino on September 16, 2016, 03:44:36 AM
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).
Title: Re: California
Post by: Occidental Tourist on September 16, 2016, 06:41:45 PM
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).
Jesus, look at that messed-up shield!
Title: Re: California
Post by: andy3175 on September 17, 2016, 02:17:51 AM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: andy3175 on September 17, 2016, 03:13:54 AM
With the November election not far off, several California counties are planning transportation sales tax increases including the following:

- Contra Costa County (Measure X) - http://keepcontracostamoving.net/
- Los Angeles County (Measure M) - http://thesource.metro.net/tag/measure-m/
- Placer County (Measure M) - http://keepplacermoving.com/
- Sacramento County (Measure B) - http://www.sacramentogo.com/
- San Diego County (Measure A) - http://measure.sandag.org/
- San Luis Obispo County (Measure J-16)
- Santa Clara County (Measure B) - http://www.vta.org/envision-silicon-valley/envision-silicon-valley
- Santa Cruz County (Measure D) - http://www.votescount.com/Home/UpcomingElections/November8,2016PresidentialGeneralElection/LocalMeasuresontheballot/MeasureDCountyTransportationTaxMeasure.aspx
- Stanislaus County (Measure L) - http://www.stanislaus-localroadsfirst.com
- Ventura County (Measure AA) - http://keepvcmoving.org/

The web page links provide additional project information for each county. Notable items I noted in reviewing these pages include transit improvements (bus and rail), interchange upgrades, and additional road capacity in certain areas. Notable road projects in the list include (not a complete list):

- Vasco Road/Byron Highway Corridor
- I-680/SR 4 interchange improvements
- Improvements to multiple LA Freeways, including portions of I-5, I-105, I-405, I-710
- High Desert Corridor (E-220)
- Placer Parkway (SR 70-99 to SR 65)
- Bus 80/SR 51 Capital City Fwy Bus/Carpool Lanes & Operational Improvements (P Street – Watt)
- Capital Southeast Connector (I-5 Hood-Franklin Road to SR 99 to US 50 Silva Valley Parkway)
- Express and Carpool Lanes on San Diego's I-5, SR 52, SR 78, and SR 94
- Carpool Connectors at San Diego's I-5/SR 78, I-15/SR 78, SR 52/I-805, SR 94/SR 15; SR 94/I-805, and I-805/SR 15
- Missing Freeway Connectors at San Diego's I-5/SR 56, I-5/SR 78, and SR 94/SR 125
- SR 85 Corridor Improvements
- Improvements to Santa Clara County Expressway Network (reference 2040 plan at: https://www.sccgov.org/sites/rda/plans/expyplan2040/Pages/study.aspx)
- SR 132 Expressway from I-5 to Modesto
- Improvements to US 101 in SLO and Ventura Counties
- Improvements to SR 118
Title: Re: California
Post by: coatimundi on September 17, 2016, 05:21:42 PM
So I don't how I always missed this (probably it being shaded), but I just happened to notice it a couple of weeks ago on a burrito run and got the picture this morning. I don't think I've seen another shield on any of the other business routes in my area, but this seems to be one of the few overall shields for the state business routes.
It's on southbound Del Monte just past Highway 1, in northern Seaside.

(https://c3.staticflickr.com/9/8541/29636111122_9664512da4.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/M9QPk9)
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on September 17, 2016, 05:25:01 PM
Speaking of shields on Business routes, this is literally the only fully signed "Historic State Highway" I ever recall seeing in the entire state:

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.2983551,-120.7053286,3a,37.5y,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s9VZM30jovQfyGvI96MHhLQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1?hl=en
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on September 18, 2016, 12:14:13 AM
With the November election not far off, several California counties are planning transportation sales tax increases including the following:
- Los Angeles County (Measure M) - http://thesource.metro.net/tag/measure-m/
- High Desert Corridor (E-220)
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? 

And -- although it's been attached to this corridor at least since the 2005 SAFETEA-LU act, exactly what is the significance -- or derivation of -- the "E-220" designation?  Placeholder?  PPP project number?.... or simply something as mundane as the order that the concept was formulated (e.g., Item #220 on someone's agenda).  If anyone out there has a definitive answer, please supply it! 







Title: Re: California
Post by: Occidental Tourist on September 19, 2016, 06:52:45 PM
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.

One more confirmation about implementation by Caltrans.  The new Freeway Entrance sign assembly for the entrance to the 22 Freeway from Studebaker Road in Long Beach has the directional banner above the shield.
Title: Re: California
Post by: coatimundi on September 22, 2016, 05:22:48 AM
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
Title: Re: California
Post by: Exit58 on September 22, 2016, 01:08:19 PM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: myosh_tino on September 22, 2016, 01:38:30 PM
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

Wrong font?  Maybe the "99" which appears to be Series C but not the "41" which uses Series D.
Title: Re: California
Post by: silverback1065 on September 22, 2016, 07:47:09 PM
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

Title: Re: California
Post by: Occidental Tourist on September 22, 2016, 08:19:24 PM
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



Not at this time.

The gap at La Conchita was redesigned within the last decade to enhance safety, but the decision to not have a grade separation as part of those upgrades was made.  I can't see that decision revisited any time soon unless the traffic backup during the morning commute to Santa Barbara gets bad enough to start impacting the beneficial effect of those recent changes.

There are likely lots of CEQA and Coastal Commission issues that would have to be addressed to upgrade the portion of 101 between Goleta and Gaviota Pass, and I don't think the money or political will is there to fight for such changes if there isn't a corresponding need for it based on traffic along that section of 101.  And even if that section of 101 started having traffic issues, remember that 154 is always available as an alternate route, and its availability would likely further delay major costly upgrades to 101.

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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: sdmichael on September 22, 2016, 09:02:26 PM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: coatimundi on September 22, 2016, 09:23:07 PM
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.

There is a proposed (and I believe designed) interchange at Wellsona Road in northern Paso. However it's not funded.

The Monterey County section would certainly fall into the landowners issue with all the farm side roads. I would guess there would push back on putting in frontage roads, and even more push back on closing some of them off.
Title: Re: California
Post by: coatimundi on September 22, 2016, 10:46:00 PM
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.

The section between Salinas and 156 east has a grade crossing at Rocks Road, just before 156. There are also a couple of grade intersections without crossovers in Prunedale. But these are all very minor roads, and the last major crossover, at Dunbarton Road, was removed only a few months ago. The Cole Road crossover was blocked off at about that time also, but that was a lot less disruptive.

The section north of 129 seems to be mired in a funding jurisdictional hole. VTA wants to widen and improve it but has no money. Caltrans will pledge nothing. It's bad too: the railroad o/c and the Pajaro River bridges have terrible concrete separation, and the guardrail on the former looks like it's been hit at least 20 times.
Title: Re: California
Post by: djsekani on September 29, 2016, 06:37:50 PM
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.

There's a mix of both on the 215 if memory serves correctly. I'll check again this Sunday to be sure.
Title: Re: California
Post by: AsphaltPlanet on November 02, 2016, 08:36:34 PM
I shot some video of California's freeways on my last visit there in the spring:

Title: Re: California
Post by: andy3175 on November 10, 2016, 12:04:18 AM
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/

Quote
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: andy3175 on November 10, 2016, 12:15:01 AM
Wildlife tunnel proposed for SR 17 ...

http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/10/20/caltrans-commits-3-1-million-to-build-wildlife-tunnel-under-highway-17/

Quote
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: coatimundi on November 10, 2016, 01:31:49 AM
CaHighwayGuy mentioned the wildlife tunnel in his most recent update. Measure D did pass so, among many other things, it will be at least partially funded. I'm looking forward to seeing some designs.
If I'm not mistaken, this will be Northern California's first wildlife crossing. There are several in Southern California and in Arizona.
Title: Re: California
Post by: emory on November 10, 2016, 06:29:01 PM
Here's a question.

If and when California petitions AASHTO to move Interstate 210 onto SR 210, will the interstate standard segment of CA 57 disappear? Or will they have to re-define it? If that's the case, we'll probably have another I-305 on our hands unless the state legislature wants to create a Route 410/610/810 and sign it.
Title: Re: California
Post by: coatimundi on November 10, 2016, 08:41:00 PM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: emory on November 11, 2016, 06:40:16 AM
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.

It's signed as CA 57 between those two points. My question was about federal definition since that portion of CA 57 is part of the Interstate Highway System. AASHTO isn't going allow two I-210s.
Title: Re: California
Post by: AndyMax25 on November 11, 2016, 11:57:32 PM
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/

Quote
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.

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. 
Title: Re: California
Post by: emory on November 12, 2016, 01:19:20 AM
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/

Quote
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.

Neighboring SR 1 is also due to be turned over to Los Angeles, from the Santa Monica city limits to I-105.
Title: Re: California
Post by: emory on November 12, 2016, 09:55:33 AM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: TheStranger on November 12, 2016, 11:12:30 AM
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.

Route 187 along Venice Boulevard (for now).  Route 90 for the first block or so east of Route 1.  Route 47 from Route 103 north to about Sepulveda Boulevard (the portion north up to Route 91 isn't in city limits).  Could technically argue that Route 91 between Vermont Avenue and the Harbor Freeway/I-110 fits this, but barely.

Route 170 on Highland was recently decommissioned, right?

Title: Re: California
Post by: silverback1065 on November 12, 2016, 11:42:01 AM
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/

Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on November 12, 2016, 04:41:30 PM
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/

Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: coatimundi on November 12, 2016, 06:54:36 PM
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/

Quote
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.

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.

I was on the relinquished Santa Monica section a few weeks ago, and the signs are definitely still up, though it's not what I would call "well-signed".
So many tourists want to "drive Highway 1" that they really need to keep signage up through Santa Monica and around LAX. Particularly the BGS at the Lincoln/Sepulveda split.

Since SR 47 has a traffic signal at Ness Avenue, you could (well, I am) make the point that that's a - albeit very brief - surface street.
Title: Re: California
Post by: NE2 on November 12, 2016, 10:39:58 PM
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).
Title: Re: California
Post by: Occidental Tourist on November 13, 2016, 09:59:45 AM
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. 

As I continue to note the freshly-posted CA-42 sheld on the Long Beach Freeway on days I come back from court, I would bet you a good deal of money that those CA-187 shields are not coming down after relinquishment is official.
Title: Re: California
Post by: coatimundi on November 13, 2016, 01:53:26 PM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: NE2 on November 13, 2016, 02:50:02 PM
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
Title: Re: California
Post by: coatimundi on November 13, 2016, 08:44:43 PM
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

I mean, that's where the freeway ends, yes. It's the start of (one of) the unconstructed freeway section. The Navy Way bridge is in the District 7 bridge log though. So I would assume it's still state-maintained.
Title: Re: California
Post by: NE2 on November 13, 2016, 10:13:55 PM
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
Title: Re: California
Post by: coatimundi on November 14, 2016, 12:18:40 AM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: NE2 on November 14, 2016, 01:25:09 AM
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?

http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist07/divisions/planning/cm/SIGNEDTCR47.pdf
"The segment of Seaside Street PM 2.302 to PM 3.423 is unconstructed and is not part of the State Route 47, however, it will be part of Rte 47 when the Gerald Desmond Bridge (GDB) replacement is complete.  The GDB replacement is anticipated be complete in 2018"

As of 2002 it was not state maintained: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tsip/hseb/products/TravHwy02.pdf
7-LA-47 From Vincent Thomas Bridge to Route 103 1.2
When this segment is improved, it will be considered for assumption of maintenance.
Title: Re: California
Post by: silverback1065 on November 14, 2016, 11:36:03 AM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: TheStranger on November 14, 2016, 05:11:40 PM
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 160 freeway (North Sacramento Freeway) predates I-5 by about 22-23 years, it was originally constructed as US 40 and US 99E (later just US 40).

160 itself in its original 1964-mid 2000s configuration is a hodgepodge of three pre-1964 routes:

- Route 4 in Antioch to Broadway in midtown Sacramento: former Route 24
- Broadway to Arden Way/Business 80: US 40
- N Street to Arden Way/Business 80: was US 99E until ca. 1959

There has never been any intention for the North Sacramento Freeway to connect on its west end in Alkali Flat to the rest of the freeway network, primarily serving as a spur for traffic heading downtown/midtown from Arden or Roseville or Citrus Heights.

And Route 160 signage was removed rather quickly between Freeport and Alkali Flat in the mid-2000s - no evidence of it now.  An older overhead sign pointing to Reno and San Francisco destinations at 16th and P (dating to when US 40 temporarily used P and Q Streets in the mid-1960s) remained until a year or two ago.
Title: Re: California
Post by: emory on November 16, 2016, 01:38:43 PM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: coatimundi on November 16, 2016, 01:50:30 PM
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?
Title: Re: California
Post by: TheStranger on November 17, 2016, 03:06:39 AM
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?

170 was not signed from the offramp, but as recently as 2010, it was signed on Highland (sporadically).  When I was in that area in May of this year, I couldn't find any remaining signage for the state route.

(http://wwtl.info/ca-170-i.jpg)
Title: Re: California
Post by: emory on November 17, 2016, 01:35:27 PM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: compdude787 on November 19, 2016, 09:10:12 PM
I was looking at Bakersfield on OpenStreetMap (https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/35.3628/-119.0402) and I noticed that a freeway connecting the Westside Parkway with the CA 58/ CA 99 interchange was shown as under construction. Any info on this? Is it actually under construction? I'd be surprised if it even was, since it goes straight through a residential area. The only conceivable way of it being built would be as a tunnel.


Mod Note: Replies to this post were merged to the existing thread, to keep discussion of that topic in one place. See Westside Parkway and Centennial Corridor (CA 58 realignment, Bakersfield) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11312.msg2187919#msg2187919)
—Roadfro.
Title: Re: California
Post by: Hiroshi66 on November 23, 2016, 08:38:52 PM
There may still be a 170 shield on the southbound lane near the Hollywood Bowl entrance. That was definitely the last shield.

Yes, there is. I drive down that stretch of Highland and it was still there as of last month, at least. It's southbound on Highland Avenue right after the Hollywood Bowl entrance. I think it's on the same block as all of the hotels a block or two north of the Franklin Avenue intersection. That's the last CA 170 shield I've seen on Highland.
Title: Re: California
Post by: andy3175 on December 03, 2016, 11:38:35 PM
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

Title: Re: California
Post by: coatimundi on December 04, 2016, 04:10:54 PM
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

I never realized "SJ" was a colloquialism for "San Joaquin". I got really confused by that title at first.

I drove by this over Thanksgiving weekend, and I can just say that it was a tremendous relief to not see intense construction activity on this stretch for once. Though it seems like work is just never done on I-5 in Stockton, so I would expect to see something else within the next year or so.
Title: Re: California
Post by: Mergingtraffic on December 05, 2016, 03:07:33 PM
Any stretches of CA freeways that have no more button copy on them? I hear I-10 is virtually button copy free.
Title: Re: California
Post by: TheStranger on December 05, 2016, 06:30:57 PM
Any stretches of CA freeways that have no more button copy on them? I hear I-10 is virtually button copy free.

The Central Freeway in SF (short segment of US 101) hasn't had a single button copy sign since the mid-2000s if I'm not mistaken.
Title: Re: California
Post by: AsphaltPlanet on December 05, 2016, 06:35:32 PM
The Moorpark Freeway (CA-23) in Ventura County doesn't have any button copy either.
Title: Re: California
Post by: coatimundi on December 05, 2016, 07:04:10 PM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on December 05, 2016, 10:08:42 PM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: coatimundi on December 05, 2016, 10:14:01 PM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on December 05, 2016, 10:18:48 PM
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'm usually surprised how reflective most of those signs still are even today.  They really made signage that was built to stand the test of time back thirty years back.  All those reflective paint and button-copy signs are basically bullet proof.....just don't look at them in the day, that's when they look their age. 
Title: Re: California
Post by: AsphaltPlanet on December 19, 2016, 09:42:08 PM
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:

Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on December 20, 2016, 03:50:24 AM
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:


Nice video sequence!  When I lived out in Hesperia, I'd come back from the western part of L.A. via this route to avoid traffic on 10 or 210.  If you avoid commute hours, it's a nice drive; you seem to have caught it off-peak.  Question:  was this part of a longer cross-country trip or simply an excursion while visiting the L.A. region? -- and do you have any more video from that trip to share with us?
Title: Re: California
Post by: AsphaltPlanet on December 20, 2016, 11:06:32 AM
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:
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on December 20, 2016, 05:55:08 PM
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:

Sounds like my kind of trip!  Hope you enjoyed the coast northward from SF to WA -- I find it a spectacular drive.  Seattle & Portland are definitely worth in-depth visits; I lived in the latter for 4 years and still have friends in Seattle as well.  Look forward to as much video as you can provide -- thanks for what you've released so far! :colorful:
Title: Re: California
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 20, 2016, 06:30:54 PM
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)

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
But the question remains: Was it worth it?
Title: Re: California
Post by: AsphaltPlanet on December 21, 2016, 09:34:31 AM
The thing that strikes me the most with the Sepulveda Pass project, and it`s associated cost overruns, was now, given that the project ended up costing $1.6 billion, would it have been better value to widen the highway with two lanes, instead of simply the northbound carpool lane.

For such a project, the costs associated with widening the highway by a little, or by a lot would not increase in a linear maner.  Given the substantial cost increase, it may have been better value to have selected a wider cross-section that may have given CalTrans more flexibility.  Sepulveda Pass may have been a great candidate for the start of an express toll lane network, for example.
Title: Re: California
Post by: andy3175 on December 22, 2016, 01:51:45 AM
Plans to add HOV lane to US 101 in Santa Barbara County have advanced, with construction expected to begin in 2019 ...

https://www.noozhawk.com/article/caltrans_presents_revised_eir_highway_widening_project

Quote
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.

Also notable is this quote:

Quote
“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.”
Title: Re: California
Post by: andy3175 on December 22, 2016, 01:57:20 AM
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/

Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on December 22, 2016, 07:30:59 AM
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/

That's one hell of a detour if you had to head to Eureka, almost as bad as when 3 was shut down earlier in the year.
Title: Re: California
Post by: hm insulators on December 22, 2016, 12:25:23 PM
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:


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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: hm insulators on December 22, 2016, 12:30:50 PM
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:

I grew up right near Pasadena; in fact, I'll be seeing the New Year's Day parade this January.
Title: Re: California
Post by: hm insulators on December 22, 2016, 12:38:01 PM
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)

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
But the question remains: Was it worth it?

I would say that if the heavy traffic times are only five hours a day instead of seven, I would say that's a pretty nice improvement! Of course, the peak hours from 4 to 6 PM or thereabouts are always going to be problematical. You probably could expand the 405 to 20 lanes each way and there would still be issues in that regard.
Title: Re: California
Post by: AsphaltPlanet on December 22, 2016, 01:42:38 PM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: Occidental Tourist on December 22, 2016, 02:01:17 PM
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.

There's no additional capacity downstream to accept the traffic from a widening upstream.
Title: Re: California
Post by: myosh_tino on December 22, 2016, 02:44:05 PM
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.

