AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules to ensure post quality. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: California  (Read 273395 times)

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2867
  • Location: Los Angeles/OKC
  • Last Login: Today at 12:25:20 AM
Re: California
« Reply #1300 on: August 13, 2021, 11:32:02 PM »

That is fucking stupid
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8495
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: September 12, 2021, 12:44:33 AM
Re: California
« Reply #1301 on: August 13, 2021, 11:55:59 PM »

Article on projects that may be delayed in the San Diego-area TransNet program as priorities shift toward transit mobility.

https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/government/here-are-the-transnet-projects-that-probably-arent-happening/

Quote
Regional planners outlining the future of transportation in San Diego are ready to acknowledge which highway and transit projects from the region’s last vision aren’t happening.

Twenty-one projects included in TransNet, the 2004 voter-approved sales tax for regional infrastructure funding, are unlikely to be built as part of a broad reimagining of San Diego’s transportation system, executives from the San Diego Association of Governments told an oversight board last month and confirmed to Voice of San Diego in a follow-up interview.

The board of directors – composed of elected officials from across the county – still has final say on any decision, but the agency’s staff, led by director Hasan Ikhrata, has said in no uncertain terms that there is no money for the unbuilt TransNet projects, and that they wouldn’t have any place in his new vision for regional transportation even if there was.

The list of likely-to-be-canceled projects includes 19 highway improvements, one rapid bus line from San Ysidro to Sorrento Mesa and a tunnel in Coronado. They’re the same projects that have been on the chopping block since Ikhrata came to SANDAG in 2018, and began promising a new system built around hundreds of miles of fast, frequent trains.


List of impacted projects (which could be funded by other sources in the future, delayed indefinitely, or fully deleted) is in the weblink.



SM-G975U



Noticed that the only outstanding item regarding the upgrade of I-15 to full Interstate standards -- the revamping of the 15/94 interchange -- is only addressed peripherally, as the potential cancellation of the HOV connectors between the two routes, not the issue of LH entrances/exits.  Nevertheless, as SANDAG and its director have little or no interest in that CA 15 segment, it may be time for D11 to request a waiver for the interchange -- particularly since the offending ramps only have LH entrances/exits on CA 94; all on and off moves on CA 15 are from the right side of each carriageway.  It's time that the problem is put to bed and I-15 directly signed from I-5.  And if it can be done by simple paperwork rather than projects that would involve hostile parties' assent, all the better. 

That is fucking stupid

Yeah -- closed minds occur across all the sociopolitical spectrum; no ideology has a monopoly on short-sightedness!
Logged

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2867
  • Location: Los Angeles/OKC
  • Last Login: Today at 12:25:20 AM
Re: California
« Reply #1302 on: August 14, 2021, 01:45:18 AM »

I mean I understand the need for mass transit emphasis in SoCal but come on! The freeway in and around San Diego are so neglected. I bet this doesn’t bode well for the people there.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8495
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: September 12, 2021, 12:44:33 AM
Re: California
« Reply #1303 on: August 14, 2021, 01:02:59 PM »

I mean I understand the need for mass transit emphasis in SoCal but come on! The freeway in and around San Diego are so neglected. I bet this doesn’t bode well for the people there.

What's interesting is the somewhat extensive LR system in the region hasn't extended north along the I-15 corridor, where much of the growth is occurring.   Maybe SANDAG leadership simply has a disdain for suburbs, although simply neglecting them seems a bit gratuitous and a pointless exercise; simply not providing transit for an area doesn't have the effect of convincing folks out there to move back into the city center; they'll just continue to use their cars/trucks for their daily activities.  San Jose has a somewhat similar problem; the LR layout, accompanied by local zoning changes, was intended to draw residents into downtown while the tech jobs remained on the periphery -- some called it a "coder conduit".  But that didn't happen to the extent that the planners thought it would, and in the meantime those persons most in need of transit, including several communities of color, were ill-served by the system; instead of concentrating on shuttling tech workers to the residential areas preferred by planners, they could have enhanced the mobility of tens of thousands of historically underpaid and underserved city residents.  But they didn't -- and the system (when it's up & running!) remains underutilized.   
Logged

Occidental Tourist

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 736
  • Last Login: June 26, 2022, 02:29:59 AM
Re: California
« Reply #1304 on: August 14, 2021, 10:14:16 PM »

I don’t believe there’s an existing rail line that runs inland from San Diego for any appreciable length.  They’d have to start from scratch on obtaining the right of way, which would be prohibitively expensive.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8495
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: September 12, 2021, 12:44:33 AM
Re: California
« Reply #1305 on: August 15, 2021, 03:58:13 AM »

I don’t believe there’s an existing rail line that runs inland from San Diego for any appreciable length.  They’d have to start from scratch on obtaining the right of way, which would be prohibitively expensive.