Two general purpose plus 1 HOV lane is a pretty typical setup in northern California.  Like the CA-14 HOV lane, the northern California HOV lanes only operate during commute hours.
Title: Re: California
Post by: compdude787 on December 22, 2016, 06:17:49 PM
That's how all carpool lanes should be--only HOV during peak hours.
Title: Re: California
Post by: Occidental Tourist on December 22, 2016, 06:38:02 PM
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)
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on December 22, 2016, 08:45:09 PM
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)

Hey now....better careful if ASAC ever shows back up he won't get the sarcasm.
Title: Re: California
Post by: compdude787 on December 22, 2016, 10:32:02 PM
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)

Ugh, yet another reason not to like Jerry Brown.  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: California
Post by: AsphaltPlanet on December 23, 2016, 12:30:03 PM
Video of I-5 through San Diego:

Title: Re: California
Post by: AsphaltPlanet on January 09, 2017, 05:12:43 PM
Video of the Moreno Valley Freeway in California taken during evening dusk last April:
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on January 09, 2017, 10:00:59 PM
Video of the Moreno Valley Freeway in California taken during evening dusk last April:

Man that brings back some memories for me.  I used 60 all the time to get around Riverside County, for me it was always a short cut and better route than I-10 was.  The odd thing is that the Badlands almost never back up east of Moreno Valley, I don't seem to recall traffic ever stopping there.  On an early morning that road was a lot of fun to just blast through heading eastbound before the approach to I-10.  Westbound had places for CHP to hide out but it was more difficult on the eastbound lanes.
Title: Re: California
Post by: AsphaltPlanet on January 10, 2017, 08:03:12 AM
^ Thanks for watching.  I like the Moreno Valley Freeway.  I generally like roads where you can drive fast, but that still twist and turn a lot.  I drove this road a bunch of times on my first visit to California back in 2010, and hadn't driven it since, so it was nice to get to drive it again.  (I drove it westbound after I shot this video, as my hotel for the night was in the Lake Elsinore area.

On my first visit to California, I spent a couple of days driving through the San Jacinto Mountains.  The climb up the Seven Level Hill on SR-74 is quite the drive too.
Title: Re: California
Post by: D-Dey65 on January 10, 2017, 08:11:17 AM
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

Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on January 10, 2017, 09:58:22 AM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: inkyatari on January 10, 2017, 10:57:29 AM
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.

There's a few up by Redwood NAtional PArk

http://www.roadsideamerica.com/story/2043
Title: Re: California
Post by: andy3175 on January 11, 2017, 12:08:47 AM
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



There has been quite a bit of damage to the highway system in Northern California as a result of recent rains ("pineapple express" or "atmospheric river" are most commonly cited causes for the extensive rain and snow). Here is a short yet incomplete list of impacted highways:

- 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)

- SR 1 near Big Sur due to fallen trees and flooding (http://www.ksbw.com/article/storm-shuts-down-highway-1-in-big-sur/8580209)

- SR 17 at Vine Hill Road (between Santa Cruz and San Jose) closed for a time due to mudslide and fallen telephone pole; the same article also mentions temporary closures along sections of SR 152 and SR 9 (http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/01/09/highway-17-northbound-in-scotts-valley-closed-because-of-mudslide/); an ABC7 news van was hit by a mudslide on SR 17 near Scotts Valley as well (http://abc30.com/weather/abc7-news-van-wrecked-by-mudslide-on-hwy-17-near-scotts-valley/1695675/)

- SR 269 was closed near Huron due to flooding (earlier this week) (http://abc30.com/traffic/main-roadway-to-huron-flooded-after-storm/1694601/). I was amused to see a quote in this article that referenced "the 269" in central California:

Quote
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.

- SR 128 and SR 175 (among other routes) in Mendocino County have been affected by local flooding (https://www.mendovoice.com/2017/01/storm/)

A few more days of rain are still in the forecast for Northern California, so we'll see how the roads handle the additional rainfall.

Title: Re: California
Post by: coatimundi on January 11, 2017, 02:22:41 AM
- 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.

Local to me, both the Carmel and Salinas Rivers have topped their banks. The Davis Road bridge over the Salinas River is flooded.

Wild stuff.
Title: Re: California
Post by: myosh_tino on January 11, 2017, 03:51:43 PM
- 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.

I-80 was shut down late Monday night from Colfax to the California/Nevada border and has been closed ever since.  Looking at the CHP logs, Caltrans is making an attempt to reopen the freeway sometime this afternoon depending on weather conditions.  As I am writing this, it's still snowing over Donner Pass.  (Update: I-80 has reopened as of 1 PM but chain controls are still in effect.)

US 50 was shut down Tuesday afternoon for avalanche control but apparently so much snow was falling, Caltrans keep it closed overnight.
Title: Re: California
Post by: coatimundi on January 12, 2017, 12:20:11 AM
The 152/156 junction closed earlier today due to flooding. The rain's stopped here for now, so that seems to have taken care of that issue. But, for a while, Pacheco Pass was basically shut down to high profile loads due to wind. Same happened to 395 this afternoon.

Ongoing from earlier today:
- SR 16 is closed east of SR 20
- SR 128 is closed west of Winters due to slide
- SR 113 is closed north of Rio Vista due to sinkhole

Looks like 50, I-80 and SR 89 are all back open tonight though. Probably be closed again tomorrow though, when the next system comes in.
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on January 14, 2017, 09:43:44 PM
Hollister was biting it pretty badly during the storm; CA 156 was closed west of town for some time, so westbound traffic had to detour via CA 25 and backtrack on US 101.  This, of course, caused traffic to back up in both directions on CA 25 (which isn't a picnic normally in any case).  To top it off, the flooding caused agricultural runoff to seep into the local groundwater, so the north side of town, which uses local wells for their normal supply, was without potable water for at least 2 days (and counting!). 
Title: Re: California
Post by: andy3175 on January 16, 2017, 11:18:30 PM
Didn't realize the damage to the commute caused by a closure of Laurel Canyon Boulevard last week due to mudslide. The roadway partially reopened on 1/15/2017.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-laurel-canyon-mudslide-traffic-20170115-story.html

Quote
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: andy3175 on January 16, 2017, 11:24:21 PM
I'm not too familiar with this intersection, which was the subject of a recent $27.5 million jury award. This incident occurred at Pacific Coast Highway and Diamond Street near Redondo Beach City Hall, which is part of California SR 1 (along a segment still maintained by Caltrans, unlike certain other segments that have been transferred back to several local municipalities).

http://www.dailybreeze.com/general-news/20170114/whats-next-for-the-redondo-beach-intersection-blamed-in-275-million-crash-verdict

Quote
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: Quillz on January 17, 2017, 01:17:18 AM
That has actually been the driving force behind many Caltrans-controlled intersections being converted to roundabouts. (For example, CA-154 and CA-246 used to meet at a >90 degree angle, so it was rebuilt as a roundabout).

At the very least, there should be a left turn arrow.
Title: Re: California
Post by: Plutonic Panda on January 17, 2017, 01:19:14 AM
Betty White Freeway
Title: Re: California
Post by: roadfro on January 18, 2017, 03:50:39 AM
Betty White Freeway

Care to elaborate or provide a context...?
Title: Re: California
Post by: AsphaltPlanet on January 18, 2017, 07:58:49 PM
Another southern California video from me.  This time it's the 71 and 60 freeways from Corona towards LA:

Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on January 19, 2017, 06:08:20 AM
Another southern California video from me.  This time it's the 71 and 60 freeways from Corona towards LA:

Another great video!  Certainly shows what I do and don't miss about SoCal after moving north in 2012.  Looks like the left-turn private access on 71 just north of the 91 interchange is still in place (guess they're still moving equipment in & out of the construction staging area west of 71).  It would have been interesting if the trip would have continued NW on 71 just to see the level of freeway conversion progress between CA 60 and I-10. 

Quesion to A.P. (the poster):  Your captions indicate you made it up to Carson City that same day; did you use CA 14 north from the L.A. area or did you backtrack to US 395 via I-15 and Cajon Pass? -- and can we expect any further videos reflecting this portion of the trip (one can only hope!)?
Title: Re: California
Post by: AsphaltPlanet on January 19, 2017, 04:51:18 PM
^ Thanks for watching.  So on this day, I drove northerly from this point, kind of bypassing Downtown LA, and then took the Glendale and Foothill Freeways to the Newhall interchange and then went northeasterly on SR-14 from there to US-395.  I filmed the Glendale and Foothill Freeways, as well as SR-14 from Santa Clarita up to Palmdale.  I also filmed a few sections of US-395 as well.  This was my first time driving US-395, so I didn't know exactly what to film, but the footage generally looks alright.

So far, from this leg of of the trip, the only other video that I have put online is the SR-14 video:

This one is my favourite so far, as I think the music is really cool.  It's not normally a genre that I listen to, so it's hard to find good tracks to go along with the road footage, but I really like how this one turned out.

I haven't been uploading the footage in the order that it was filmed, but there are a few other California videos on my YT Channel.  I have linked everything that I have uploaded to this page, but here's the link to my YT channel for posterity.

https://www.youtube.com/user/AsphaltPlanet1/videos

I did drive the section of SR-71 a couple of days before this video was taken, but all I found at that time was a pretty significant traffic jam.  There were still traffic signals between the 60 and 57 freeways back in April when this was filmed.
Title: Re: California
Post by: Quillz on January 19, 2017, 08:23:54 PM
If you have never been on US-395 before, it's a pretty nice drive. Especially as soon as you pass Bishop, you start to rise dramatically into the Sierra. Then past Mammoth, you see Mono Lake on the horizon for miles. One of the best drives in the state, I think.
Title: Re: California
Post by: AsphaltPlanet on January 19, 2017, 08:44:38 PM
^ 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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on January 19, 2017, 09:02:48 PM
^ 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!).
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on January 19, 2017, 09:51:42 PM
^ 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!).

I'll second the recommendation on CA 270 and Bodie.  That is one of the "must see" things in California that would fall in the category of an absolute.  Really CA 108, 4, and 120 all offer something unique....it is very hard to pick one that is wrong among the group....even Sherman Pass Road probably belongs in the top tier IMO.  Some of the stuff I want to get to personally this year would be; Whitney Portal, Onion Valley Road, and White Mountain Road just to name a few
Title: Re: California
Post by: AsphaltPlanet on January 27, 2017, 08:10:02 PM
Another California Video from me.  This time it's US-395 from Bishop northerly to Mammoth along the eastern side of the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range.

Title: Re: California
Post by: andy3175 on January 27, 2017, 11:47:32 PM
SR 74 (Ortega Hwy connecting Orange County with Riverside County) has a closure due to weather-related issues:

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/caltrans-742193-highway-ortega.html

Quote
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.

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/highway-742287-county-caltrans.html

Quote
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on January 27, 2017, 11:59:38 PM
^^^^

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/
Title: Re: California
Post by: AsphaltPlanet on February 13, 2017, 06:38:00 PM
Freeway tour of Interstate 805 in San Diego:

Title: Re: California
Post by: bigdave on February 14, 2017, 11:09:21 AM
^^^^

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:
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on February 14, 2017, 11:15:14 AM
^^^^

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. 
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on February 14, 2017, 11:29:57 AM
^^^^

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.                                                                                                                                                                                                                     
Title: Re: California
Post by: coatimundi on February 14, 2017, 01:13:46 PM
^^^^

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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on February 14, 2017, 04:56:15 PM
                                                                                             

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.

Exactly right.  Except in emergencies, the largest vehicles usually on San Jose-Soquel are UPS/FedEx trucks.  It doesn't have the ballasting and underpinnings usually found on state highways, and certainly wasn't intended to serve as an alternative to CA 17; it just happens to be the closest (previously) unaffected route to that now-closed highway.  Except for the Scotts Valley "loop", much of CA 17 south of the summit was constructed directly atop the original route alignment, so there's not a suitable "old road" to serve as an alternative -- and CA 9 has its own problems, so it's not a viable alternative.  The Santa Cruz Mountains, in an extraordinary rainy season such as this one (and '82-'83, for that matter!) is essentially one large mass of mud looking to move downhill!
Title: Re: California
Post by: kkt on February 14, 2017, 05:20:43 PM
Oh, yeah.  A friend of mine lost his car around Boulder Creek in a very exciting evening in the flood of '82.  Fortunately he was able to walk out, and the car was only an old beater, but still.

Title: Re: California
Post by: andy3175 on February 15, 2017, 11:40:44 PM
^^^^

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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on February 16, 2017, 06:02:18 PM
^^^^

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.

Upstream from Oroville, there's also been substantial damage to the main UP RR line through the Feather River Canyon (shared with CA 70).  Trackage has been washed away by "feeder" creeks (that normally ducked under the tracks in culverts) to the point that the tracks, with their concrete ties still attached, are suspended in midair from the sides of the washouts.  As this is their main container-train line from the east (Donner Pass, the alternative, has limited vertical clearance due to snowsheds), freight traffic in and out of CA has been severely curtailed or rerouted south via Bakersfield and Barstow.  It's likely that the line won't be back in service until sometime in April at the earliest. 
Title: Re: California
Post by: coatimundi on February 16, 2017, 08:39:44 PM
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?
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on February 16, 2017, 09:06:24 PM
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?

I'm sure that it did catch people off guard.  Don't forget all the local media in California has been doing is beating drought and reservoir levels into people's heads for the last decade.  You'd swear that most of the state wasn't desert or as about close to from the way people always talk about water.  Most Central Valley cities receive less than 15 inches of rain annually, really it is on the coast that gets anything significant....although cities like San Francisco don't pull annuals over 25. 
Title: Re: California
Post by: coatimundi on February 18, 2017, 09:05:03 PM
And I-5 is totally shut down in Williams due to flooding. It has been for most of the day. Pretty serious, but at least there are alternative routes. Then SR 20 is currently closed just west of there.

Looks like fun:
(http://www.dot.ca.gov/cwwp2/data/d3/cctv/image/hwy5atwilliamssb/hwy5atwilliamssb.jpg?_=1487469411)

Maybe this the state's initial attempt to separate from the rest of the country?
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on February 18, 2017, 11:04:12 PM
^^^^

I like how that picture is updating with a live feed.  Right now it is pitch black asides from the mass of headlights facing the camera.
Title: Re: California
Post by: Quillz on February 19, 2017, 02:07:35 PM
Based on the latest update of that photo, seems I-5 is open now. Traffic moving in both directions.
Title: Re: California
Post by: coatimundi on February 22, 2017, 11:45:29 AM
Caltrans' assessment of the Pfeiffer Canyon Bridge is, apparently, "beyond repair." So the only way into southern Big Sur and Posts will be on foot or boat for a while, and heading south to there from Carmel will be impossible for the foreseeable future.
http://www.montereycountyweekly.com/blogs/food_blog/update-big-sur-landmark-restaurants-among-those-caught-in-landslide/article_346c78ea-f2df-11e6-83de-674dfa787e3d.html

This is likely going to be a death blow to a lot of businesses down there. It's normally really slow this time of year anyway (except for the golf tournament), but there's no way normalcy will return by summer.
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on February 22, 2017, 12:00:56 PM
On the plus side it will probably kill a lot of tourist traffic heading north because you'd have to double back.  Should make for a more interesting trip once I can get up that way presumably in the next 30-45 days.  I'd love to get a couple pictures of the Challenger at the Bixby Bridge with no crowds.  Still sucks for the business owners, that will probably sink a ton of them.  I'd say that tops the slide on 35/Skyline for road damage on the coast this year.  Should be something pretty unique for anyone willing to go all that way and double back though.
Title: Re: California
Post by: coatimundi on February 22, 2017, 12:45:21 PM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: kkt on February 22, 2017, 01:04:31 PM
It looks like a pretty "standard plans" bridge.  Maybe they'll have a replacement in by summer.
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on February 22, 2017, 01:06:58 PM
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.

Yeah I'm trying to convince some family to come out here this year and that is one of the big carrots with Big Sur.  Sure would be a lot more scenic and memorable if it is basically just local people on the coastline.  Another plus is that it sounds like Monterey County Sheriff pretty much yanked everyone south of Pfeiffer Canyon Bridge.  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.

Really for me and my specific circumstance this could be a boon.  A nice quiet coastal drive is something I'm always up for.  Besides I already got G16 in this year so it isn't like I'm clamoring for anything up near Monterey.  All I really care about this weekend is if 129 gets cleared by Friday.

It looks like a pretty "standard plans" bridge.  Maybe they'll have a replacement in by summer.

I do wonder if Caltrans has any Furgusson Slide style one-lane temporary bridges still available.  Reopening 1 would probably be on the short list of when they would probably use a temporary solution given the economic and tourism hit.
Title: Re: California
Post by: AsphaltPlanet on February 22, 2017, 01:18:58 PM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: coatimundi on February 22, 2017, 01:21:18 PM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: coatimundi on February 22, 2017, 01:23:21 PM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on February 22, 2017, 01:28:34 PM
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.

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.

Speaking of that those CHP patrols on 41 can be ruthless on weekends.  I had one officer follow me all the way from the Sugarpine Railroad all the way to the boundary to Yosemite.  It wasn't exactly easy to speed going uphill anyways north of Oakhurst, so really I'm not sure if he was even looking to tag me or get a downhill speeder?

I'm sure it would certainly be easier to find a spot.  I'm sure reservations would be a cinch this year provided a camp ground doesn't close down.  Might be worth the investment of time to do a couple days out there, especially if there is some decently priced rates due to the road closure. 
Title: Re: California
Post by: AsphaltPlanet on February 22, 2017, 01:41:28 PM
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.

I just had a look at the bridge site on google maps.  It's a longer bridge than I was thinking, so I agree, replacement isn't as easy as I would have thought.

That said though, it can be surprising what kind of spans modular (bailey) bridges can make.  I recall several years ago their was a partial deck failure of the Latchford Bridge in Ontario.  The Latchford Bridge is a similar span length as this bridge, and is situated immediately downstream of a dam, which hampered the ability of the temporary bridge to have a central pier due to the fast flowing water.  The Latchford Bridge failed within a record cold snap during the winter of 2003, and a temporary bailey bridge was brought into service within a few weeks.
Title: Re: California
Post by: coatimundi on February 22, 2017, 03:17:34 PM
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.

I go down there all the time, and I think I've seen one MCSO car total. CHP generally patrols that area and you do see them a lot, but more in the summer. They get a lot of calls there at that time though. People block the road, especially by Point Lobos and the Bixby Bridge overlook, and there's just a lot of stupid shit that people do in that area. Plus, the highway is just dangerous. When you have people creeping along trying to enjoy the scenery and then some douchebags come up trying to fly around them, then you have issues. I don't understand why people go down there if they're in a hurry. CHP also typically patrols at night, telling people to leave the pull-offs as they're trying to sleep there.

More on the bridge closure from the local daily: http://www.montereyherald.com/general-news/20170221/rain-takes-its-toll-pfeiffer-canyon-bridge-condemned
Title: Re: California
Post by: Kniwt on February 22, 2017, 07:34:41 PM
Here's a pic from Caltrans that shows why the bridge is toast:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C5SZ3agUcAAqOwR.jpg)
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on February 22, 2017, 08:56:53 PM
I'm surprised the bridge totally hasn't slid down the hill with that lean....

Speaking of 41, it is closed between Oakhurst and Yosemite because of a slide out:

http://dot.ca.gov/hq/roadinfo/sr41

https://www.nps.gov/yose/index.htm
Title: Re: California
Post by: kkt on February 22, 2017, 11:14:35 PM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on February 22, 2017, 11:40:22 PM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: compdude787 on February 23, 2017, 12:17:09 AM
It looks like a pretty "standard plans" bridge.  Maybe they'll have a replacement in by summer.

It looks like one built in the early-70s or something. So at least it wasn't like a really historic arch bridge from the 30s.
Title: Re: California
Post by: kkt on February 23, 2017, 12:32:44 AM
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 see, I must have read the account from when they were still allowing emergency vehicles across earlier today.
Title: Re: California
Post by: Henry on February 23, 2017, 09:41:36 AM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: Kniwt on February 23, 2017, 09:41:44 AM
I'm surprised the bridge totally hasn't slid down the hill with that lean....

That is apparently exactly what's going to happen.
http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/02/23/highway-1-pfeiffer-canyon-bridge-deterioration-continues/

Quote
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)
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on February 23, 2017, 09:50:56 AM
I would think that leaving it standing out just draw people out there to take pictures, probably best just to assist it falling over.
Title: Re: California
Post by: coatimundi on February 23, 2017, 12:37:22 PM
I would think that leaving it standing out just draw people out there to take pictures, probably best just to assist it falling over.

The problem with an uncontrolled demolition (i.e. - letting it fall over by itself) is that, then, the pieces are scattered in places that may be hard to reach. Since this in the Coastal Commission's immediate realm and in such a high-profile area, there's a lot of spotlight on how Caltrans is handling it. Falling over on its own would be a pretty serious black-eye to them.

SR 156 between Castroville and Prunedale is closed today from 9am to 5pm. My co-worker who lives in Prunedale mentioned that the eucalyptus grove near 101 saw a lot of downed trees, so the tree removal and trimming what is happening out there. The news mentioned that Oak Hills residents (who can only reach their homes via 156) are going to be allowed in and out during the closure.
Blackie Road, the local secret alternative, is also closed.
A lot of people in Prunedale also still have no power.

SR 68 was also at one lane near Corral de Tierra yesterday for work on a damaged culvert.

I can't find the actual story online, but the news had video of Soquel-Santa Cruz Road this morning and it's reportedly sunk an additional four feet. Santa Cruz County is saying they have something like 130 road damage reports with repairs estimated now at $30 million. In Monterey County, including the Pfeiffer Canyon Bridge, it's estimated at $45 million.
http://www.kion546.com/news/cleaning-up-winter-storms-in-santa-cruz-county-will-not-be-cheap/352543398
Title: Re: California
Post by: AsphaltPlanet on February 23, 2017, 01:01:11 PM
^ It would be difficult to stage a controlled demolition at this point though.  Because of the advanced rate of deterioration on the bridge, it doesn't look like it would be safe to drive any sort of equipment either on top of, or underneath of, the existing bridge.  Doesn't look like they'll be an easy way to retrieve the rubble from the canyon floor regardless of how it's removed.

Crazy picture.
Title: Re: California
Post by: kkt on February 23, 2017, 01:51:50 PM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: coatimundi on February 23, 2017, 01:58:21 PM
I also noticed that 33 north of Ojai has been closed for several days. I could only find one vague article on it in the VC Star, but no pictures: http://www.vcstar.com/story/news/2017/02/20/traffic-highway-33-closed-mudslides/98155274/
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on February 23, 2017, 09:51:06 PM
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.

Even the Sierras have a ton of rock fall due to all the water and sheer terrain.  That is the big difference between states in the Rockies where the mountains are more eroded down and make road building much easier do since the terrain lends itself more towards stability.  I figure anywhere I go this time of year I'll be at minimum encountering moderate rock fall and landslides even on open roadways.
Title: Re: California
Post by: AsphaltPlanet on February 24, 2017, 04:24:21 PM
The northern coast during a much drier time:

I shot this last year.  What a spectacular drive it is.
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on February 24, 2017, 09:08:34 PM
Some observations today out in the Santa Cruz Range with post-weather issues:

CA 129:  Some of the canyon face was in bad shape with slides dumping out onto the roadway.  Nothing too major but definitely a surprise to see so much rockfall on a lower elevation route.

CA 17:  Surprisingly no issues with 17 today, it was running smooth...even though I jumped off of it fairly quick.

CA 9:  Major closures north of 1 and at the CA 35 junction.  Lots of slides and a lot of active Caltrans crews working.

CA 236:  The road was clear but was heavily dumped on with tree debris north out of Big Basin.  I'm actually surprised additional trees didn't fall down.

CA 35:  Obviously CA 35 is closed south of the junction of 9 to 17.  The rest of the road north to San Francisco was in pretty good shape with only one flagging operation that I saw.

Really all things considered with the weather things could have been much worse.  The nice thing was that it was very quiet on Skyline since it was very difficult to reach with the closures of 9.  I've never had a more placid day getting into San Franciso.  I'm working on the photos with a new thread but the Wi Fi is very slow here, I'll probably start posting tomorrow maybe?...no maps and alignment stuff until I get home.
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on February 25, 2017, 01:03:19 AM
The northern coast during a much drier time:

I shot this last year.  What a spectacular drive it is.

Got that section of 1 on my list for later this year when the slides are a little more cleared out.  I did 299 last March and it was more of a toss-up between that and the north terminus of 1.  I have about 20-30 miles...something like that to clinch the entire highway, I would love to check that one off my list.
Title: Re: California
Post by: AsphaltPlanet on February 25, 2017, 10:15:52 AM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: kkt on February 25, 2017, 12:11:37 PM
Stunningly beautiful.
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on February 25, 2017, 07:52:19 PM
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.

I was surprised to see how much active floods were on 1 today from Stinson Beach north to Point Reyes Station.  With the closures from 101 to Stinson it had me thinking the road was more clear...definitely was not.  The guy in front of me hit a flooded area too fast and steamed up his muffler...reminded me of Florida after a big storm.   :-D  I've done all of 101 over the years a piece at a time, really I would enjoy going back to do the whole thing in one shot...someday.
Title: Re: California
Post by: coatimundi on February 27, 2017, 12:32:42 AM
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.html

Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on February 27, 2017, 07:52:11 AM
Well that would be interesting to see delivery trucks trying to use the Nacimiento-Fergusson Road...especially the last 7 miles to the coast, hope the drivers know what low gear is and aren't afraid of huge drop-offs.   I guess that really put things out to April or May if I want to try the road along with Big Sur up to the Pfeiffer Canyon Bridge closure.
Title: Re: California
Post by: Quillz on February 28, 2017, 07:04:36 PM
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.html

Quote
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.

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.
What's wrong with it?
Title: Re: California
Post by: coatimundi on February 28, 2017, 07:25:34 PM
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.html

Quote
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.

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.
What's wrong with it?

The road has a lot of damage. It didn't help that the area was hard hit by the fire this summer also. Like Prunedale, they had some eucalyptus grove damage that caused issues with homes.
Title: Re: California
Post by: Kniwt on March 09, 2017, 08:27:28 PM
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/
Quote
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on March 09, 2017, 09:05:55 PM
Might be high time to use some sort of explosive to help that along.  I'm surprised that it is standing after all these weeks.  Seems like the rain has dwindled down finally, so the weather might do the job after all.
Title: Re: California
Post by: kkt on March 10, 2017, 12:10:43 PM
100 feet away doesn't seem like enough on the downhill side.
Title: Re: California
Post by: hm insulators on March 10, 2017, 02:56:10 PM
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.

Much of California, the land is of poor quality because of all the earthquake faulting action. Over millions of years, the rock that makes up the land gets chewed up, spit out and chewed up again.
Title: Re: California
Post by: hm insulators on March 10, 2017, 03:00:18 PM
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/
Quote
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.

Just needs a little duct tape, is all. :-D
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on March 12, 2017, 09:19:42 PM
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/
Quote
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.

Just needs a little duct tape, is all. :-D

Already addressed this in another thread, but this bridge is supposed to be demolished during the week of March 12-18.  Nothing yet re temporary replacement.
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on March 17, 2017, 04:57:35 PM
41 north of Oakhurst to Yosemite reopened two days ago and I went through today.  Really there wasn't much in the way of mud or landslides to be see, lots downed trees though.  The delays were about 15 minutes through the work zone; I even got yelled at by a flag guy for getting a bottle of water out of my trunk.  I can't imagine that is a fun job having to deal with all those tourists trying to get to Yosemite Valley.
Title: Re: California
Post by: Kniwt on March 19, 2017, 06:19:47 PM
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)
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on March 19, 2017, 07:48:52 PM
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)

So much for the wrecking ball -- looks like they had to pick at it with the backhoe.  Hate to be the crew that has to break up the remains and retrieve the rubble from the canyon (at least they'll probably get overtime -- and/or hazard pay!).   Fun terrain for recreation -- not so much for work!
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on March 19, 2017, 11:40:32 PM
Six months for a replacement bridge seems incredibly optimistic even in the optimal scenario.  At least they got it knocked down before the foul weather starts up again.
Title: Re: California
Post by: nexus73 on March 19, 2017, 11:44:14 PM
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.

What you missed: The temperate rain forest area on the west side of the Olympic National Park.  Seeing the way vegetation changes quickly along the E/W section of 101 as it heads toward Port Angeles and Sequim as the mountains cause the annual precipitation levels to drop close to a Great Plateau level.  Looking at the Hood Canal, vast enough to hold all the ships on our planet, set in a heavily forested area but very low on population.  Ending the 101 trip in Olympia.  Bonus points for Forks as it was featured in a vampire teen romance movie series called "Twilight".

What you did not mention: Willapa Bay.  Other than SF Bay, there is no larger estuary on the Pacific Coast.  Despite the size, no major or medium sized cities are here.  There's a lot to explore in this region.  In a way this section of 101 can be considered Washington's Lost Coast. 

I have driven every inch of 101 over the years.  Taken together it truly is a remarkable highway for scenes seen, cities to visit, climate changes, water views and of course the usual tourist traps...LOL!  From narrow slideprone 2 lane sections to massive urban freeways and everything in between, then add in all the old sections to explore, they make 101 a road lover's dream to nominate to their bucket list.

Besides, the weather is cool when it is hot inland and temperate when those other areas are freezing and snowbound.  Watch whales in the winter, watch the people in the summer! 

Rick

Title: Re: California
Post by: Rothman on March 20, 2017, 09:26:01 AM
Olympic is incredible.  The variety of ecosystems is an absolute national treasure.
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on March 20, 2017, 10:33:45 AM
Olympic is incredible.  The variety of ecosystems is an absolute national treasure.

Hell since we're off on a side tangent I'll throw in on the Olympic Peninsula and US 101:

https://flic.kr/s/aHskSy4qHz

https://www.flickr.com/gp/151828809@N08/th7Hwa

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. 
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on March 21, 2017, 03:55:33 AM
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 spent several Christmases in StL, I can hardly fault them for wanting to head toward a more benign climate!
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on March 21, 2017, 08:09:42 AM
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!

Hell I'm from Detroit originally, before I moved out west there was a time I lived in Connecticut and Chicago.  Talk about winter misery, on occasion one of the younger people that works for me asks me how it was like.  I tell them that it gets dark out around 4 PM, is constantly cold, and there isn't anything fun to do.  The cabin fever in Michigan specifically coupled with the culture of the area is probably why there was so many smokers, alcoholics, and problems with being overweight....at least when I lived there.  I couldn't wait to get out there, I literally saved enough money in high school and moved out on my own the week after my graduation.  I drove across the country in a packed Chevy Silverado of the course of two days to the Phoenix Area....basically one of the meccas of the Snow Bird crowd. 

So to that end I certainly understand why so many older folks bail for warmer climates during the winter.  What I never go really is, why go back?  I know that isn't an option for some, but I have an Aunt and Uncle who go back to Michigan from Florida every year despite not really having much family.  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.

But in regards to Sequim, that rain shadow is pretty friggin nice.  Even Port Angeles had a substantially higher amount of rain despite being so close.  Washington is weird in general with the climate being like it is, the perception is that it is constant rain.  Places like Florida and Louisiana get way more rain than Washington state...it just comes down in buckets as opposed to being a slow drizzle.  Hell there are some places in central Washington like Omak that are pretty close to being a desert. 
Title: Re: California
Post by: kkt on March 21, 2017, 11:40:38 AM
"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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on March 21, 2017, 12:11:32 PM
"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.

Yeah I'm taking the rust belt though.  Maybe it's just me but what is left really to cling to unless you just have a crap ton of family?  I guess maybe I'm speaking to my own negative experiences I've associated with the Midwest.  It really just felt like the whole region didn't have a future growing up in the 1980s and 1990s.  Nothing I've seen since has really changed my opinion on that on frequent visits over the years.  Don't get me wrong, I've lived in nine different states so suffice to say I've never really looked at any place I've lived as permanent...more a means to an end.  I guess to each their own, I would certainly assume that the way I've bounced around the country isn't for the majority of people. 
Title: Re: California
Post by: dfwmapper on March 23, 2017, 11:20:24 PM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on March 23, 2017, 11:35:49 PM
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.

That really depends, I spent 13 years in Phoenix and watched home prices sky rocket out of control to Los Angeles/San Diego levels.  The market had the whole housing bubble which has been gradually building back up over time ever since with the population increases.  The sad thing that when the metro area was in it's prime before people started moving there in droves that it truly was a wonderful place to live and honestly my favorite of anywhere I've ever resided.  But the increasing housing costs and in general cost of living were primary drivers of why I ended up leaving for Florida which has obviously yielded a move back to California...albeit in San Joaquin Valley.

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.

I would be remiss not to mention custom built communities in Maricopa County like Sun City, Sun City West, and Sun City Grand.  All of them seem to be oriented towards a concept not unlike what the Villages did out in Florida.  Granted it would seem a lot of those folks actually own property and a home instead of parking an RV.  The big retiree communities for the RV crowd in the Phoenix Area seem to always have been in Mesa, Apache Junction, and Gold Canyon way out on the outskirts where prices are still relatively low.  Pinal County seems to be going through something of a boom in recent decades in general with urban sprawl spreading out of Maricopa County.
Title: Re: California
Post by: oscar on March 23, 2017, 11:38:43 PM
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).
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on March 23, 2017, 11:44:29 PM
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).

Isn't that the whole deal that draws people to places like Slab City out near 111?   I have some family that still does Palm Springs semi-regularly for a week or two.  Coachella Valley in general has some RV parks but it seems like they are being pushed out by urban sprawl from the big cities to the west.
Title: Re: California
Post by: dfwmapper on March 24, 2017, 12:00:58 AM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on March 24, 2017, 12:16:05 AM
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.

Not really in regards to travel comparison to say the Villages which would be near Ocala and Gainsville with major airports being at Tampa International or OIA.  John Wayne has plenty of flights and it wouldn't be that much of a drive up I-15 to get out into the Mojave or I-10 to get to the Sonoran Desert.  People who camp out in Quartzsite, Yuma, Parker, Havasu, Bullhead City, and Laughlin are all at minimum 2 to 4 hours from a major airport destination either with Sky Harbor or McCarran.  Victorville itself is well over 100, 000 residents and would likely be able to fill any moderate to possibly major medical concern with said population base.

With that all in mind, here is something vexing....the Florida Keys.  That place is expensive as all hell, even for the RV crowd.  There is little access without a significant drive to anything like a grocery store much less a doctor.  Something down there is drawing an appeal towards retires, for certain Florida being easy on pursuing income taxes would probably high on the list. 
Title: Re: California
Post by: don1991 on March 24, 2017, 07:22:54 PM
Quoting:

"Dan Walters has been writing political analyses & columns for the Sacramento Bee for as long as I can remember; he was certainly doing so as a young reporter during the heyday of freeway construction during the later years of the Pat Brown gubernatorial administration ('59-'67).  He's pretty much an "old-fashioned liberal", preferring projects that benefit the larger population rather than directed toward one contingent or another, regardless of any perception of being aggrieved.  Excoriated on the right as a "tax-and-spend" proponent; and likewise on the left as insensitive & out of touch, he's been carrying on for about 50 years with no sign of slowing -- and there's hardly anyone who knows better how California government -- including the individual agencies -- really functions.  I read his column every time it's published on the Bee website; and I'm certainly not surprised to see him tackle the issue of underfunded highway development."

----

I am a rock-hard right wing conservative but I always say that in 1950s / 1960s California, I would have been a Pat Brown liberal.  At least as far as the infrastructure building was concerned.  IMO, his son has completely ruined the state and why voters let him in for a second set of two terms I never will understand.

Loved Reagan (though he was governor before I was born), but one regret is that he beat out Pat Brown over the issue of spending too much.  Sure, a lot was spent but it was GOOD SPENDING.  Not like the junk today of high-speed rail and endless EIR reports and studies to tell us the obvious:  "YES, the road really needs to be widened."
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on March 24, 2017, 08:02:02 PM
Just throwing this out there, but wasn't it the Reagan administration that reorganized The Division of Highways into Caltrans?  Didn't that not open the door along with the Californian Environmental Quality Act for a lot of the cut backs seen from the 1960s through to today?  Of course I'm just saying spit ball saying that without really digging all that far in, politics tend to make for boring and inflammatory conversation as of late on Forum.  But if there is a historical slant to all this I'm all in for reasonable conversation...if it can stay that way. 
Title: Re: California
Post by: don1991 on March 24, 2017, 08:23:43 PM
Quoting:

"Just throwing this out there, but wasn't it the Reagan administration that reorganized The Division of Highways into Caltrans?  Didn't that not open the door along with the Californian Environmental Quality Act for a lot of the cut backs seen from the 1960s through to today?  Of course I'm just saying spit ball saying that without really digging all that far in, politics tend to make for boring and inflammatory conversation as of late on Forum.  But if there is a historical slant to all this I'm all in for reasonable conversation...if it can stay that way."

--

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. 
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on March 25, 2017, 03:20:37 AM
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.   
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on March 25, 2017, 10:28:30 AM
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.

Military bases in general attract a ton of retirees since there is usually an RV site somewhere and access to things like cheap food at a commissary or PX.  I've found that the majority of those guys who spent a full twenty years for a retirement tend to travel even more than other elderly folks, I always assumed it was because they were used to moving around from their careers.  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.

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.

Really it is impossible to anticipate what the ramifications a passage of legislation might have 30, 40, 50, ect years down the line.  It isn't just California though, infrastructure redevelopment is largely a national level issue.  The primary issue is that you have a lot competing issues like the EPA Act that make it more difficult to construct anything new or invest money back into a pre-existing project that could use some enhancements.  My take on it is that California more or less comes to the forefront because there are simply way more notable examples of expressways and freeways showing age here than most other places.  A lot of that could be surmised from the fact that California was largely ahead of the curve in the mid-20th century in terms of road building upgrades to modern standards.  Its funny to think that most of the freeways and expressways used to day were largely present back in times like the 1950s and 60s. 

Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on March 25, 2017, 02:51:44 PM
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.

Believe it!  When I moved there in '09, there were tracts south of Main St. between I-15 and central Hesperia with quite a number of half-finished homes that were, for a time, functionally abandoned when the housing bubble burst in '07-'08 (eventually the developers finished them off, although according to my friends in the area, many of them remain unoccupied).  That area, along with Beaumont/Banning along I-10 and Perris/Menifee south of Riverside, was among the last in the area to feature under-$250K homes at the "bubble's" peak in 2005-06; neighboring Adelanto, to the west, had smaller new "ranch" homes averaging about 1600-1700 square feet that remained a bit under $200K -- and which were specifically marketed to workers in the distribution centers from Pomona east to Redlands.  The "high desert" was indeed the last frontier in terms of greater LA/Inland Empire housing development.  When I left in the fall of 2012, the "new thing" was the development of densely-packed row houses, primarily in the east part of Victorville and along Highway 18 in Apple Valley.  It seems vestiges of the "new urban" theory are taking hold even in the desert!
Title: Re: California
Post by: kkt on March 27, 2017, 01:46:30 PM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on March 29, 2017, 04:57:14 PM
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.


At the time ('73) of the Caltrans consolidation -- at least according to my cousin, who was working at the Division of Highways HQ during the transition -- one of the principal considerations prompting the consolidation was the notion that genuine feasibility and engineering vetting could and would be applied to not only highway projects but also transit concepts as well -- and that "pie in the sky" mass-transit projects would be brought "down to earth" in terms of both budget and scope so they could be incorporated into state and district plans more or less seamlessly. 