Actually, there was MU (multi-powered-unit) car service on the old Santa Fe Escondido branch from Oceanside a few years back; don't know if that service is in operation today.  Was more or less the "long way around" for commuters from San Diego to Escondido (think of heading north on I-5 then backtracking southeast on CA 78), so when it was established, there were doubts about its efficacy.  As far as running LR north, it probably would have to in some way utilize the general I-15 (and possibly CA 163) corridor -- maybe even the ROW itself.  There's really not much of an alternate path through the hills, since the watershed (or what passes for it in that neck of the woods) tends to drain through E-W canyons down to the coast, where it becomes wetlands on the landward side of the beach spit (hence all the lagoons along I-5).  But since SANDAG seems to be train-happy, if not able to afford to fulfill its plans, it wouldn't surprise me to see some future rail corridor following I-15 at least north to Rancho Bernardo. 
Logged

Lukeisroads

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 42
  • Me live in bakersfield AND HATE 99 at rush hour

  • Location: Bakersfield,CA
  • Last Login: June 27, 2022, 10:53:21 PM
Re: California
« Reply #1306 on: August 17, 2021, 07:05:06 PM »

Totally different topic
who likes the new kramer junction intersec
stands for intersection
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 19082
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 12:16:59 PM
    • Gribblenation
Re: California
« Reply #1307 on: August 17, 2021, 07:50:10 PM »

Totally different topic
who likes the new kramer junction intersec
stands for intersection

What?

Also, me live in Fresno and hate crash boom time with 99 in Atwater.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2021, 07:56:49 PM by Max Rockatansky »
Logged

pderocco

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 223
  • Two wrongs don't make a right--but three lefts do.

  • Age: 69
  • Location: El Cajon, CA
  • Last Login: June 25, 2022, 06:33:22 PM
Re: California
« Reply #1308 on: August 18, 2021, 12:39:39 AM »

Totally different topic
who likes the new kramer junction intersec
stands for intersection
Much better than before, but not so great if you're on 395 (two new traffic lights). Eventually, they'll need another "Kramer Junction Bypass" for 395.

It's odd that they've poured so much money into 58 in the last 20 years, but have barely touched 395.
Logged
Ciao,
Paul

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8495
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: September 12, 2021, 12:44:33 AM
Re: California
« Reply #1309 on: August 18, 2021, 05:59:50 AM »

Totally different topic
who likes the new kramer junction intersec
stands for intersection
Much better than before, but not so great if you're on 395 (two new traffic lights). Eventually, they'll need another "Kramer Junction Bypass" for 395.

It's odd that they've poured so much money into 58 in the last 20 years, but have barely touched 395.

Not really surprising as 58, as the logical extension of I-40, is the principal E-W trucking corridor across the northern tier of SoCal, connecting that Interstate to the San Joaquin Valley and, by extension, the Bay Area.  That being said, US 395, along with CA 58 west of Kramer, makes up a viable commercial bypass of metro L.A. for truck traffic from I-10 (or even San Diego) to points north in order to avoid congestion in the L.A. basin.  Being a 2-lane desert highway that passes through a hilly stretch between Adelanto and Kramer Junction, it can be a bit scary/dicey, particularly in regards to the level of truck traffic on the road.  Originally, a freeway alignment west of the existing facility through Victorville and Adelanto was proposed; later, it was thought (at least locally) that the High Desert Corridor would serve as a connector over to I-15 north of Victorville, which would have the effect of making the Adelanto/Victorville N-S segment less of a priority.  But now that facility is on hold, so plans (no formal alignment adoption as of yet) are back to being up in the air as far as a freeway through the developed area is concerned.  Nevertheless, I would expect that D8 would press for some sort of improvement to the 2-lane stretch from Adelanto to 58 sooner than later, probably in the form of a divided expressway -- that stretch is really dangerous.  While the whole corridor warrants improvement, the portion posing the greatest safety issues will likely be addressed first. 
Logged

Lukeisroads

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 42
  • Me live in bakersfield AND HATE 99 at rush hour

  • Location: Bakersfield,CA
  • Last Login: June 27, 2022, 10:53:21 PM
Re: California
« Reply #1310 on: August 22, 2021, 11:42:51 AM »

Totally different topic
who likes the new kramer junction intersec
stands for intersection
Much better than before, but not so great if you're on 395 (two new traffic lights). Eventually, they'll need another "Kramer Junction Bypass" for 395.