Of course, that was turned on its ear when the 1st Jerry Brown administration took over less than 2 years later; his selection as Caltrans chief, Adriana Gianturco (aka "Giant Turkey" to "lifer" Division of Highways personnel), who made no effort to mask her dislike of private automobile usage, slashed the roadbuilding budget drastically while increasing funds for initial transit studies in urbanized regions.  About 30% of the state's previously adopted freeway alignments were decommissioned and properties acquired for such either sold or leased out.  Of course, the majority of these were urban routes, many of which were in fact superfluous or even gratuitous -- but the axe fell on needed rural and outlying facilities as well -- she didn't know how to work a scalpel but certainly wielded a mean machete!  (Max & Bako, if you're wondering why WB 58 drops to 2 lanes once into Bakersfield, look no further than Gianturco's 1977 decision to cut back in-progress freeway construction to minimum requirements!).  She had a new omnibus agency toy with which to play -- and used it to further her personal agenda.

Ironically, in 1983, when the Brown/Gianturco reign was history and Deukmejian was governor, construction indeed picked up -- but George D, being the cheapskate that he was, retained, for budgetary reasons,  the "minimalist" approach to freeway and/or highway projects that was instituted by the previous administration -- a lot of projects that should have been 6+ lanes from the start were constructed as 4 lanes (US 101 from Morgan Hill to San Jose being one of these, opening in late '84) as a cost-cutting measure.   

Re Reagan and the colleges:  the mid-60's enmity between Reagan and his backers and Clark Kerr, UC chancellor, was not only palpable but red-hot;  Reagan's '66 gubernatorial platform featured a promise to sack Kerr, who was to the Reagan cohort responsible for what they considered the collegiate capitulation to the likes of Mario Savio and his fellow social protestors. 

Personally -- after 50 years I still find it difficult to forgive the Reagan administration for getting rid of California Highways & Public Works (which folded in early '67). :-(   
Title: Re: California
Post by: kkt on March 29, 2017, 06:00:54 PM
Thanks for the history.

By 1983, California's budgets were much tighter.  Prop. 13 passed in 1978 greatly reducing property tax receipts.  The Serrano-Priest decisions in the 1970s stopped allowing school districts with lots of expensive properties on their tax rolls to charge lower tax rates than poor districts and still get more revenue per student.  The state tended to equalize upwards, using the general fund to raise poor districts rather than cutting the rich ones.  So there was less money available for road projects and they were underbuilt.
Title: Re: California
Post by: emory on March 30, 2017, 06:23:41 AM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on March 30, 2017, 04:09:59 PM
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).
Title: Re: California
Post by: silverback1065 on March 30, 2017, 04:29:58 PM
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).

ya if it were indiana, the signs would just disappear, then reappear on the portion that they maintain. 
Title: Re: California
Post by: kkt on March 30, 2017, 05:28:53 PM
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.



Title: Re: California
Post by: nexus73 on March 30, 2017, 06:47:47 PM
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
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on March 30, 2017, 07:35:26 PM
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

Yeah -- over the last couple of decades Caltrans has turned into "Lapses In Continuity R US"!  I'm old enough to remember when their signage was among the best in the nation.  It is to weep...............
Title: Re: California
Post by: emory on April 02, 2017, 08:15:11 AM
ya if it were indiana, the signs would just disappear, then reappear on the portion that they maintain.

That's routine for Caltrans. Them changing the overheads on I-10 is the exception to the rule. They made new signs for I-405 and I-710 that label Firestone Blvd/Manchester Ave as SR 42, which has been gone since 2000.

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

Good luck convincing the state. They sign their state highways first and foremost for databases.
Title: Re: California
Post by: Quillz on April 02, 2017, 12:16:46 PM
The funny thing about Ventura is they are inconsistent on their signage of CA-1... and wrong in both instances. For example, removed signage referencing CA-1 on Oxnard Boulevard is correct, yet signage pointing out that CA-1 is now on Rice Avenue does not exist. This might be because CA-1 has not "officially" moved yet. Then you've got subsequent guide signs on the 101 near the 33/126 junctions. One shows "101/1," the other just shows "101," with the "1" green-out'd. Technically, CA-1 does not exist here at all, so it shouldn't be referenced. Of course, I believe it should be (again, because routes should first and foremost be for navigation). So... Decide. Either sign CA-1, or don't.
Title: Re: California
Post by: roadfro on May 10, 2017, 09:36:33 AM
Note: 4 posts about passing of Jacob Dekema (the longstanding former director of Caltrans District 11) merged to a dedicated thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=20221.0).

—Roadfro
Title: Re: California
Post by: andy3175 on May 10, 2017, 11:43:17 PM
Article on 50 years of ramp meters in Southern California ...

http://www.dailynews.com/general-news/20170413/50-years-ago-la-got-its-first-freeway-onramp-meter-heres-how-they-changed-traffic

Quote
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: silverback1065 on May 11, 2017, 08:37:48 PM
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?
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on May 11, 2017, 08:46:01 PM
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?

The lack of connection is quite deliberate; 261 was & is intended to be a server from Irvine jobs to Corona/Inland Empire residences (via its CA 241 connection) and not a "shortcut" from 5 to 91 and vice-versa; that job is done by CA 133 a few miles to the southeast.  261 officially ends at the Metrolink RR overpass south of I-5; the "freeway" south of there is just an extension of Jamboree Road.  It doesn't extend to 405 for (a) the same reason it doesn't interchange with I-5 and (b) the cost of land acquisition in that neck of the woods would have been astronomical when 261 was deployed in the late '90's. 
Title: Re: California
Post by: andy3175 on May 18, 2017, 12:22:55 AM
News that a portion of SR 134 may be named in honor of former President Barack Obama...

http://www.sgvtribune.com/general-news/20170516/this-stretch-of-la-county-freeway-could-soon-be-renamed-barack-obama-freeway

Quote
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: andy3175 on May 18, 2017, 12:27:01 AM
SR 76 now four lanes between I-5 and I-15 with completion of segment through Bonsall that opened on May 16, 2017:

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/communities/north-county/sd-no-highway-construction-20170515-story.html

Quote
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on May 18, 2017, 12:53:36 AM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: silverback1065 on May 18, 2017, 07:03:03 PM
what is the point of ca 103?  why doesnt it go further north and connect with 405 or 710?
Title: Re: California
Post by: andy3175 on May 18, 2017, 11:16:33 PM
what is the point of ca 103?  why doesnt it go further north and connect with 405 or 710?

SR 103 exists between SR 47 and SR 1; the portion of freeway north of there is now maintained by the City of Long Beach. SR 103 was transferred to Long Beach on August 25, 2000 in exchange for the extension of I-710 between SR 1 and Ocean Boulevard. Now that the city controls the former SR 103 freeway north of SR 1, the plans call for removal of the freeway in accordance with the 2015 Green Terminal Island Freeway Transition Plan (see http://www.lbds.info/green_ti/). I don't know if the plan is funded, but the decommissioned segment of SR 103 will be significantly reduced in size.

For more on the transfer of routes 103 and 710, reference page 32 of this document: http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist07/news/reports/docs/2000%20Achievements.pdf

Quote
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.

For more on the Green Terminal Island Freeway Transition Plan for the decommissioned segment of SR 103:

http://www.presstelegram.com/environment-and-nature/20151024/plans-to-decommission-terminal-island-freeway-in-west-long-beach-unveiled

Quote
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.

As far as I know, there are no plans to remove or decommission SR 103 between SR 47 and SR 1.
Title: Re: California
Post by: silverback1065 on May 18, 2017, 11:19:36 PM
Was it supposed to go further north originally?

Nexus 6P

Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on May 18, 2017, 11:51:49 PM
Was it supposed to go further north originally?

Nexus 6P



Originally the Terminal Island (partial CA 103) freeway was intended to go to the I-405/I-710 interchange; the SB 710>NB 405 and SB 405>NB 710 ramps were configured the way they are to accommodate the ramps from 710 to the Terminal Island freeway.  The freeway was originally the property of the Port of Long Beach, not the Division of Highways and later Caltrans; the portion south of CA 1 was transferred to Caltrans in the '80's while the northern portion remained under local control but was signed originally as CA 47 and later as CA 103. 
Title: Re: California
Post by: hm insulators on May 24, 2017, 01:47:54 PM
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.

I remember 76 as a two-lane rural highway. In 1973, my family and I took a day trip to Palomar Observatory from La Canada Flintridge, and we used I-5 to Oceanside, then 76 to get to the mountain.
Title: Re: California
Post by: andy3175 on May 31, 2017, 01:32:59 AM
Quick news hit on a proposed yet never built bridge along California SR 89 over Emerald Bay in Lake Tahoe:

http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/transportation/back-seat-driver/article153171109.html#storylink=indep

Quote
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: kkt on May 31, 2017, 01:40:58 PM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on May 31, 2017, 03:00:39 PM
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.


Now that there's a bi-state Lake Tahoe governing body that deals with essentially every modification to the area proposed in both public and private sectors (and is the bane of property owners who wish to make additions to their houses, add pools, and the like), any notion of an Emerald Bay bridge -- or any sizeable bridge affecting any part of the lake, including the waterways that flow in or out -- would be a non-starter.  The only reason a US 50 bypass of Stateline has been even considered is the fact that the casino businesses there have a seat on the board -- and they've wanted to relieve the traffic issues along present US 50 for some time now; but as is usually the case, both funding and local politics have "back-burnered" such a project for what is now decades.  Tahoe and environs will likely not see significant road-related changes in the foreseeable future.
Title: Re: California
Post by: NE2 on June 01, 2017, 12:07:39 PM
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
Atascadero
San 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
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on June 02, 2017, 11:04:02 PM
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
Atascadero
San 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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: andy3175 on June 03, 2017, 01:24:00 AM
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
Atascadero
San 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 haven't seen any signage for a business route in Atascadero, Templeton, or Garberville/Redway. I'm not even sure of the exact old alignment routing through Atascadro.

The approved business route in San Luis Obispo is not currently signed near as I can tell.

I don't know about whether there is a signed business route for former US 101 through Willits. I know the southern half of the old route is still in the state highway system as part of SR 20.
Title: Re: California
Post by: cahwyguy on June 03, 2017, 08:39:38 AM
Finding evidence of a business route (or, to be more precise, a former routing that has been bypassed) is often easier than finding signage. BR signage often gets placed once -- when the route is first bypassed as a sop to the business community -- and then is never updated or maintained. But evidence, it remains. It remains in the configuration of the on and off ramps, which are often curving away from what once was the main line and curves back. It remains in the nature of the businesses along the route -- often look for main streets, U-court motels, and car dealers. There is often evidence in local signage and road names. If one pays attention, there is often a lot of evidence.
Title: Re: California
Post by: NE2 on June 03, 2017, 12:06:02 PM
I'm specifically talking about a signed business route. Not a former route that has been bypassed.
Title: Re: California
Post by: cahwyguy on June 09, 2017, 01:26:23 PM
Quote
I'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).
Title: Re: California
Post by: NE2 on June 09, 2017, 09:44:13 PM
But not every former route that has been bypassed is a business route...
Title: Re: California
Post by: silverback1065 on June 11, 2017, 08:10:05 PM
does california 170 extend onto highland ave?  google says it does, but i can find no proof that it's true.
Title: Re: California
Post by: NE2 on June 11, 2017, 11:02:56 PM
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
Title: Re: California
Post by: DTComposer on June 11, 2017, 11:23:49 PM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on June 12, 2017, 12:58:18 AM
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.

As late as 2012 there was a second CA 170 shield, placed on NB Highland Ave. just north of Santa Monica Blvd./CA 2 on a streetlamp standard.  Curiously, there was never, to my knowledge, any trailblazer signage in either direction of CA 2 indicating the presence of CA 170 at Highland.  It's like at one point there was a signage order for that now-relinquished segment of CA 170 that specified a couple of reassurance signs at either end of the segment but nothing else.  If anyone can cast some light on how this came about it certainly would be appreciated!
Title: Re: California
Post by: andy3175 on June 12, 2017, 01:24:01 AM
Quote
I'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).

Just checking that you meant I-880 and not I-180 for this, right? Here are the facts as I understand them: I-80 in Sacramento was relocated onto old I-880 to the north of the city because a project to upgrade what is now SR 51 to Interstate standards was replaced with a light rail project (there's more to that story, but just at a very high level). Old I-80 became part of US 50 and SR 51, signed as Business 80 until recently. Now Business 80 is mostly signed on SR 51 only, and the US 50 portion is signed as US 50.

The Interstate-standard section of US 50 and SR 51 was also given the FHWA designation of I-305, which has not ever been signed and is not legislatively designated in the Streets and Highways Code.

I-180 was considered for the section of I-580 between US 101 in San Rafael and I-80 in Richmond.
Title: Re: California
Post by: cahwyguy on June 12, 2017, 01:21:58 PM
I was going from memory; I could very easily have stated the wrong one. You got the idea.
Title: Re: California
Post by: andy3175 on June 28, 2017, 12:50:36 AM
Changes coming to Manteca Bypass SR 120, including California's first diverging diamond interchange

http://www.mantecabulletin.com/archives/142374/

Quote
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.

More on the proposed diverging diamond interchange:

Quote
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

More on the McKinley interchange ($40 million cost to begin in 2018), which interestingly mentions how a cloverleaf interchange does not require any stops but does not mention weaving and other issues that can cause problems at cloverleaf interchanges:

Quote
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.

More on the SR 99-120 interchange improvements:

Quote
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.




Title: Re: California
Post by: andy3175 on June 28, 2017, 12:52:59 AM
While looking for something else, I found an older (2016) San Jose Mercury News Mr. Roadshow article about the ongoing replacements of guide signs to reflective. I think this has already been posted, but in case anyone missed it, for those who haven't seen the article, here is the link and quote:

http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/11/17/roadshow-why-are-so-many-south-bay-freeway-signs-dark-at-night/

Quote
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.”
Title: Re: California
Post by: andy3175 on June 28, 2017, 01:00:29 AM
At the risk of being pedantic, here's another pair of articles, the first related to a new sign misspelling:

http://www.kcra.com/article/oops-new-california-highway-signs-misspelled-on-central-coast/10226004

(https://hips.htvapps.com/htv-prod-media.s3.amazonaws.com/images/del-ray-oaks-sign-1498507100.jpg?crop=1.00xw:0.846xh;0,0.0711xh&resize=900:*)

Quote
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.

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)

Quote
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: silverback1065 on June 28, 2017, 10:36:50 AM
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!
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on June 28, 2017, 11:07:11 AM
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!

They probably have been around since then, you're likely looking at either button copy signs or signs with reflective paint.
Title: Re: California
Post by: silverback1065 on June 28, 2017, 11:08:20 AM
I'd put reflective in quotes, they're completely black at night!

Nexus 6P

Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on June 28, 2017, 11:11:34 AM
I'd put reflective in quotes, they're completely black at night!

Nexus 6P

Yeah, they are often pretty burnt out looking three decades on.  Basically my understanding was that they were designed to last a couple decades and probably should have been recoated or had vinyl applied maybe 10-20 years ago.  I have some of the older shields that have the enamel reflective paint with the vinyl numerals.  Usually you can tell because the shield still slightly reflects but the numeral is burnt out.

Daniel hits on this in way more detail why things are different in California on his site, I think it has the answers you are looking for:

http://www.cahighways.org/num-signing.html
Title: Re: California
Post by: silverback1065 on June 28, 2017, 11:12:45 AM
You can barely read the damn things in broad daylight!

Nexus 6P

Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on June 28, 2017, 11:14:38 AM
You can barely read the damn things in broad daylight!

Nexus 6P

 :-D  Just missed you with my edit on the previous post.  Check out the link to Daniel's page on cahighways the signage topic, it is actually a pretty interesting read as to why things are the way they are:

http://www.cahighways.org/num-signing.html
Title: Re: California
Post by: J N Winkler on June 28, 2017, 12:00:50 PM
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!

Whole-signface retroreflectorization has been the standard for warning, regulatory, construction, and independent-mounted route marker signs since at least the 1980's, but for guide signs only since 1998 or so.

Exit numbering has been implemented statewide only since 2002 and initially each exit was considered to be numbered if just one sign in the sequence--advance guide, exit direction, gore--had the exit number.  There are ongoing sign refurbishment contracts that are putting exit numbers on all signs in the sequence, but it will take a while to do all 5,000+ miles of freeway in California.
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on June 28, 2017, 04:33:38 PM
Changes coming to Manteca Bypass SR 120, including California's first diverging diamond interchange

http://www.mantecabulletin.com/archives/142374/

Quote
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.

More on the SR 99-120 interchange improvements:

Quote
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.


The backup on EB CA 120 is only one of many problems facing this interchange, which was done "on the cheap" back in 1980 when the bypass was configured as a super-2 with alternating passing lanes.  Essentially a trumpet (but looking more like a French horn!) favoring NB 99>WB 120 traffic, it utilizes a single 2-lane bridge for both NB>WB and EB>NB movements with a K-rail down the middle and relatively narrow lanes (I'd guess 10.5-11 feet w/minimal shoulders) -- and one of the wickedest diminishing-radius loops in the state highway system -- which also serves as the continuation of EB CA 120, which jogs one exit north on CA 99.  As this is my normal route when visiting a business partner in Folsom, I've seen more than one truck rollover on this loop (marked at 25 mph suggested speed). :-o  A direct ramp would be more appropriate -- but it seems that an extension of the CA 120 Manteca bypass eastward around the commercial area east of CA 99 is still on the books, so apparently there's been no hurry to upgrade the interchange until a decision is made regarding that potential project, which certainly would affect interchange design. 

But it looks like the traffic issues posed by the interchange's present configuration are pressing enough to prompt some sort of modification action; I would hope that at least improving the loop connection to allow safe traversal at higher speeds would be included within the project plans, if not a directional ramp replacement.
Title: Re: California
Post by: mrsman on July 06, 2017, 08:59:50 PM


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)

Quote
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.

Mistakes can happen, but my issue with this is for taking down the 71 and leaving in the freeway name.  I thought the trend in Dist. 7 was to remove the freeway names and only keep the numbers, and now they've done the opposite.

In my view, freeway names, numbers, directions, and control cities are all helpful to the motoring public and should all be used to the extent possible.
Title: Re: California
Post by: silverback1065 on July 06, 2017, 09:40:31 PM
i exclusively refer to all numbered routes as their number, not a fan of the freeway naming convention. 
Title: Re: California
Post by: kkt on July 07, 2017, 03:43:44 PM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on July 07, 2017, 04:20:03 PM
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.     
Title: Re: California
Post by: TheStranger on July 08, 2017, 02:10:31 AM

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.     

Post-1970s, the only two new route names I can think of that got emphasized were rather intentionally so:

Martin Luther King Jr. Freeway (for Route 94 in San Diego, starting in the early 1990s)
Capital City Freeway (Business 80 in Sacramento, ca. 1996)

What is interesting though is in driving around LA the past week, I saw a surprising amount of new retroreflective signage that has retained freeway name mention in LA County at least.  Not a massive amount, but enough where "replace in kind" continues unabated (to my delight at least). (Most common named routes that have received new signage that I recall - Harbor Freeway, Long Beach Freeway, Santa Ana Freeway in at least one example, and Ventura Freeway to a degree.  Hollywood Freeway still has plenty of scattered signage but not sure if any of it is newer.)

For the Bay Area named freeways, several got theirs based on parallel street/highway (Bayshore, Junipero Serra, Eastshore, MacArthur, Embarcadero, Warren).  the Central Freeway is the only one of the cardinal-direction names that stuck in SF, while the Nimitz is the one freeway-only honorary name that has remained to this day.

Title: Re: California
Post by: andy3175 on July 10, 2017, 09:48:58 PM
Article on the infamous caution signs in San Diego...

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/california/la-me-immigrants-running-road-sign-20170614-htmlstory.html

(http://www.trbimg.com/img-595faa43/turbine/la-1499441727-yy0nnpptpn-snap-image/850/850x478)

Quote
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.”
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on July 10, 2017, 10:23:57 PM
I thought those were all gone, I'm amazed the last one hasn't been stolen yet.  I always thought it looked like the kid was going to end up biting it or having a dislocated shoulder from the way the sign depicts the family.
Title: Re: California
Post by: andy3175 on August 24, 2017, 01:04:09 AM
Recent article regarding Historic US 101 signing efforts in San Diego...

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/sd-me-101-history-20170818-story.html

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

And more info on our page at https://www.aaroads.com/california/us-101ha_ca.html.
Title: Re: California
Post by: andy3175 on August 24, 2017, 01:19:47 AM
Caltrans Marking, Removing Dead Trees Along State Highways

http://www.capradio.org/articles/2017/08/22/caltrans-marking,-removing-dead-trees-along-state-highways/

Quote
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on August 30, 2017, 12:56:28 AM
Had a US 99 and blue guide sign sighting leaving Fresno-Yosemite International Airport tonight:

(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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: Henry on August 30, 2017, 09:37:21 AM
Had a US 99 and blue guide sign sighting leaving Fresno-Yosemite International Airport tonight:

(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.
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.

Recent article regarding Historic US 101 signing efforts in San Diego...

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/sd-me-101-history-20170818-story.html

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

And more info on our page at https://www.aaroads.com/california/us-101ha_ca.html.
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!
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on August 30, 2017, 11:21:33 PM
^^^

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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on August 31, 2017, 01:34:13 AM
^^^

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!
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on August 31, 2017, 07:45:41 AM
^^^

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!

Looking at the history of the airport the last major renovations/updates were in the early 2000s.  Just off camera there is a green guide sign showing all the correct shields and all routes:

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.7704225,-119.721763,3a,75y,337.77h,89.51t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZAY5-CSlaf5Eab_vXj2O4Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
Title: Re: California
Post by: nexus73 on August 31, 2017, 12:19:36 PM
Blue signs for freeways...must be Europe...LOL!  Neat to see an US 99 shield on such isn't it?

Rick
Title: Re: California
Post by: silverback1065 on August 31, 2017, 12:51:44 PM
i thought airport signs were always blue
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on August 31, 2017, 01:34:46 PM
i thought airport signs were always blue

They are, after reading what Sparker said and looking at the street view I tend to agree that the US 99 is likely a fairly recent contractor goof.  I'll have to swing over that way and maybe get a closer look this next week if I get an opportunity.  Surprised the hell out me while I was sitting in the passenger seat being picked up, I literally took that photo standing up through the sun roof.   :-D
   
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on October 05, 2017, 12:51:43 AM
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/
Title: Re: California
Post by: gonealookin on October 05, 2017, 02:28:12 AM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: andy3175 on October 10, 2017, 12:27:54 AM
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/

Some additional resources on the 10/13/2017 opening date of the new SR 1 Pfeiffer Canyon Bridge from last week:

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-pfeiffer-canyon-bridge-20171006-story.html

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/10/04/big-sur-pfeiffer-canyon-bridge-to-open-oct-13/

Quote
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: andy3175 on October 10, 2017, 12:31:27 AM
Update on SR 1 reopening between Muir Woods and Stinson Beach:

http://www.marinij.com/general-news/20171003/caltrans-targets-december-for-highway-1-reopening

Quote
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on October 10, 2017, 12:52:33 AM
Update on SR 1 reopening between Muir Woods and Stinson Beach:

http://www.marinij.com/general-news/20171003/caltrans-targets-december-for-highway-1-reopening

Quote
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.

Back in the mid-70's, when I had just moved up to the Bay Area for the first time, I was living in Redwood City but had changed jobs and was working in Mill Valley.  Had a good friend living in Bolinas, so to avoid commuting between Marin and RC every day I stayed in a guest house behind my friend's place during the week and went home south on the weekends.  I started out the daily Mill Valley-Bolinas commute right along CA 1 via Muir Beach, but switched to Panoramic as the "default" route because it was actually less treacherous.  Also, I figured out some back roads in MV so I could cut off the last mile or so of Panoramic.  IMO, through drivers are actually getting something of a break by having to detour over Panoramic -- besides the jaunt through Muir Beach, the scenery on CA 1 can only be appreciated if one pulls off the road -- traveling it requires a driver's full concentration!  And it seemed, at least back in '76, that the few commercial vehicles heading toward Stinson, Bolinas, or points north of there preferred Panoramic as well; I had regular truck companions on that road!
Title: Re: California
Post by: TheStranger on October 10, 2017, 06:53:11 PM
Photo I took today of a damaged sign on US 101 in Santa Rosa

(https://i.imgur.com/TMfqEXW.jpg)
Title: Re: California
Post by: andy3175 on October 12, 2017, 11:20:01 PM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on October 14, 2017, 10:59:02 PM
Pictures from the Pfeiffer Canyon Bridge grand opening on CA 1:

https://bigsurkate.blog/2017/10/14/bridge-opening-photo/

(Incidentally I'll have some of my own this coming week)

Accompanying article from the San Francisco Gate:

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Big-Sur-back-in-business-with-opening-of-Pfeiffer-12277324.php

Really the Nacimiento-Fergusson Road coupled with CA 1 north of Lime Kiln State Park to County Route G16 is a pretty damn worthwhile little drive IMO.

Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on October 15, 2017, 09:45:20 PM
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.

The damage to Santa Rosa and the Sonoma Valley is on a par with the 2003 firestorms that ravaged San Diego County as well as the San Bernardino mountains (as a then Redlands resident I witnessed the latter up-close!).  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. 
Title: Re: California
Post by: myosh_tino on October 16, 2017, 01:03:18 PM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on October 16, 2017, 02:48:15 PM
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.

Since most of the homes destroyed in the affected Santa Rosa neighborhoods had been exempted from current fire-resistant standards -- and, at least according to TV news reports from the area, most former residents expect to rebuild -- the builders of the new homes won't repeat that type of mistake.  I lived in Windsor, about 10 miles north of there, back in the late '80's, and passed that tract almost daily -- and it was in the "flatlands" immediately west of the US 101 freeway -- which this fire readily jumped!  Quite obviously, no one in the fire-control field had any idea that Cooley Park would be in jeopardy because of its physical location (even though the ridge that formed the fire's pathway came right up to Old Redwood Highway, just east of the freeway).  In this instance, the combination of winds and the fire's momentum resulted in the destruction of essentially the whole tract.  But it's the isolated houses scattered throughout the hills that provokes my concern; the lore of "wine country" has rendered Napa & Sonoma Counties (as well as Lake and southern Mendocino counties) a desirable place to put a vacation, retirement, or, if circumstances permit, a main residence.  I don't see that situation changing despite the number of such residences destroyed in this most recent fire event.  But the prospect of large-scale tract development up in the hills might be given second looks in light of the fires -- although because of the Cooley Park circumstances (i.e., the lack of fire standards), expansion in historically less fire-prone areas will likely continue unabated -- but with higher standards (and higher prices) applied.
Title: Re: California
Post by: kkt on October 16, 2017, 04:48:29 PM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: mgk920 on October 16, 2017, 05:59:56 PM
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
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on October 17, 2017, 05:57:06 AM
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

It's more than likely that the insurance companies, particularly here in CA, will continue to insure outlying residences -- but the fire(s) will certainly be used as a rationale for substantially raising premiums.  A friend who has a house in Redwood Estates, up in the coast range off CA 17 between Los Gatos and Santa Cruz, saw his rates go up close to 15% last year after a fire about 25 miles SE near Watsonville took out several $1M+ properties.  If you live up in the hills around here, you invariably end up paying for your privileges (he does have a fantastic view of the whole "Silicon Valley" from his perch!) 
Title: Re: California
Post by: mrpablue on October 19, 2017, 12:02:41 AM
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…

 :hmmm:
Title: Re: California
Post by: NE2 on October 19, 2017, 01:38:29 AM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: mrpablue on October 19, 2017, 06:45:25 PM
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.

Yeah, good point. That was pretty obvious. I'm sorta new, so I forget stuff.
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on October 19, 2017, 08:29:33 PM
Checked out the new Pfeiffer Canyon Bridge today out on 1.  The bridge is so new that the frame work is actually still in place and there was a ton of Caltrans workers scurrying about to remove it.  I'll have some pictures up tonight but it was actually kind of cool to see Big Sur lively again.
Title: Re: California
Post by: gonealookin on November 03, 2017, 01:22:19 PM
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".
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on November 05, 2017, 11:07:46 AM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: gonealookin on November 05, 2017, 01:46:43 PM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on November 10, 2017, 02:48:45 PM
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.

Today on the quick map Tioga Pass and Monitor are showing open by Sonora in addition to Ebbetts are closed down.  I wonder if that really more to do with Caltrans really just doesn't want people on 24-26% grades with a possibility of a storm in high elevations.  Tioga and Monitor are both only 8% grades.
Title: Re: California
Post by: gonealookin on December 06, 2017, 06:50:28 PM
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)
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on December 07, 2017, 12:00:32 AM
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.  No doubt it'd include some form of cable-stay design for at least the portion over the designated shipping channel.  But the likelihood of this surviving the multi-level vetting process required for any new-terrain facilities in CA have never looked particularly good.  One good thing: it could actually be an eastern extension of I-280 all the way to I-580 (kill 2 birds with one stone: actually connect I-280's northern end back to the Interstate system -- and say adios to I-238!).  Always an intriguing idea that eventually runs up against fiscal and logistic reality -- but if someone wants to fund yet another study, I say go for it!
Title: Re: California
Post by: andy3175 on December 07, 2017, 12:34:55 AM
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

Title: Re: California
Post by: kkt on December 07, 2017, 12:37:37 AM
101 and 880 are just as much bottlenecks as the bridges are.

BART, Caltrain, ACE, and other commuter services still leave a lot to be desired.  They don't cover enough territory out into the suburbs where people with ordinary jobs can afford to live.  They have long headways (except BART, and Caltrain at rush hour).  Express busses are operated by the counties, and don't cross county lines, while commutes in the Bay Area can easily cross two, three, or four counties.  Their schedules don't coordinate; if they even meet at a stop you must wait 20-30 minutes for the next bus to continue in the same direction.
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on December 07, 2017, 12:56:39 AM
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



I wonder if the I-80/US 50 interchange in West Sac will be rebuilt with one of the HOV lane splits continuing northeast with I-80 on a separate flyover structure, since from the map in the cite both I-80 and US 50 will have those lanes added;  this is presuming the HOV lanes will be located in the current freeway median.  Actually, I wouldn't at all be surprised to see all of I-80 from Emeryville to at least Roseville built out to 8 lanes within 20 years as the Sacramento exurban spread, now a bit west of Dixon, meets the North Bay suburbs via Fairfield and Vacaville, with housing flanking most stretches of that highway.   
Title: Re: California
Post by: TheStranger on December 07, 2017, 02:41:52 PM
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)
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on December 08, 2017, 05:00:41 AM
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)

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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: jdbx on December 08, 2017, 02:27:35 PM
I think that the southern crossing is a non-starter.  As much as many of us would like to see another crossing, even if they were able to get over the environmental hurdles, the cost would be exorbitant.  Look at the overruns on the new Benicia Bridge and the Bay Bridge east span vs the original estimates.  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.

That said, I am very happy to see that there are finally plans to expand I-80 between Dixon and Sacramento.  The congestion on that road is horrific on the weekends.  I only wish it had been done 10 years ago.
Title: Re: California
Post by: TheStranger on December 08, 2017, 04:31:37 PM
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.

There was an Examiner article on that concept a few years ago that noted it wouldn't be until the late 2030s before any second transbay tube would actually be projected to happen.
Title: Re: California
Post by: andy3175 on December 08, 2017, 09:05:16 PM
Additional article on Feinstein's comments, which encompass both the bridge and trans-bay tube:

https://sf.curbed.com/2017/12/8/16751814/feinstein-san-francisco-transportation-second-bay-bridge

Quote
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.

Here's a copy of the press release and letter: https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?id=BDA14490-FB58-45D6-95FC-4F90A9453A82



Title: Re: California
Post by: Occidental Tourist on December 11, 2017, 08:50:49 PM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on December 17, 2017, 05:42:35 AM
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.

In addition to the problem of plowing through housing stock, an alignment directing Southern Crossing traffic specifically to I-238 is that there would be no direct freeway connection to either Oakland or Berkeley, both of which would be likely destinations for cross-bay traffic; a 238-serving routing would be to shoot traffic to and from east I-580, meaning Dublin/Livermore and beyond.  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).  Something more or less along Hegenberger Road (the main Oakland Airport access to I-880) would probably suffice as a reasonable if not direct substitute for a cross-Alameda alignment; but a spur down to San Leandro and the 238/880 junction in addition to the Hegenberger "branch" would serve to split traffic going north/northeast (to NB I-880, I-980/CA 24, or even EB I-80) and south or due east (EB I-580, SB I-880).  The housing stock in west San Leandro along the "main drag", Lewelling Blvd., is mostly smaller postwar single-family units mixed in with the occasional small apartment complex; while objections would almost certainly be made to the use of eminent domain to acquire properties, if a Southern Crossing developmental process gained traction via public support it may well overcome such obstacles.
Title: Re: California
Post by: TheStranger on December 18, 2017, 02:16:35 PM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: kkt on December 18, 2017, 04:40:53 PM
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 at Army Caesar Chavez St. or 3rd St.

Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on December 18, 2017, 08:17:55 PM
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.

Funny you should mention the ex-NAS; was just up there today; the woodworking company that does my speaker cabinets set up shop in the old base wood shop.  A development company, in concert with the City of Alameda, has taken over management of the site and has already leased out about 70% of the buildings for industrial or warehousing facilities.  About a quarter-mile on the bayward side of the site was originally the old N-S runway -- and its pavement is in such bad shape that it can't even be used as a parking lot these days!  That would be a reasonable location for a freeway, but it's pretty much due south of the big curve on I-880 (the replacement for the former earthquake-destroyed Cypress viaduct).

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 at Army Caesar Chavez St. or 3rd St.

A very long curved tube would be needed to access the unused NAS portion from I-980; a more likely candidate would be an interchange along I-880 west of there.  Perhaps slip lanes from I-980 could be utilized -- but that would involve additional property taking in an area that almost certainly would be a political "hot potato" (i.e., West Oakland).  I don't know the specific geological makeup of the Alameda island, but if it's anything like the rest of the eastern Bay shoreline, much of it will be packed mud; tunneling might be problematic (at least keeping said tunnel intact).  Unfortunately, since the density of Alameda itself is similar to the west side of S.F., there's not much place to put a surface -- or even a cut-and-cover -- facility (no wide streets paralleling the Bay).   It's more than likely anything on the Alameda island won't prove conducive to a freeway approach to a southern crossing.

Title: Re: California
Post by: Occidental Tourist on December 18, 2017, 08:18:21 PM
Except the Alameda NAS land has already been set aside for development of the Alameda Point community.
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on December 18, 2017, 08:25:45 PM
Except the Alameda NAS land has already been set aside for development of the Alameda Point community.

Which has already seen some development in the form of row-type individual residences just west of the College of Alameda; more housing development is under way at the SE corner of the former NAS station.  Apparently the plan is mixed-use in nature, with industry occupying what's left of the former base facilities (there's still an old fighter plane on a pedestal at the site entrance!) -- which gives Alameda Point some needed cash flow to pursue their other interests, including  a significant amount of low-income housing in the aforementioned SE side nearest the existing city neighborhoods near Central Ave.
Title: Re: California
Post by: mrpablue on February 22, 2018, 06:36:22 PM
What happened to this thread?
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on February 22, 2018, 06:51:49 PM
What happened to this thread?

Not much going on in the state or forum right now. 
Title: Re: California
Post by: oscar on February 22, 2018, 06:59:59 PM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on February 22, 2018, 08:59:39 PM
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.

True, at least for me there is only so much I can talk about CA 58 and I-11 so I don’t tend to notice the activity there unless something substantial happens.  Usually this the dead season for anything other than the major projects in California.  I’m honestly surprised I’ve had as much to post this winter given how bad the weather was last year. 
Title: Re: California
Post by: mrsman on February 24, 2018, 09:41:42 PM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on February 24, 2018, 10:24:29 PM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on February 25, 2018, 03:54:39 AM
It seems as if one of the major activities within the California transportation scene -- besides HSR and its controversies -- is relinquishments of state-maintained routes, mostly urban arterials.  A question was raised in the CA 130 thread about "orphaned" state highway segments not connected to any other routes; with the recent rash of relinquishment, it is almost certain that more and more of these "orphans" will crop up over time.  I'd suggest that if any posters happen across this situation with any particular route, this thread might well be the appropriate place to mention it.   
Title: Re: California
Post by: Techknow on February 25, 2018, 11:49:49 PM
Speaking of catch-all, I think this is a good thread to share nice videos of California Highways. Here's one of Interstate 5 through the Grapevine. I was last at this corridor a few years back on the way to Pasadena, so it was refreshing for me. I love the music too!

Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on February 26, 2018, 12:38:38 AM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on February 26, 2018, 01:33:35 AM
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!
Title: Re: California
Post by: Alps on February 26, 2018, 07:12:46 AM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on February 26, 2018, 09:35:38 AM
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.

Probably due to the multiplex that would be required on US 101 to do it which isn't exactly something Division of Highways liked to do post-1964.  A shorter multiplex to I-280 and assuming the entirety of that route to I-680 probably would have been much more workable.  But with that said, it would require a sudden north/south shift in I-80 and I think San Francisco seems to be a more logical point for 2d Interstate.  We've talked about consolidating I-280 and I-680 into one route before which would serve as an almost full beltway on a single designation.  It would also free up a number to resolve the I-238 designation...but that ought to be a state highway or leaving CA 24 on the I-980 could have fixed that issue as well. 
Title: Re: California
Post by: andy3175 on February 26, 2018, 09:49:10 AM
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.

That is exactly right. My intention when creating this thread was to catch items that don't necessary warrant their own thread or are of general interest for California highways. Examples may include general Caltrans news, specific route updates that are minor in nature (minor construction, realignments, relinquishments, etc.), highway politics news (for example, opponents to a recent gas tax hike are mounting a repeal effort), etc. So I'd say this thread has some merit. But if you have something about a highway issue that is significant and will likely warrant multiple replies (such as High Desert Corridor E-220 or I-405 improvements), in my opinion those would make and have made great standalone threads.
Title: Re: California
Post by: Plutonic Panda on February 26, 2018, 03:52:00 PM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on February 26, 2018, 04:21:45 PM
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!

Seems like in modern times both the Ridge Route and Ridge Route Alternate are almost completely forgotten.  The original Ridge Route is actually a hell of a hiking trail now while Ridge Route Alternate essentially is a derelict road leading up to Pryamid Lake.  For what it’s worth “The Ridge Route” always sounded cooler than “The Grapevine.”   At the very least I’ve been trying to make sure my significant other has it right.  She seems to want to call it just “5” because she doesn’t like the old name. 
Title: Re: California
Post by: kkt on February 26, 2018, 07:39:08 PM
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.

Title: Re: California
Post by: silverback1065 on February 26, 2018, 07:59:59 PM
ya that's a terrible idea, 80 is fine where it is, they should just remove 280 east of us 101, and connect the us 101 freeway directly to van ness ave.
Title: Re: California
Post by: J N Winkler on February 26, 2018, 08:50:09 PM
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 . . .

I follow Caltrans lettings, and volumes have been high for the past two or three years.  I don't know how much of that is attributable to SB 1 versus the state's generally better fiscal position, however.  It was only two weeks ago that I encountered my first project with a SB 1 funding sign.

. . . 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.