It's odd that they've poured so much money into 58 in the last 20 years, but have barely touched 395.

Not really surprising as 58, as the logical extension of I-40, is the principal E-W trucking corridor across the northern tier of SoCal, connecting that Interstate to the San Joaquin Valley and, by extension, the Bay Area.  That being said, US 395, along with CA 58 west of Kramer, makes up a viable commercial bypass of metro L.A. for truck traffic from I-10 (or even San Diego) to points north in order to avoid congestion in the L.A. basin.  Being a 2-lane desert highway that passes through a hilly stretch between Adelanto and Kramer Junction, it can be a bit scary/dicey, particularly in regards to the level of truck traffic on the road.  Originally, a freeway alignment west of the existing facility through Victorville and Adelanto was proposed; later, it was thought (at least locally) that the High Desert Corridor would serve as a connector over to I-15 north of Victorville, which would have the effect of making the Adelanto/Victorville N-S segment less of a priority.  But now that facility is on hold, so plans (no formal alignment adoption as of yet) are back to being up in the air as far as a freeway through the developed area is concerned.  Nevertheless, I would expect that D8 would press for some sort of improvement to the 2-lane stretch from Adelanto to 58 sooner than later, probably in the form of a divided expressway -- that stretch is really dangerous.  While the whole corridor warrants improvement, the portion posing the greatest safety issues will likely be addressed first.

and plus the old kramer junction was beat up due to semi's
Logged

andy3175

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1466
  • Location: San Diego, California, USA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:37:32 AM
    • AARoads
Re: California
« Reply #1311 on: August 22, 2021, 07:02:01 PM »

Having just driven 395 on the two-lane section, safety considerations will require eventual modifications to separate the two directions of traffic and allow for safe passage. With packs of cars jockeying for position at speeds well in excess of the limit to complete the 395 desert segment fastest, it is a matter of time before additional safety improvements are warranted and arranged. This can be done by expanding the existing safety improvements (flaps separating two directions of traffic, improved signage, and wider shoulders) made on 395 south of 58 to include areas on 395 north of 58, followed by passing lane expansion and eventual median separation between the two directions of traffic. I've experienced this high level of traffic volume on weekdays as well as weekends between 15 and 14. Hopefully these safety improvements will come soon.

SM-G975U

Logged
Regards,
Andy

www.aaroads.com

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2867
  • Location: Los Angeles/OKC
  • Last Login: Today at 12:25:20 AM
Re: California
« Reply #1312 on: August 22, 2021, 07:06:40 PM »

I drove the stretch from Adelanto to CA-58 where it is two lanes with zero passing lanes and those delineators and overly wide shoulders last month. First time I ever took that route and it’ll probably be my last until that gets fixed. Was passed 3 times on the shoulder by impatient drivers and I almost considered doing it myself when I was behind a very slow semi. This stretch needs to be 4 lanes the whole way just a steady stream of traffic. I can’t believe how bad California neglects the freeways and roads in the high desert in this area.

Even in Phelan and west Victorville there were so many roads that needed to be four or even six lanes.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8495
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: September 12, 2021, 12:44:33 AM
Re: California
« Reply #1313 on: August 23, 2021, 04:54:12 AM »

Having just driven 395 on the two-lane section, safety considerations will require eventual modifications to separate the two directions of traffic and allow for safe passage. With packs of cars jockeying for position at speeds well in excess of the limit to complete the 395 desert segment fastest, it is a matter of time before additional safety improvements are warranted and arranged. This can be done by expanding the existing safety improvements (flaps separating two directions of traffic, improved signage, and wider shoulders) made on 395 south of 58 to include areas on 395 north of 58, followed by passing lane expansion and eventual median separation between the two directions of traffic. I've experienced this high level of traffic volume on weekdays as well as weekends between 15 and 14. Hopefully these safety improvements will come soon.