I take a philosophical attitude to all of this, which is pretty easy since I don't actually live in California.  I remember the ballot initiative in (I think) 2003 calling for fuel tax revenues to be hypothecated for transportation, not just highways.  In urban California, which notwithstanding its autopia reputation is very congested and transit-dependent, this is the centrist position.  My recollection is that this initiative passed, but in terms of highway lettings it seemed to have no perceptible effect--there was a drought that lasted for years.  Transportation finance in California is very complex, so I'm still not sure if this drought had to do with the Bay Bridge (east span main contract estimated at $700 million, sole bid--twice--came in at $1.4 billion), funding splits transiently favorable to transit capital construction, or some kind of loophole allowing temporary raids on the transportation fund lockbox for budget-balancing purposes.
Title: Re: California
Post by: mrsman on February 27, 2018, 02:23:29 AM
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.

Agreed.  SF was for a long time the biggest city in northern CA.  When I-80 reached SF, it arrived  at its destination.  No need to go any further.

Regarding 280 and 680, the two highways make a sensible bypass of the 101-80 corridor around the bay.  It's easier to understand the purpose of the two highways as two separate routes.  We don't want to combine them into one number.  Cross-reference: the new plans for I-295 in the Trenton-Philadelphia area.  When I-95 gap is closed when the Delaware Expy and Penn Turnpike interchange is completed, you will have a N-S highway that loops around and becomes another N-S higway on the other side of the river.  I find this to be confusing and would prefer if they followed the successful model of 280-680 in CA.

Title: Re: California
Post by: Techknow on February 27, 2018, 01:53:27 PM
Extending I-80 by multiplexing with US-101 would allow I-280 and I-680 to connect both of their ends with its parent interstate, which sounds good from an Interstate Highway system perspective. But, kkt is correct about parts of the US-101 being in inadequate quality in San Francisco, for example the exit to Vermont Street right before the I-80 junction and inadequate shoulders in the Central Freeway portion.

If I-280 were to be renamed as I-80 from the Alemany Interchange (US-101/I-280 junction), then that would involve changing a lot of exit signs and would still require a two mile multiplex with US-101, but wouldn't achieve much more. I think the current numbering is fine as it is. I-280 is a good bypass of US-101 from SF to SJ (I take it all the time even!), and I-680 is an important corridor in its own right, and serves as a bypass of I-80 past the Carquinez Bridge.
Title: Re: California
Post by: TheStranger on February 27, 2018, 03:03:33 PM
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)
Title: Re: California
Post by: The Ghostbuster on February 28, 2018, 05:38:52 PM
Is the 280 truncation to 16th Street still an active proposal? Or has it gone dormant, or been canceled altogether?
Title: Re: California
Post by: DTComposer on February 28, 2018, 06:31:20 PM
Is the 280 truncation to 16th Street still an active proposal? Or has it gone dormant, or been canceled altogether?

I believe that is something that Mayor Lee was championing before he passed away. I don't expect any movement on this in any direction until after the election in June.
Title: Re: California
Post by: andy3175 on February 28, 2018, 10:09:51 PM
Interesting LA Times article about LA and its freeways...

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/arts/la-ca-cm-building-type-high-desert-corridor-20180225-story.html

Quote

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.

Title: Re: California
Post by: mrpablue on March 01, 2018, 01:32:57 AM
Would a California-specific game similar to the nationwide ones in Traffic Control be welcome here?
Title: Re: California
Post by: oscar on March 01, 2018, 07:42:20 AM
Its been quite awhile since anyone posted anything regarding Hawaii.

Because not much happens in Hawaii, at least for new construction, given a shift away from that to maintaining the existing system. But there's a new highway segment scheduled to open this month in west Maui, which I'll discuss in its own thread once the segment opens or at least there is a firm opening date.
Title: Re: California
Post by: Techknow on March 02, 2018, 01:21:46 PM
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
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on March 02, 2018, 02:29:39 PM
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

Only took from early 2013 to change it.  Shame I never got a photo of the old sign.
Title: Re: California
Post by: Techknow on March 02, 2018, 11:07:03 PM
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!
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on March 04, 2018, 01:52:12 PM
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!

That wasn't up 3 weeks ago when we went down to Hollister.  Unfortunately, park visitors must endure the purgatory that is the commuter-heavy CA 25 between US 101 and Hollister itself.  Take a deep breath -- and watch out for tailgaters! :angry:

BTW, that's a nice-looking sign!
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on March 04, 2018, 08:26:03 PM
^^^

Probably just better to go to West Pinnacles anyways since the road is more scenic and its closer to the cooler trails like the Balconies Cave.  The new sign is pretty solid looking though.
Title: Re: California
Post by: Plutonic Panda on March 05, 2018, 02:40:04 PM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: andy3175 on March 08, 2018, 01:09:30 AM
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.

One time, about four years ago, at an event for the seismic retrofit of the Cabrillo Bridge over CA-163, I asked Ms. Berman whether changing the signs on CA 15 to I-15 and CA-905 to I-905. She basically responded by asking me why would that be necessary. I mumbled something about numbering and benefits of Interstate shields and so forth, but the discussion really went nowhere.  Ms. Berman was clearly more interested in the improved roadways and freeways brought about by construction projects on both roads, and the numbering and shield shape were of less importance. I then realized I was dwelling in a detail-oriented corner of our hobby, acknowledged how much better both routes have been with improvements, and left it at that. So at that time, it finally gave me clarity that we probably won't see Interstate sign upgrades for a long time if ever on those two roadways, regardless if the freeway is built to Interstate standards (which 905 is and 15 mostly is except for the area around the CA-94 interchange). And that was basically when I more or less stopped caring if it happens or not. With that said, I think Ms. Berman will do a fine job leading Caltrans. She has done quite a few good things here in San Diego. Now if I can just get Caltrans District 11 to quit posting those neutered Interstate 5 and 15 shields that have popped up over the past seven or eight years ... ha ha, there I go again in another detail-oriented corner of our hobby!
Title: Re: California
Post by: myosh_tino on March 10, 2018, 02:12:21 AM
Found another planned implementation of Arrow-per-Lane signage in California.  This time, the sign is to be installed as part of a project to rehab/replace the concrete pavement of CA-58 east of the 58-99 interchange in Bakersfield.  What's different time around was the plans gave height and width dimensions of the thru, option and exit arrows.  As a result, I was able to duplicate them and add them to my sign-making library.  Here's the sign according to the plans...

(http://www.markyville.com/aaroads/58-99_caAPL.png)

The through and option lane arrows are 42 inches tall while the exit arrow is 36 inches tall.  The arrowhead used follows the FHWA spec (Standard Arrow Details) with an 8-inch shaft.  Also of note is the fact that this is the first example of Caltrans using an APL where there are two closely spaced exits (West 58/North 99 and South 99).  IMO, the circumstances made using an APL easier because the option lane becomes a dropped lane for 99 South.  The two left lanes are the only "through" lanes.
Title: Re: California
Post by: compdude787 on March 10, 2018, 12:41:29 PM
Don't you think that Caltrans should wait on replacing this sign until after the Centennial Corridor is open?
Title: Re: California
Post by: myosh_tino on March 10, 2018, 02:59:30 PM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: mrsman on March 11, 2018, 11:23:56 AM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on March 11, 2018, 02:29:42 PM
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. 
Title: Re: California
Post by: myosh_tino on March 11, 2018, 09:40:52 PM
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)
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on March 12, 2018, 12:28:34 AM
Spent the day out in Big Sur and got a clean shot of the CA 1 BGS closure sign at the Carmel River:

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4777/40760236871_442906fb54_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/256QSmF)1CAa (https://flic.kr/p/256QSmF) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr

Found a leftover CA 156 Business shield while driving through Hollister on the way home:

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4801/40760233691_83b6f0d4b0_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/256QRpR)156CABLa (https://flic.kr/p/256QRpR) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
Title: Re: California
Post by: mrsman on March 12, 2018, 07:41:53 PM
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)

In the interests of saving taxpayer money, my hope is that the sign above is actually signed when they replace the signage, but that they use greenout and temporary shields to make the sign look like Reply 460 until such time as the Westside Pkwy is completed to the  99 interchange.

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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: myosh_tino on March 13, 2018, 01:50:56 AM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on March 13, 2018, 02:31:35 AM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on March 13, 2018, 07:46:09 AM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: silverback1065 on March 13, 2018, 07:49:16 AM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: TheStranger on March 13, 2018, 11:47:14 AM
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.
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.

The Octavia route also serves two purposes: maintaining the access to Fell Street that had existed prior to 2005, and increasing the accessibility of the Hayes Valley boutiques and restaurants  (Smitten Ice Cream and a beer garden each take up space in the old Central Freeway right of way along Octavia)

SAMSUNG-SM-G930A

Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on March 13, 2018, 12:25:47 PM
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. 
Title: Re: California
Post by: myosh_tino on March 13, 2018, 04:59:16 PM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on March 13, 2018, 05:53:49 PM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: skluth on March 14, 2018, 11:16:20 AM
 
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on March 14, 2018, 02:39:03 PM
 
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. 
Title: Re: California
Post by: skluth on March 14, 2018, 04:22:08 PM
Quote
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.

I think that is the best solution. I'd be fine with the CA 58 west to I-5 control point being any of Buttonwillow, Tracy, Sacramento, Oakland, or SF. The left part of the sign posted earlier with Sacramento as the control point would be great.
Title: Re: California
Post by: myosh_tino on March 14, 2018, 05:24:29 PM
 
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.

I agree with the above sentiment for pull-through signage on west 58 in Bakersfield approaching the 58/99 interchange hence the APL illustration I posted earlier.

I still do not agree with the idea of using "TO I-5" on exit signs for west 58 on north 99.  Long distance travelers would already be on I-5 as the split between the two routes is a mere 24 miles from the 99/58 interchange.  I stand by idea of using either the road's name, "Westside Pkwy", or "Buttonwillow" on these signs.


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)
Title: Re: California
Post by: skluth on March 16, 2018, 10:40:45 AM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on March 16, 2018, 04:18:01 PM
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.

The logical choice for Caltrans would be simply to move the CA 58 designation from its current alignment down to Stockdale as far as I-5.  But that's often not the method used; they might just use the next N-S artery to the west (or even CA 43) to get back to the original alignment; this is often done to avoid adding county maintenance information to the Caltrans local district compendium.  It'll probably all depend upon any schedule for completing the Westside Freeway out all the way to I-5; if it's 7-10 years or so maximum (wishful thinking!), they'll probably go ahead and take over maintenance of Stockdale and relinquish all of current CA 58 east of I-5; if the timeframe is considerably longer, they'll just shunt 58 back to the current alignment until the freeway is actually completed.  On a longer-term basis, they'd rather maintain the facilities they have on file rather than take on new ones and have to go to the bother of swapping out records with Kern County.   
Title: Re: California
Post by: andy3175 on March 17, 2018, 01:32:08 AM
Mudslide in Topanga Canyon closes SR 27 through the weekend of March 17-18:

http://ktla.com/2018/03/15/heavy-rain-returns-to-socal-prompts-road-closure-in-malibu/

Quote
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: andy3175 on March 17, 2018, 01:37:01 AM
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)

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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: andy3175 on March 17, 2018, 01:46:14 AM
http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/transportation/article202402354.html

Spend gas tax money ASAP, new Caltrans leader says of directive from Gov. Jerry Brown
By Tony Bizjak And Adam Ashton, tbizjak@sacbee.com and aashton@sacbee.com
March 01, 2018 12:01 AM and Updated March 08, 2018 06:10 PM

Quote
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: andy3175 on March 17, 2018, 01:53:08 AM
Update on Interstate 15 temporary rest area closures in Mojave Desert:

https://www.pe.com/2018/03/11/why-are-the-i-15-rest-stops-closed-on-the-route-to-las-vegas/

(https://www.pe.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/reststops24mzf_7475103.jpg?w=826)

Quote
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.”
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on March 17, 2018, 08:48:38 AM
^^^

Only problem is that the only locale between Barstow and the state line is Baker...most people probably rather just do their business out in the desert than stop there.  :-D
Title: Re: California
Post by: Plutonic Panda on March 17, 2018, 09:22:00 AM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on March 17, 2018, 10:44:52 AM
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. 
Title: Re: California
Post by: nexus73 on March 17, 2018, 11:43:28 AM
"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
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on March 17, 2018, 12:13:08 PM
"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

Didn’t the California Environmental Quallity Act become law even before the EPA was created?   You need an impact survey and permits for pretty much any new construction in California.  But then again there isn’t much stopping someone from pulling off on Zzyxz Road, Nipton Road, or even Kelbaker Road to take care of business while those permits for the rest area wells are in the work.
Title: Re: California
Post by: roadfro on March 17, 2018, 12:38:17 PM
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)".
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on March 17, 2018, 12:54:09 PM
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. 
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on March 17, 2018, 04:00:32 PM
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. 

When I was back in college in the late '60's and was driving an old beater ('61 Chevy), spring break trips to Vegas involved stopping at Baker and filling up jugs of water for the climb up the hill (water was free at gas stations back then). 
Title: Re: California
Post by: Plutonic Panda on March 17, 2018, 06:43:20 PM
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.
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: myosh_tino on March 19, 2018, 02:43:22 AM
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.

While I suspect there has been some internal discussions at Caltrans I don't have any information supporting my opinion *however* the new Express Lane signage on I-580 through the Livermore Valley and on I-680 through the San Ramon Valley is taller than 120 inches, perhaps as tall as 160 inches.

With all that said, I think the 120-inch max height is more than sufficient for overhead APL signs *IF* there isn't a second closely-spaced exit like the situation on westbound 58 approaching the 99 interchange in Bakersfield.  Here are a few examples of how APLs could work in California using the reduced height arrows...

(http://www.markyville.com/aaroads/caAPL_5-99.png)

(http://www.markyville.com/aaroads/caAPL_99-152.png)

(http://www.markyville.com/aaroads/caAPL_180-41.png)

The only snag is when a distance message (i.e. "1 MILE") is needed on an advanced APL sign.
Title: Re: California
Post by: silverback1065 on March 19, 2018, 07:47:41 AM
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!
Title: Re: California
Post by: myosh_tino on March 19, 2018, 02:35:34 PM
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...

Title: Re: California
Post by: nexus73 on March 19, 2018, 07:17:03 PM
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
Title: Re: California
Post by: paulthemapguy on March 21, 2018, 04:11:27 PM
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
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on March 21, 2018, 04:41:43 PM
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


Addressing your list:  I'm unaware of any remaining CA 66 shields; the victim of relinquishment fever.  You may find some CA 83 shields in central Ontario; check at the intersections of Holt (old US 70/99) and Mission Blvd. to the south of there (old US/CA 60).  There might be some straggler reassurance shields (83 was always sporadic at best), but also some approach shields on Mission Blvd. itself.  You won't find any CA 112 shields at all; it was originally signed as CA 61 -- but most of those shields have disappeared as well.  CA 114 never had any reassurance shields, just trailblazers from US 101 (which seem to have come & gone).  There may be a few actual Caltrans-posted CA 130 shields up on Mt. Hamilton Road near the Lick Observatory; none are left down in San Jose (again, relinquishment).  There was a single CA 153 shield on state park grounds right after the CA 49 junction a few years back; whether it's still there today is unknown to me.  CA 200: can't tell you if any reassurance and/or trailblazer shields still exist.  CA 222: never any shields or BGS reference, just white paddle mileposts.  CA 259: AFAIK, one shield SB right after the overpass from WB 210.  And I don't think D7 ever minted any "CA 710" shields for the north (Pasadena) stub-end of the I-710 freeway; the south (Alhambra) stub-end references I-710 only.  Hope that at least partially answers your questions. 
Title: Re: California
Post by: skluth on March 21, 2018, 04:49:08 PM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: TheStranger on March 21, 2018, 05:13:19 PM
I have photographed Route 112 shields before, back in 2012:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=6339.msg139285#msg139285

There was a CA 114 shield at the Willow Road/US 101 junction in Menlo Park a couple of years ago, I think it's now gone.

Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on March 21, 2018, 05:30:49 PM
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.


I was returning to San Jose from Alameda on that very section of unsigned 112 Monday (3/12/18) right where the pictured overhead CA 112 sign was located -- and it isn't there any longer; the only signage is new reflective signage for I-880; nothing referencing CA 112 or even CA 61.  That sign was likely D4 taking things literally, as they do from time to time (e.g., the trailblazer signage on US 101 referencing CA 114 in Menlo Park).  Historically, such signage tends to stay up for a couple of years before removal (usually when maintenance is required).   
Title: Re: California
Post by: silverback1065 on March 22, 2018, 09:56:46 AM
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)
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on March 22, 2018, 11:54:18 AM
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. 
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on March 22, 2018, 10:12:51 PM
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).
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on March 23, 2018, 12:02:42 AM
Part of CA 132 washed out near Coulterville during heavy rain today:

http://www.fresnobee.com/news/state/california/article206403404.html

CA 120 in Groveland was flowing like a river:

https://www.facebook.com/pgiedt/videos/2035997756414938/?fref=gs&dti=555758981241965&hc_location=group
Title: Re: California
Post by: pderocco on March 23, 2018, 03:31:20 AM
Quote
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.

Visio is a nice drawing program. You can create your own library of shapes, and resize them easily.
Title: Re: California
Post by: pderocco on March 23, 2018, 03:36:08 AM
Quote
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)".

It was the Bun Boy thermometer. The restaurant has closed, and I don't think anything has opened up in its place. The thermometer itself was working long after, but I don't think it is now.

The Mad Greek Cafe is a pretty good lunch place, if you're passing through. There was a Starbucks in Baker for a while, but it closed. Somehow three of them have survived in Barstow, though. Go figure.

Title: Re: California
Post by: pderocco on March 23, 2018, 03:38:12 AM

(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.

Title: Re: California
Post by: pderocco on March 23, 2018, 03:55:22 AM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: silverback1065 on March 23, 2018, 07:43:53 AM
is california 1 still closed from last yrs mud slides?
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on March 23, 2018, 09:08:06 AM
is california 1 still closed from last yrs mud slides?

Yes the Mud Creek Slide is still being repaired.  Essentially you can loop back to G14 via the Nacimiento-Fergusson Road to completed a quasi-through route.

I'm watching the news right now and looking at the Caltrans Quick Map.  So far I've seen the following closures related to the storms the past three days:

-  CA 140 is closed on the El Portal Road due to a rock slide.
-  CA 59 is closed between El Nido and Merced due to a washout.
-  CA 49 is closed between Bear Valley and Moccasin due to a washout.
-  CA 269 is flooded south of CA 198. 
-  CA 1 has several new slides but I don't know how serious any of them are. 
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on March 23, 2018, 09:17:35 AM
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.

I ran the Old Ridge Route and Ridge Route Alternate back in late 2016.  You'd definitely would need something with high clearance and wide tires to make through slide sections of the Old Ridge Route.

(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2400/32963610685_4681224ca8_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/SdT82g)IMG_2025 (https://flic.kr/p/SdT82g) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
Title: Re: California
Post by: Plutonic Panda on March 23, 2018, 10:55:13 AM
https://www.ocregister.com/2018/03/13/californias-highways-rank-poorly-in-condition-traffic-and-cost-effectiveness/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
Title: Re: California
Post by: NE2 on March 24, 2018, 02:02:53 AM
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?
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on March 24, 2018, 03:38:20 AM
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?

According to cahighways.org:

"In 1982, the language was added to note that Route 47 shall also include that portion of Henry Ford Avenue from Route 47 to Alameda Street and that portion of Alameda Street from Henry Ford Avenue to Route 91........."

The portion of Alameda St. from PCH (CA 1) to CA 91 was improved to a multilane arterial by 2002, at which time it was signed as CA 47; all this was done as part of a demonstration project between the Port of Los Angeles, the City of Los Angeles, and Caltrans.  The portion of Route 47 north of CA 91 was supplanted by the Alameda Corridor rail project; the southern end of that project, where the tracks descend into the trench extending to just south of downtown L.A., is almost directly beneath the CA 91 freeway overpass.  Caltrans performs the maintenance of the CA 47 section of Alameda Avenue; the cost is split between the three entities (port, city, Caltrans). 

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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: NE2 on March 24, 2018, 04:13:53 AM
I'm pretty sure that part of SR 47 isn't included in Caltrans GIS data. It is signed but that doesn't always translate to maintenance.
Title: Re: California
Post by: Occidental Tourist on March 28, 2018, 10:16:20 AM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on March 28, 2018, 03:39:50 PM
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.

Thanks!  I'll have to check it out when I'm down there this fall. 
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on April 02, 2018, 02:12:07 PM
Looks like the initial phase of the CA 132 freeway project in Modesto, extending west from CA 99 north of the present 99/108/132 interchange, got FHWA approval (a FONSI) and is slated to break ground in a bit over a year.  Interestingly -- as anyone who's driven NB on CA 99 through the area has likely observed, this project uses much of the grading done when the 132 was originally planned and when the 99 freeway was constructed through Modesto in the early '60's.  Prior to the 1957 relocation of I-5 to the Westside/LRN 238 freeway, where it resides today, this interchange would have functioned as the southern split between I-5E and I-5W, with the latter branch turning west parallel to existing CA 132. 

The plans for the new freeway (which will be constructed further west as an expressway in phase 2)are interesting in that they call for an extension of the new freeway east across the UP tracks to Needham Street north of downtown Modesto -- but it appears that CA 132 will not actually merge with the main CA 99 carriageways but parallel them on the outside and merge with the existing N-S couplet flanking the existing freeway and forming the present access from 99 to 108/132.  Since the project includes revising much of CA 99 in the area, one wonders if that includes raising or rebuilding the lower-than-standard overcrossings (a common thing for CA freeways designed and built in the late '50's and early '60's), some of which are well below 15' clearance.

The project specs can be found at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/d10/x-project-sr132west.html     
Title: Re: California
Post by: NE2 on April 02, 2018, 03:21:07 PM
Why wouldn't 132 use Needham to 14th?
Title: Re: California
Post by: skluth on April 02, 2018, 03:34:46 PM
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?
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on April 03, 2018, 02:23:01 AM
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?

Caltrans is loath to assume maintenance of any streets it's currently not maintaining; and the city of Modesto would also probably balk at assuming maintenance of the structures along the current CA 132 alignment.  Thus the path of least resistance for Caltrans is to plop eastward 132 traffic right onto the existing facility.  If GPS/Waze apps select another and possibly more efficient path, then that's what'll occur regardless of who maintains the routing.  The Needham cutoff would be more applicable to eastbound 108 traffic than 132 in any case, since 132 multiplexes SSE with Biz 99 around the city center before eventually reaching Yosemite Ave.   
Title: Re: California
Post by: djsekani on April 15, 2018, 12:59:00 AM
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

I'm pretty sure there are enough road geeks playing Cities Skylines that would be interested in this.
Title: Re: California
Post by: emory on July 01, 2018, 06:33:11 AM
Detour sign near Calexico shows an erroneous shield for "Interstate 111."

(https://i.imgur.com/k0lKIsT.png)
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on July 02, 2018, 01:56:25 AM
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:
Title: Re: California
Post by: nexus73 on July 02, 2018, 09:53:08 AM
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:

At the end of the road is a sign saying "You should have bought a squirrel!"...LOL!

Rick
Title: Re: California
Post by: kkt on July 02, 2018, 12:59:39 PM
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:

 :-D
Title: Re: California
Post by: Techknow on July 05, 2018, 08:57:34 PM
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/)
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on July 06, 2018, 11:25:56 PM
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/)

I'm planning on being out there that weekend or some time the week after.  I'm planning on heading northward from Cambria.
Title: Re: California
Post by: Techknow on July 17, 2018, 07:54:17 PM
Just announced by Caltrans today, CA 1 will actually open tomorrow at 10 AM! The ribbon cutting ceremony will still take place on Friday.

http://dot.ca.gov/dist05/paffairs/monterey/traffic_advisory_mud_creek_roadway_reopens_wednesday_7.18.18.pdf
Title: California 238 status
Post by: Alex on July 19, 2018, 08:55:31 AM
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?
Title: Re: California
Post by: jrouse on July 19, 2018, 04:14:39 PM
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?

Yes, it's been relinquished between Industrial Parkway and I-580
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on July 19, 2018, 04:21:39 PM
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   
Title: Re: California
Post by: TheStranger on July 19, 2018, 04:27:28 PM
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   

In comparison...as of last month when I drove through there, the signage for Route 238 from I-238 in Castro Valley is still up!  (Compare to, as an example, former Route 160 through midtown/downtown Sacramento, no longer acknowledged on the BGSes along US 50)

Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on July 20, 2018, 12:22:28 AM
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: 
Title: Re: California
Post by: Quillz on July 22, 2018, 01:04:41 AM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: silverback1065 on July 22, 2018, 09:33:01 AM
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:

it's california, they're terrible at signing their highways
Title: Re: California
Post by: oscar on July 22, 2018, 09:53:07 AM
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:

Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on July 22, 2018, 01:56:45 PM
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:

Quote
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.

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.

Yikes!  Southbound, that would, if taken at its linguistic extreme, mean directing traffic to SB I-880, adding to the congestion that's pretty much granted from 6 a.m. to at least 8 p.m. weekdays.  Just to provide an alternate route, it would seem fitting to actually direct traffic south along Mission to the existing section of CA 238 that starts at the Hayward city limits at Industrial Parkway just to avoid shunting it over to I-880.  But the failure to do so, along with the lack of reassurance shields on CA 238 in the city of Fremont, seems to indicate that this segment of state highway will be the next to be relinquished, consigning the non-Interstate part of 238 to the "dustbin".  If this indeed occurs, it'll be ironic that the single most inappropriately-numbered Interstate segment will be the last portion of its numerical route to survive! 
Title: Re: California
Post by: cahwyguy on July 24, 2018, 12:30:08 PM
As I was working on the map for Route 185 in the last day or two (look online; I've uploaded through 189, and done through 190), if you were on Mission, that's Route 185 not 238. I've got some detail on that on the Route 185 map. Route 185 was relinquished back to Hayward from Route 92 to A street (if memory serves correct), and then just last year, from A street for a few blocks more.
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on July 24, 2018, 04:10:57 PM
Historically, the Mission/Jackson/Foothill intersection at the south end of downtown Hayward was the junction point of CA 92, CA 185, and CA 238; the first two terminated at that intersection as well.  238, north-to-south, came down Foothill, traversed downtown and curved SW to the intersection; there it turned SE onto Mission toward Fremont.  CA 92 proceeded SW on Jackson toward the San Mateo bridge, while CA 185 came in on the northern extension of Mission that eventually became East 14th Street in San Leandro and Oakland.  CA 92 was relinquished east of I-880 several years ago after the rebuilding of the 92/880 interchange -- part of the rationale for that rebuild was to expedite/shunt through traffic intended for I-580 east onto I-880 north and thence to I-238 east so as to remove any through traffic from Hayward streets.  The last CA 185 relinquishment truncated the route just south of its interchange with I-238 (at the San Lorenzo/Hayward city line), taking it completely off Hayward arterials.  And, as has been cited earlier, CA 238 no longer exists along Foothill and Mission boulevards within Hayward city limits.  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.     
Title: Re: California
Post by: DTComposer on July 24, 2018, 08:25:16 PM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on July 25, 2018, 12:50:41 AM
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.

The originally adopted CA 238 freeway alignment (adopted back when it was still SSR 9) was about 2 blocks east of Foothill, essentially behind the rear-parking area for the downtown businesses along Foothill and would have isolated the residential area to the east from the business district.  Heading south, it sat at the bottom of the hill below (then) CSUH before cutting across Mission Blvd and angling SSE through the eastern portion of Union City before assuming a pathway directly alongside BART, eventually ending at I-680 at the bottom of the Sunol Grade hill.  The downtown Hayward and Union City sections were the most controversial circa 1971-72; both residents of the east side of Hayward and Latino activists in Union City sued the then-Division of Highways; initially to force a relocation of the freeway but, when the Division demurred, claiming the adopted route was the only reasonable alternative, to permanently enjoin the freeway's construction and rescind the adopted route.  The Hayward suit was dropped in favor of the Union City one, which cited discrimination against minorities among its complaints; it eventually won in court with a permanent injunction against construction in the general CA 238 corridor.  While the adoption recission wasn't a part of the court order, the Division -- by this time embedded within the new Caltrans -- saw the "writing on the wall" and rescinded the alignment themselves.  Although there were properties acquired -- primarily in southwest Hayward and Union City -- for the construction (originally slated for lettings in 1975-76), they were eventually sold under the Gianturco management of Caltrans.  The combination of a very disruptive alignment and, well, being in the wrong place at the wrong time vis-a-vis the '70's freeway backlash (spreading east from S.F.) doomed CA 238 -- which, IMO, if fully constructed would have likely gained Interstate status at a later date (probably a I-480 relocation). 

As far as the physical configuration of the former state alignments through Hayward are concerned, it's likely that what's on the ground now won't last; "road diets" on both Foothill and Mission (at least north of the "5-point"/Jackson intersection) will likely be deployed in the next 5 years or so, depending upon availability of funds.  The last time I was through there a few months back the downtown shopping area along Foothill had undergone a major "facelift" (it dated from the early '50's); I wouldn't at all be surprised to see the existing Foothill/Mission one-way couplet extended several blocks north prior to instituting some sort of physical overhaul including dedicated bus lanes. 
Title: Re: California
Post by: roadman65 on July 25, 2018, 08:19:57 PM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on July 25, 2018, 08:27:01 PM
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.

And the opening "speeding car" scene with the late Jimmy Durante (that ends when he literally "kicks the bucket") was filmed on the series of horseshoe curves on CA 74 as it rises into the San Jacinto mountains southwest of Palm Desert and La Quinta.  Actually, not a hell of a lot has changed with that highway over the years (the guardrails have been improved, but the alignment is essentially the same).   
Title: Re: California
Post by: roadman65 on July 25, 2018, 08:33:22 PM
Yellow lines now are the norm as back in the 60's white center lines were seen in the 1963 movie.   Another thread is current about white lines.  Goes to show how the MUTCD has changed over the decades.  In the 70's Skyline Drive in VA and other park roads were allowed then to use the white center which now all roads must use yellow.
Title: Re: California
Post by: pderocco on July 26, 2018, 12:48:51 AM
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.

There are several sites that have lots of then/now pictures from that movie. Here's one:

http://www.themoviedistrict.com/its-a-mad-mad-mad-mad-world-1963/ (http://www.themoviedistrict.com/its-a-mad-mad-mad-mad-world-1963/)
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on August 23, 2018, 08:49:35 PM
Photographed some signage oddities today.

CA 152 Westbound Detour on CA 152 West/CA 33 North.  Oddly CA 33 had a detour in the same place last year also signed on the route:

(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1897/29292063567_a0deff0981_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/LCrtYK)152CAa (https://flic.kr/p/LCrtYK) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr

Signed County Route G12 without the "G" on US 101/CA 156 in Prunedale:

(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1839/43321844575_5a219b753a_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/291cM5K)12GCRa (https://flic.kr/p/291cM5K) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr

CA 1 Business on Fremont Street in Monterey:

(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1839/43321844575_5a219b753a_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/291cM5K)12GCRa (https://flic.kr/p/291cM5K) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr

Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on August 25, 2018, 02:57:24 AM
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:
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on August 25, 2018, 09:22:53 AM
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
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on August 25, 2018, 11:45:10 AM
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! 
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on August 25, 2018, 12:15:35 PM
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!

Come to think of it I might try to give D5 a call on the County Route 18 sign.  It seems like a simple error that could lead to a navigational issue.  For what it’s worth D5 tends to sign it’s County Routes very well from state maintained roadways, that seems like an oversight to me. 
Title: Re: California
Post by: gonealookin on August 31, 2018, 11:23:02 AM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on August 31, 2018, 11:30:32 AM
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.

Didn't he wreck at Cadillac Curve?  The twists and turns alone should have deterred that decision (much less the one-lane and 24% downhill grades).
Title: Re: California
Post by: jakeroot on September 15, 2018, 02:46:05 PM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on September 16, 2018, 01:32:31 AM
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.

As far as the Anaheim pavement marking goes, that was probably done by a Disneyland crew (the ones responsible for painting markings on their various parking facilities); I've seen those crews working on the roadway outside the Disneyland Hotel on the numerous occasions I've had to stay there (I used to live in Anaheim, and the city is only too happy to let Disney handle the traffic situation in & around the park as long as they don't overstep their bounds).  Calling it the "5 Freeway" is simply shorthand for the prevailing regional vernacular.  Re 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.   
Title: Re: California
Post by: andy3175 on September 16, 2018, 11:45:52 PM
Also, on overhead signage "SOUTH 5 FWY" (as opposed to the I-5 at-grade arterial?): https://goo.gl/dmJW4R
Re 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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: jakeroot on September 17, 2018, 12:53:14 AM
I'm certain that I saw other uses of "FWY" next to interstate shields in LA, but I cannot remember where at the moment. Somewhere along the 5, 60, or 710.
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on September 17, 2018, 05:40:09 AM
Also, on overhead signage "SOUTH 5 FWY" (as opposed to the I-5 at-grade arterial?): https://goo.gl/dmJW4R
Re 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.

That makes sense.  All it takes is a trip up the Arroyo Seco to make a driver think "gee -- I'm not on a freeway anymore", particularly when they have to drop to 40 or so to make it around one of the curves.  Likely the only folks who would consider it a "real" freeway would be those who are accustomed to either NYC's BQE (I-278) or Philly's "Surekill" (I-76), both of which feature in part similar curvature and lines of sight. 
Title: Re: California
Post by: roadfro on September 17, 2018, 10:47:45 AM
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.

I believe there are some instances of state highways in California where a portion of the signed route is on surface streets while another portion is freeway. It wouldn't surprise me if terms like "the 60 freeway" made it local vernacular and subsequently have appeared on signage...

There was some discussion on this board a little while ago about a mass signing projects undertaken in a Caltrans district, wherein it seemed many of the new BGSs removed freeway names and (confusingly) control cities in favor of legends like "10 Freeway". Not sure if that was the LA district or not—there were a couple threads for different Caltrans district signing projects happening concurrently.
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on September 17, 2018, 04:40:30 PM
The part-freeway/part-surface L.A. area state highway routes (of all types) are rapidly disappearing; much of this is due to relinquishments.  The most obvious remaining transition is at the south end of the CA 2 ("Glendale") freeway, where it segues into Glendale Blvd. and subsequently onto Alvarado St., which it uses south to US 101/Hollywood Freeway, where it multiplexes north/west.  And Long Beach has its 7th Street surface west extension of CA 22 to CA 1.  But CA 110 was relinquished along its Pasadena surface stretch as well as its southern extension along Gaffey Street in San Pedro; it only currently exists on the Harbor Freeway and Arroyo Seco Parkway.  And CA 71 is gradually (and excruciatingly!) being upgraded to freeway standards through Pomona, so its situation is (hopefully) temporary.  Otherwise, the routes that are deployed over freeways are strictly freeway, while the routes (as of yet unrelinquished) remaining on surface streets do so exclusively, with the exceptions cited above.   

Common local vernacular (like the infamous "THE 57", "THE 134", and so forth) seems to have started with local radio traffic reports looking for descriptive shortcuts.  When a driver hears that talk every 10 minutes during commute hours, it tends to embed itself in the lexicon -- and that vernacular has been happening since the mid-'70's, when reporters were starting to substitute route numbers for the old freeway names.  But the word "THE", in that context, has yet to appear on BGS's or as bannering! -- so far!   :cheers: 
Title: Re: California
Post by: TheStranger on October 01, 2018, 09:23:53 AM
Just saw this posted in the SF Bay Area Roads, Freeways and Bridges group on FB, a video about how the Bayshore Freeway ended up routed directly through East Palo Alto in the 1950s:
Title: Re: California
Post by: jakeroot on October 01, 2018, 02:13:04 PM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: skluth on October 02, 2018, 02:24:34 PM
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.

I remember when I lived in St Louis, the MoDOT rep who would sit in on the Post-Dispatch chats said they were general not permitted in Missouri with more than one turn lane and would require special exemption from MoDOT. Don't know if that is true elsewhere. In the meantime, enjoy this dual 3-lane roundabout near my youngest brother's home in Green Bay.

https://www.google.com/maps/@44.5383961,-88.0774825,365m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en
Title: Re: California
Post by: roadfro on October 03, 2018, 06:13:24 PM
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...
Title: Re: California
Post by: jakeroot on October 03, 2018, 08:11:50 PM
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...

Besides the very few cities who have adopted FYAs on a very limited basis, the only place I see permissive lefts is Los Angeles, where many left turns are yield-only or yield-on-green. You do see permissive lefts in CA, but more often than not, they're at small neighborhood signals with only one lane in each direction. I suspect any permissive left across three or four lanes would be in LA-proper.
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on October 04, 2018, 01:25:05 AM
^^^^^^^^
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. 
Title: Re: California
Post by: mrsman on October 07, 2018, 03:57:59 PM
^^^^^^^^
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.

Based on the question, is a street considered to be 2 lanes or 3 lanes per direction if there are 2 lanes at all times, but parking restrictions allow for a 3rd lane during rush hours?   In that case, I know of several.

Within the city of Los Angeles, there are many pretty wide streets that allow for permissive lefts.  Many of the signals in the city have long had an aversion to any type of left turn signal, let alone protected only lefts. Venice Blvd. is 3 lanes in each direction, plus bike lanes, and many permissive lefts are allowed.  Example: Venice/Cattaurugs.  Olympic is 3 lanes eastbound and 4 lanes westbound during rush hours, in the stretch between Century City and Sepulveda - most of those intersections are permissive lefts as well, example: Olympic/Veteran.

For nearby suburbs, outside of LA proper, the above notion is generally correct.  But there are many exceptions.  Many cases where a major street (3 lanes at rush hour in each direction) intersects a minor street without protected only left turns.   Examples: Wilshire/Doheny Beverly Hills,  Century/Inglwood in Inglewood, Washington/Commerce Way in Commerce.  I also discovered that the major intersection of El Segundo/Crenshaw in Hawthorne has doghouses in each direction (20 years ago, when I drove by there they even employed simultaneous lagging lefts which is quite rare in LA).

At the same time, many quiet suburbs seem to be exclusively protected only at major streets.  You can wait along time at traffic signals traveling through the SG Valley and the Inland Empire.  Let's hope that the adoption of FYA's will change this outcome.
Title: Re: California
Post by: jakeroot on October 07, 2018, 06:24:15 PM
Thanks for that, mrsman. I realized surfing street view around LA proper, permissive lefts are far more common than not, but the suburbs seem almost frightened to use them. Or, their traffic engineers were trained by Caltrans!

Of the three suburban signals you mentioned, the Commerce one is the most impressive, as it's also by far the newest. Basically, a bit out of character!