SM-G975U



Since the traffic mix is considerably different on US 395 north of CA 58 than the section to the south, it's likely D8's -- as well as the overall view emanating from Caltrans HQ -- plans would prioritize the southern segment well before any significant work would be done to the north.  395 between Victorville/I-15 and CA 58 is effectively part of a de facto commercial L.A. bypass -- as well as an effective alternate route from the multitudes of distribution warehouses in the Inland Empire -- essentially from Pomona all the way out to Redlands -- to northern CA, avoiding having to go through any part of L.A. County (even I-210's western reaches are more congested than in years past).  CA 138 is considered (a) dangerous over its 2-lane stretch through the Phelan area, and (b) more of a slog now than before, since D7's 4-laning projects included signals along the way in the Pearblossom and Littlerock areas.  Once the CA 58 Mojave bypass was completed 18 years ago, the die was cast, and 15 (including the 215 feed-in)/395/58 became the conduit of choice.  So these days it's doing double-duty diverting through traffic from I-10 as well as San Diego from the L.A. basin, as well as one of the northern outlets of choice for traffic originating in the Empire. 

With that traffic base using the facility largely 24/7, safety issues, heretofore addressed by the "band-aid" approach of periodic passing lanes and sporadic median structures, share DOT concern along with the capacity issues that become more pressing as time goes by.  The chances for anything but slightly larger-scale versions of the measures being currently deployed along US 395 giving way to an all-out divided facility, expressway or freeway, are less than robust until it is decided to actually increase the capacity of the highway.  One of the issues mitigating against the latter consideration is just where this increased traffic is to go on the south end of the corridor through Adelanto, west Victorville, and Hesperia.  It was widely thought that with expedited construction of the HDC, the segment between US 395 and I-15 north of Victorville would serve, at least initially, as the volume outlet for traffic heading north or coming south on the outlying 395 segment, simply shunting traffic laterally for about four miles to I-15. 

This "shunt" was considered vitally important, since there's been a longstanding controversy about just where to place a future 395 freeway alignment through the developed area from the current 15/395 split north through Adelanto.  Originally the idea, agreed upon by the cities of Hesperia and Victorville was to simply follow the existing arterial corridor; to that effect adjacent property was reserved, shifting from one side of the present highway to the other to allow commercial development of the area.  When Adelanto incorporated in the late '90's it did much the same by simply just keeping a "buffer zone" around 395 and placing development, including their own civic center, on adjacent or closely parallel streets.  However, the regional MPO had other ideas, preferring a parallel N-S alignment about a mile west of the present route and snaking past several large housing tracts.  The property previously reserved by the cities would be utilized for infill -- including some lower-income housing, in scarce supply even out in the high desert, where property valuation was largely less than "over the hill" in the Inland Empire.  The MPO's rationale was twofold -- enhance the infill potential as described above, and effect separation of through 395 traffic from its present highly commercialized alignment.  But the cities, whose governments were and are dominated by interests favoring existing zoning and land-use practices, demurred from the MPO plan.  The section of the HDC between 395 and I-15 would have rendered the controversy less of an obstacle by being able to deliver 395 traffic to 15 and vice-versa despite the impasse between the cities and the MPO.  When the HDC's road component was shelved, this meant that a capacity increase on 395 between Adelanto and CA 58 would have "nowhere to go", dumping traffic onto the existing 395 arterial street or the alternative along Air Base Parkway and the Old Trails Highway (historic US 66) favored by locals in the know and more or less along the HDC alignment.  Now -- whether the HDC segment east of 395, including the Apple Valley CA 18 realignment, could be considered a local SIU, and not included within the agreement that effectively sunk the road portion of the corridor, is still being debated -- the toll road concept was to have had its east end at US 395; the remainder east of there would have been constructed as a freeway, with an expressway extension commencing east of I-15. 

The bottom line is that without a viable freeway outlet to I-15, Caltrans/D8 was and is reluctant to plan & build a 4-lane divided facility along the outlying portion of US 395, safety issues notwithstanding. 
Logged

roadman65

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 12485
  • Location: Lakeland, Florida
  • Last Login: Today at 12:27:46 PM
Re: California
« Reply #1314 on: August 25, 2021, 10:39:26 PM »



Why is the zipper barrier away from the toll plaza here??

Logged
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

Techknow

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 234
  • Location: San Francisco, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 11:02:58 AM
Re: California
« Reply #1315 on: August 29, 2021, 01:31:56 AM »



Why is the zipper barrier away from the toll plaza here??

I haven't driven through GGB in two years but the zipper barrier besides being designed for the bridge is also moved in weekdays to convert the bridge from 3+3 lanes to 4+2 lanes in either direction to accommodate rush hour. (If there's a joke I definitely missed it)

This is not new per se because it's viewable in GMaps streetview since April but at the I-280 / US 101 junction the US 101 shield has worn out so much that a replacement was put in front of it as opposed to replacing the whole BGS. Another BGS behind it got the same treatment, but there's still a worn out I-80 sign on a BGS where I-80 starts (but the Junction I-80 shield is still there!)

Logged

TJS23

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 21
  • Location: California
  • Last Login: January 31, 2022, 03:25:46 PM
Re: California
« Reply #1316 on: August 30, 2021, 03:49:46 AM »

Need the traffic and planner experts to help me answer this: How is there always traffic all day on the 10 EB from Culver City to downtown but never any traffic WB except maybe weekend Santa Monica beach traffic?
Logged

jander

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 56
  • Location: san francisco
  • Last Login: February 17, 2022, 10:39:45 AM
Re: California
« Reply #1317 on: August 30, 2021, 08:04:34 PM »

 Quick and hopefully not to dumb of a question, but why is the evacuation from South Lake Tahoe only into Nevada and not North on CA-89 into Truckee? 

Thanks for the explanation
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 19082
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 12:16:59 PM
    • Gribblenation
Re: California
« Reply #1318 on: August 30, 2021, 08:35:49 PM »

Quick and hopefully not to dumb of a question, but why is the evacuation from South Lake Tahoe only into Nevada and not North on CA-89 into Truckee? 

Thanks for the explanation

Emerald Bay is not something you want to evacuate people through.  CA 89 is a narrow, winding and often cliff strewn two lane highway.  US 50 on the other hand is four lanes all the way from the hazard area out of the Tahoe Basin.
Logged

gonealookin

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 589
  • Location: Lake Tahoe - NV side
  • Last Login: June 24, 2022, 09:43:20 PM
Re: California
« Reply #1319 on: August 30, 2021, 08:50:34 PM »

Conditions on (closed to the public) US 50 coming down the hill eastbound from Echo Summit.  The just-constructed new bridge is at about 0:19.

Logged

gonealookin

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 589
  • Location: Lake Tahoe - NV side
  • Last Login: June 24, 2022, 09:43:20 PM
Re: California
« Reply #1320 on: August 30, 2021, 09:16:44 PM »

Quick and hopefully not to dumb of a question, but why is the evacuation from South Lake Tahoe only into Nevada and not North on CA-89 into Truckee? 

Thanks for the explanation

Emerald Bay is not something you want to evacuate people through.  CA 89 is a narrow, winding and often cliff strewn two lane highway.  US 50 on the other hand is four lanes all the way from the hazard area out of the Tahoe Basin.

There is also thought that CA 89 is under direct threat from the fire.  All of CA 89 north of the "Y" (north junction of US 50 and CA 89) is within the evacuation zone.  US 50 and NV 207 at least buy a few more hours.

As to points north of Emerald Bay, CA 89 north would be the evacuation route.  An important reason for the construction of the new bridge carrying CA 89 over the Truckee River at Tahoe City was to provide a second bridge there.  Previously the Fanny Bridge was the only crossing there and that was considered a pretty bad choke point during a fire emergency.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8495
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: September 12, 2021, 12:44:33 AM
Re: California
« Reply #1321 on: August 31, 2021, 03:10:23 AM »

Quick and hopefully not to dumb of a question, but why is the evacuation from South Lake Tahoe only into Nevada and not North on CA-89 into Truckee? 

Thanks for the explanation

Emerald Bay is not something you want to evacuate people through.  CA 89 is a narrow, winding and often cliff strewn two lane highway.  US 50 on the other hand is four lanes all the way from the hazard area out of the Tahoe Basin.

There is also thought that CA 89 is under direct threat from the fire.  All of CA 89 north of the "Y" (north junction of US 50 and CA 89) is within the evacuation zone.  US 50 and NV 207 at least buy a few more hours.

As to points north of Emerald Bay, CA 89 north would be the evacuation route.  An important reason for the construction of the new bridge carrying CA 89 over the Truckee River at Tahoe City was to provide a second bridge there.  Previously the Fanny Bridge was the only crossing there and that was considered a pretty bad choke point during a fire emergency.