That Inglewood signal is rather strange (beyond the lagging left, if that's still a thing), with the mast arm extending to the left past the doghouse (https://goo.gl/nmteVB). Such a sight is rather unusual in CA. In fact, I don't know of any other situations where that happens. Opposite situation in virtually every other state.
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on October 07, 2018, 08:41:14 PM
L.A. got a bit of a windfall in terms of street configuration and capacity when much of the former Pacific Electric interurban empire was removed in the '50's and early '60's.  Streets such as Venice Blvd., Culver, Blvd., and even Santa Monica and San Vicente boulevards originally featured tracks in either the median or embedded in the centers of multilane streets.  As such, these streets exhibited more lateral ROW than usual -- and were among the first to be channelized,, simply because there was the room available to do so.  But in the L.A. basin from downtown out to the beaches at Venice and Santa Monica, most trackage was generally arrayed E-W (with occasional diagonal segments); these are the streets that were "modernized" in terms of pavement marking and signalization.  The one street that featured quite a bit of channelization was Olympic Blvd.; not surprising, as that street was built (as LRN 173) well after most of the other E-W arterials -- and Division of Highways standards prevailed.  However, dedicated (non-permissive) lefts weren't common even there until the late '60's. 
Title: Re: California
Post by: mrsman on October 08, 2018, 09:21:05 AM
I came across the following pdf from the City of Los Angeles DOT website:

http://basic.cityofla.acsitefactory.com/sites/g/files/wph266/f/lacityp_021726.pdf

(It has lead to some confusion on my part about the historic routings of 101 and 66 discussed on another thread, see pp 19-21).

For purposes of this discussion, there is talk of left turn pockets and left turn signalization at pages 77 and 92.

Quote
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.


Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on October 08, 2018, 03:55:28 PM
^^^^^^^^^
Reading the cited PDF about the early ('26) US 66 routing between Pasadena and Los Angeles, it seemed that before it was finally (pre-parkway) routed along LRN 165/North Figueroa to Colorado in Eagle Rock, then east to Pasadena, some entity other than the Division of Highways (possibly ACSC, the SoCal AAA affiliate, which signed a lot of routes (official & otherwise) back then prior to comprehensive state signage) signed the Fair Oaks/Huntington/Mission/Broadway route as US 66 (with ACSC-tagged shields) between 1926 and about 1930-31.  There are no archival Division records recognizing that route as a state-maintained highway; North Figueroa St. was the closest such facility.   
Title: Re: California
Post by: mrsman on October 08, 2018, 11:44:07 PM
Reading by the latest posts on this thread, it seems that there was a lot of realignment of routings between 1926 and 1939.  It's surprising, because I assumed that any us highway essentially followed one routing until the freeways were built.  But it seems like 101, 99, 60, and 66 kept changing their routings.


Nexus 5X

Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on October 09, 2018, 03:14:47 AM
^^^^^^^^
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.     
Title: Re: California
Post by: TheStranger on October 09, 2018, 07:20:24 AM
^^^^^^^^
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
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on October 09, 2018, 03:27:27 PM
^^^^^^^^
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

It was always on the basic MacArthur corridor (which used to be called Foothill in the San Leandro area) west to Grand Ave.; prior to the Bay Bridge's construction it turned southwest on Grand to Broadway, then turned SSW on Broadway to the ferry terminal located near Jack London Square (also used by US 40 coming in down San Pablo Avenue).  It was rerouted over MacArthur to the old Distribution Structure (the forerunner of the 80/580/880 interchange) in 1936 when the bridge opened. 
Title: Re: California
Post by: AsphaltPlanet on October 27, 2018, 09:19:52 PM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: jakeroot on October 27, 2018, 09:32:10 PM
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.

Very nice! Couple spelling errors but nothing that can be changed now :-P
Title: Re: California
Post by: AsphaltPlanet on October 27, 2018, 09:35:16 PM
it wouldn't be one of my videos if i didn't type something in incorrectly.
Title: Re: California
Post by: jakeroot on October 28, 2018, 01:22:55 AM
it wouldn't be one of my videos if i didn't type something in incorrectly.

 :-D humility is a good trait.
Title: Re: California
Post by: MarkF on October 28, 2018, 03:18:12 AM
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.

I don't think I've ever not had thick traffic in the section north of LAX to I-10, or coming up on the 405-101 interchange.
The lightest traffic I usually see in L.A is on a Sunday when the following Monday is a holiday.

I shot a video of that stretch on a Sunday afternoon last June, didn't have your luck with traffic.
Title: Re: California
Post by: AsphaltPlanet on October 28, 2018, 09:10:10 AM
Yeah, I was lucky to have good traffic when I filmed it.  I did deliberately choose to film on a Sunday morning in hopes for finding the best traffic, but you never know with construction and traffic accidents what kind of traffic you're actually going to encounter.
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on November 23, 2018, 11:34:43 PM
Picked up an unused G28-1 spec California State Route 14 shield:

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4903/45110139825_45c4e879e0_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2bJefXt)Untitled (https://flic.kr/p/2bJefXt) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr

I run into this shield type now and then out on the State Highways. Generally I've founded them to be somewhat common in Southern California mostly.  The G28-1 spec shield is substantially smaller than the G28-2 shield that is a far more common variant.  Personally I think the G28-1 is pretty ugly but it fits well in my garage with the bigger shields.  Below I linked over the California MUTCD specs for G28-1 and G28-2 shields.

http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/tcd/docs/G28-1.pdf

http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/tcd/docs/G28-2.pdf
Title: Re: California
Post by: roadfro on November 28, 2018, 03:29:19 AM
MOD NOTE: Taking a cue from the Northwest and Mountain West boards, I’ve set this thread as a sticky for random observations or questions relating to California. Moving forward, if a topic in this thread starts delving into detailed/extended conversation, I’ll likely split that discussion off to a more dedicated thread. —Roadfro
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on November 28, 2018, 12:44:50 PM
^^^^^^^^^
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!).
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on November 28, 2018, 01:46:16 PM
^^^^^^^^^
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
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on November 28, 2018, 03:30:36 PM
^^^^^^^^^
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

Most of my D5 sojourns are in Santa Cruz, San Benito, and northern Monterey counties; the state-name-less shields just don't seem to have been deployed up there; the next time I go south to L.A. -- if I use US 101 -- I'll look for the CA 227 shields Max mentioned.  It's probably as simple as some of Caltrans' corporate yards stocking one shield type or another; SLO may have some "neutered" shields while Salinas doesn't.
Title: Re: California
Post by: bing101 on December 14, 2018, 05:43:30 PM


Cool Ride on the CA-2 and former US-66 by Interstate 411
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on December 16, 2018, 02:09:05 PM
Had a weird sign find yesterday with a co-signed CR J6-7 Shield:

https://flic.kr/p/2dAjdqH
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on December 17, 2018, 02:48:08 AM
Hmmm.......J6-7; that would make J-1!  Seriously, that must be SB; I've taken J7 all the way NB and don't recall seeing that sign -- it certainly would have made an impression!  I suppose we Californians should be damn lucky that there are still some county pentagons out there in the field!
Title: Re: California
Post by: NE2 on December 17, 2018, 07:56:19 AM
That one's southbound, but there is an equivalent northbound:
(https://scontent.ftpa1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/29468199_1954573884873383_3981420488525086720_n.jpg?_nc_cat=109&_nc_ht=scontent.ftpa1-1.fna&oh=6d960f135015fcf8592acfc06a5fa9e6&oe=5CAE26E3)
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on December 17, 2018, 08:46:10 AM
Regarding the J7-6 shield I saw it at the last second hence the crappy pic on my end.  To that end J7 has a ton of signage but I would consider much of it to be “good” given the placement.  Most of the J7 shields were mounted below Signs for road junctions, especially on Mariposa Road in San Joaquin County.  It would have been easy to lose J7 had I not be already aware what the routing actually was.  In Riverbank J7 traffic is routed onto CA 108 eastbound, there is no reassurance shield at all at Claus Road. 
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on December 18, 2018, 02:58:27 AM
IMO what CA needs is a good county-maintained "secondary" system to replace the inconsistent and occasionally just weird signed county networks (but with the current state criteria, Caltrans will end up paying for a good chunk of those roads as well) a la NJ.  Many years ago I took a bunch of county-level ACSC/CSAA maps and laid out a system (mostly rural except for a couple of suburban connectors) -- a Jersey-like (#500 and up) system starting in the San Diego area and working north.  Lots of shield concepts; but few retaining the pentagon standard or color scheme.  One of these days I'll get it recreated and post it (but don't hold your breath; it'll come when I can find the time). 

Just got back from a short round-trip down to Hollister.  US 101 north from the end of the freeway south of Gilroy to Cochrane Road in Morgan Hill (where it expands from 6 to 8 lanes) has recently been restriped with 6-inch lines; the southern section (as far north as the San Martin truck scales) still has raised reflective wedges in between the lane stripes; but they're more sporadic the farther north one gets.  I'm guessing that if the wedges detach themselves, D4 isn't replacing them -- but somehow the ones around Gilroy are pretty much all intact.  Light rain was occurring during my trip north (well after dark), but the stripes lacked any reflective element; at night, the reflective dots were much more useful.  The combination of the wider stripes plus the dots seems to work exceptionally well at night to delineate the lanes; IMO it's a mistake to get rid of the dots/wedges.
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on December 18, 2018, 07:32:54 AM
^^^

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. 
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on December 18, 2018, 07:36:55 PM
^^^

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. 
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on December 19, 2018, 12:00:11 AM
^^^

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
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on December 19, 2018, 12:26:31 AM
Somewhat like that, but a bit more rectangular favoring the horizontal.  White where the green is, green where the white is, with black numbers and the route type ID top & bottom.  Chances are to get 3 numbers onto the shield, the stick-on black digits would be series "A" or "B".  Overall, probably about 3.0' (horizontal) x 2.5' (vertical).  Could be posted on existing light standards, parking signs, etc. without too much trouble.   
Title: Re: California
Post by: danthecatrafficlightfan on January 05, 2019, 09:13:41 PM
^^^

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.



Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on January 05, 2019, 09:22:31 PM
^^^

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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: danthecatrafficlightfan on January 14, 2019, 01:29:53 PM
^^^

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.

also many people think the ca 99 goes from bakersfield to sacramento. it doesn't it goes from wheeler ridge to los minos. also caltrans supposedly has plans to turn this into an interstate. it would be either i-7 or i-9. but but it lost a lot of it's traffic when i-5 was built. i hope it doesn't get turned into an interstate highway as i just don't see the need for it.

https://www.interstate-guide.com/i-009.html

apparently for a breif time from los minos to stockton was a temorary i-5. i did not know that and i will look for other sites that also list this.
Title: Re: California
Post by: danthecatrafficlightfan on January 14, 2019, 01:38:30 PM
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

Title: Re: California
Post by: danthecatrafficlightfan on January 14, 2019, 02:07:57 PM
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.




Title: Re: California
Post by: danthecatrafficlightfan on January 14, 2019, 02:12:17 PM
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!
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on January 14, 2019, 03:04:26 PM
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!

Deadmans Curve is part of the original Ridge Route alignment.  Check out the Ridge Route, El Camino Viejo or CA 138/Old CA 138 threads since the blog link has the information you are looking for. 
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on January 17, 2019, 07:33:26 PM
One of the old CA 69 shields popped up on Ebay.  I'd love to have given my affinity for CA 245 but I'm not paying anywhere near what the asking price is:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-Highway-Sign-69-California-Road-Street-hot-rat-rod/153342192974?hash=item23b3e82d4e:g:KPMAAOSwVAtcPwYt:rk:10:pf:0
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on January 17, 2019, 09:37:32 PM
^^^^^^^^
Hmmmm....straight vertical edges near the bottom of the side arc, a bit darker green than found on current issue signs.....this looks like one of the 1964 originals.  I wonder if it came from the "collection" of that friend of a friend from the University of Redlands who had his wall plastered with them ca. 1969.  If so, there might be a couple dozen more coming along.  I'd buy one if it were $75-100, but no more than that (it would end up in the garage anyway; I have no interest in enduring my GF's "death by a thousand glares" if I attempted to put it anywhere in the house!). 
Title: Re: California
Post by: emory on January 28, 2019, 03:38:05 AM
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.

(https://i.imgur.com/OUSJMa9.png)
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on January 28, 2019, 07:24:04 AM
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. 
Title: Re: California
Post by: danthecatrafficlightfan on January 28, 2019, 02:27:15 PM
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

sadly within the past month it was removed.
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on January 28, 2019, 04:35:02 PM
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. 

Simple "mistaken identity" in the case of CA 258 -- that was one freeway proposed back in '59 that was never going to be built (the property acquisition costs along would have been more than prohibitive); and with Caltrans' zeal in offloading urban surface streets, the notion that they'd assume maintenance of Western Avenue is just plain silly!  As far as CA 122 is concerned, Google Maps shows the section of Pearblossom Highway between CA 14 and CA 138 as its signed/adopted location; AFAIK D7 has no intent of taking over ownership of that section of highway -- although that's something I personally suggested to them back in the '90's, since it is a major area connector and functionally traces the more recent trajectory of the never-actually-adopted 122.  Someone is engaging in wishful thinking!
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on February 01, 2019, 12:29:41 AM
Picked up a Lassen County Route A25 shield on the cheap off eBay the other day.  I haven't driven this one but I've driven by it several times on US 395 near Honey Lake on the way to Reno and/or Susanville.  I'd prefer a J1 or J16 but its rare enough these become available:

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4869/46945257561_879c34fdaa_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2ewoHwr)Untitled (https://flic.kr/p/2ewoHwr) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
Title: Re: California
Post by: gonealookin on February 19, 2019, 06:08:38 PM
We're trying "e-closures" to make Waze tell people to stay on US 50 as they exit the Tahoe Basin westbound, rather than using the side roads to avoid 50 until the last point before it starts ascending Echo Summit.

https://www.tahoedailytribune.com/news/local-officials-make-plea-to-navigation-app-company/ (https://www.tahoedailytribune.com/news/local-officials-make-plea-to-navigation-app-company/)

Quote
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.

Apparently the first test of this strategy, this past weekend, was not too successful.

http://southtahoenow.com/story/02/17/2019/chp-continue-testing-electronic-closure-roads-meyers (http://southtahoenow.com/story/02/17/2019/chp-continue-testing-electronic-closure-roads-meyers)

Quote
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on February 19, 2019, 06:25:05 PM
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. 
Title: Re: California
Post by: gonealookin on February 19, 2019, 07:04:05 PM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on February 19, 2019, 07:06:41 PM
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. 
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on February 19, 2019, 07:14:59 PM
But to your point that agriculture station doesn’t do anyone any favors where it is located near South Lake Tahoe.  Really it’s one of the prime examples why the agriculture inspection ought to be commercial vehicle only with a turn off like most states do.  There is such minimal truck traffic headed up CA 88 or E16 that the station could be moved closer to Placerville where US 50 can handle more of a traffic load.  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 trough access anymore. 
Title: Re: California
Post by: gonealookin on February 19, 2019, 07:22:51 PM
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.

Pioneer Trail isn't the problem North Upper Truckee Road is.  Pioneer Trail is built pretty much to state highway standards, there's a signal at that intersection of 50 and Pioneer Trail so drivers entering 50 at that point don't have to force their way into jammed traffic the way they do at the North Upper Truckee Road stop sign, and you can see from the map there are a few more alternate routes over in that neighborhood so the residents' and emergency vehicle access isn't as problematic on that side.

...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. 

The locals would love that solution, but California state law states you can't say only certain people can use a public road.  If residents can use it, anyone can use it.

Personally I would put a gate at the intersection of North Upper Truckee Road and US 50, close it for these weekend hours when this is a problem and give the key code only to police/fire/ambulance.  I'm not sure what state law says about that idea.
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on February 19, 2019, 07:47:57 PM
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. 
Title: Re: California
Post by: nexus73 on February 19, 2019, 08:25:07 PM
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
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on February 19, 2019, 09:16:05 PM
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

Getting across Oregon on the whole is easier in the Cascades I’ve found opposed to the Sierras.  I’ve done Crater Lake and OR 62 a couple times in the winter and didn’t have much trouble.  The 20 something feet of snow on the south rim of Crater Lake in particular was quite the sight to behold and just to hang out for the day back in 2016. 
Title: Re: California
Post by: gonealookin on February 19, 2019, 09:51:56 PM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: nexus73 on February 19, 2019, 10:29:02 PM
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
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on February 19, 2019, 11:08:31 PM
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

 I-80 is faster while US 50 is more scenic.  Granted I-80 has close access to Donner Pass, really it depends what you want out travel between the two locales.  Best for me usually means most scenic, that being the case it’s hard beating Cave Rock on US 50. 
Title: Re: California
Post by: gonealookin on February 20, 2019, 01:38:38 AM
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

If you're going fron Sacramento to the Nevada valleys east of Tahoe...fastest to Carson City and points north of there would be I-80 to Reno, then I-580 south to Carson.  To Minden/Gardnerville I'd use US 50 to Meyers, the Pioneer Trail shortcut to Stateline, briefly back on US 50 and then NV 207 over to Carson Valley.

From Sacramento to the east shore of Tahoe...fastest is I-80 to CA 267 to CA/NV 28 to points north of the junction of US 50 and NV 28.  US 50 to Pioneer Trail to US 50 to points south of that junction.
Title: Re: California
Post by: JustDrive on March 03, 2019, 10:47:15 AM
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.
Title: Re: California
Post by: GaryA on March 04, 2019, 08:02:55 PM
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.)
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on March 04, 2019, 08:49:51 PM
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?
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on March 06, 2019, 02:18:21 AM
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?

So CA 39 is slated to open 31+ years from now -- right at the beginning of the snow season?  Either someone is being disingenuous, or D7 is simply pulling the info right out of their collective ass!   Seriously, the Valley HSR section will be opened -- if only as an Amtrak alternative route -- well before the ill-fated CA 39 ( :ded:) reaches CA 2 again! 
Title: Re: California
Post by: ClassicHasClass on March 06, 2019, 09:24:29 AM
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.

Yeah, that's relatively new. You did see it on some older signage (the enamel-on-steel I-805 overheads at the I-8 junction said National City and Chula Vista) but most of the signage actually on I-5 itself didn't, for example. As a sad thing the quirky old "5 SOUTH 5" stuff is disappearing with the replacement (the second 5 was of course US 101).
Title: Re: California
Post by: NE2 on March 06, 2019, 06:19:38 PM
It's called a placeholder...
Title: Re: California
Post by: jakeroot on March 06, 2019, 11:42:01 PM
As a sad thing the quirky old "5 SOUTH 5" stuff is disappearing with the replacement (the second 5 was of course US 101).

Interesting, because I can think of at least two states (Minnesota and Washington) that have used this shield/direction arrangement intentionally, even when there was only one signed route.
Title: Re: California
Post by: Mark68 on March 07, 2019, 01:33:04 PM
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...
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on March 07, 2019, 05:30:00 PM
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...

The problem likely is cost versus benefit.  Considering how long it had been since 39 was open it is clear the expenditure isn’t worth investing for Caltrans.  To that end I can’t say that I blame them, a rock shed would be a little inordinate in terms of price for the amount of traffic 39 would get.  If it wasn’t for potential fire evacuation I suspect 39 would have been abandoned in the same manner the dirt part of 173 has. 
Title: Re: California
Post by: sparker on March 07, 2019, 07:03:36 PM
^^^^^^^^
Seeing as how Caltrans has been busy relinquishing the "flatland" portion of CA 39 from the San Gabriel Canyon south through Azusa and Covina, it's hard to imagine them prioritizing a topographically problematic section of mountain highway disconnected from the remainder of the system.  That stretch of functionally "dead end" state highway is principally utilized for mountain recreation by locals; with or without the connection to CA 2 or southward to I-210 and/or I-10, it'll still be utilized by those same locals regardless of status -- but L.A. County and or the Forest Service would probably balk at any attempt to relinquish CA 39 in the canyon itself since that would mean a shift of maintenance expenses to either or both of those parties.   
Title: Re: California
Post by: Max Rockatansky on March 07, 2019, 11:11:17 PM
^^^^^^^^
Seeing as how Caltrans has been busy relinquishing the "flatland" portion of CA 39 from the San Gabriel Canyon south throu