At this point, US 50 into Carson City is the major evacuation route; NV/CA 28, NV 431, and CA 267 are secondary or "back-up" alternatives.  If the fire turns north toward Placer County and Squaw Valley, it's likely CA 89 will close at some point, so shunting outbound traffic east and north may become necessary for the west side of the lake north of Emerald Bay.  CA 89 from Myers south over Luther Pass, currently closed, is the first logical point of potential containment; if it jumps that, the area around the airport (alongside US 50 between the SLT "Y" and Myers) is another, primarily because most trees have been cleared from around the airport for obvious reasons; since Caldor is principally a "crown" fire with spread from treetop to treetop, an existing cleared area may be able to slow down the progress toward the lake itself.  But if the worst happens and the fire shoots south around the lake, its eastern progress will be effectively halted somewhere west of US 395 (and I-580 north of Carson) because it'll simply head into the desert and run out of the type of fuel that promotes rapid fire movement. 
Logged

jdbx

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 154
  • Location: Pleasant Hill, CA
  • Last Login: June 27, 2022, 06:47:42 PM
Re: California
« Reply #1322 on: August 31, 2021, 02:39:29 PM »

Quick and hopefully not to dumb of a question, but why is the evacuation from South Lake Tahoe only into Nevada and not North on CA-89 into Truckee? 

Thanks for the explanation

Emerald Bay is not something you want to evacuate people through.  CA 89 is a narrow, winding and often cliff strewn two lane highway.  US 50 on the other hand is four lanes all the way from the hazard area out of the Tahoe Basin.

There is also thought that CA 89 is under direct threat from the fire.  All of CA 89 north of the "Y" (north junction of US 50 and CA 89) is within the evacuation zone.  US 50 and NV 207 at least buy a few more hours.

As to points north of Emerald Bay, CA 89 north would be the evacuation route.  An important reason for the construction of the new bridge carrying CA 89 over the Truckee River at Tahoe City was to provide a second bridge there.  Previously the Fanny Bridge was the only crossing there and that was considered a pretty bad choke point during a fire emergency.

At this point, US 50 into Carson City is the major evacuation route; NV/CA 28, NV 431, and CA 267 are secondary or "back-up" alternatives.  If the fire turns north toward Placer County and Squaw Valley, it's likely CA 89 will close at some point, so shunting outbound traffic east and north may become necessary for the west side of the lake north of Emerald Bay.  CA 89 from Myers south over Luther Pass, currently closed, is the first logical point of potential containment; if it jumps that, the area around the airport (alongside US 50 between the SLT "Y" and Myers) is another, primarily because most trees have been cleared from around the airport for obvious reasons; since Caldor is principally a "crown" fire with spread from treetop to treetop, an existing cleared area may be able to slow down the progress toward the lake itself.  But if the worst happens and the fire shoots south around the lake, its eastern progress will be effectively halted somewhere west of US 395 (and I-580 north of Carson) because it'll simply head into the desert and run out of the type of fuel that promotes rapid fire movement. 

One of the things I was thinking about yesterday, while watching news reports of the massive traffic jam leaving South Lake Tahoe via US-50 is why they can't run the evacuation contra-flow.  I suppose it would require a lot more traffic  control at every intersection, but looking at the traffic cams of those 2 eastbound lanes stopped solid, meanwhile the 2-way turn lane and both westbound lanes were completely empty was what made me think about it.  Maybe contra-flow is something that can only work on access-controlled roads?

Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 19082
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 12:16:59 PM
    • Gribblenation
Re: California
« Reply #1323 on: August 31, 2021, 02:47:29 PM »

I noticed CA 88 over Carson Pass shut down.  I might have to reroute my Boise trip over CA 108 and CA 182 given I don't want to double back I-80 over the Sierra Nevada Mountains.
Logged

DTComposer

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1079
  • Location: San Jose
  • Last Login: Today at 06:02:24 AM
Re: California
« Reply #1324 on: August 31, 2021, 05:01:17 PM »

Need the traffic and planner experts to help me answer this: How is there always traffic all day on the 10 EB from Culver City to downtown but never any traffic WB except maybe weekend Santa Monica beach traffic?

Can't speak for COVID-era traffic, but I always experienced traffic WB on I-10 during rush hour and beyond, particularly between Normandie and La Cienega (had to make a lot of trips between Long Beach and Mid-Wilshire).
Logged

 


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