News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

US 101 Richardson Grove Realignment

Started by andy3175, December 16, 2014, 11:51:12 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

andy3175

I've seen this topic discussed in the US 101/NorCal Improvements thread from 2012 (see https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=6628.msg146863#msg146863), but I thought it would be worthwhile to discuss this project in a separate thread. The project would realign US 101 in Richardson Grove State Park to allow for trucks to pass through the area; currently, trucks have difficulty navigating the 2-lane highway through the state park due to close proximity of a redwood grove. A project webpage is online at http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist1/d1projects/richardson_grove/, and an opposition webpage is located at http://www.saverichardsongrove.org/ (which is notable for the picture at the bottom of the main page).

A lawsuit has challenged this project due to the unique environmental constraints within the state park. Recently,the lawsuit was dropped (based on a story from http://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/3217109-181/disputed-highway-101-expansion-through dated Dec 8) as a result of Caltrans announcing that it would start the environmental analysis process over again.

QuoteA coalition of environmental groups has dropped its lawsuit challenging a controversial Highway 101 widening project through a grove of Humboldt County old-growth redwood trees after Caltrans decided to seek further environmental review of its plans. Opponents of the 1.1-mile project through Richardson Grove State Park say the work would damage the roots of the protected redwood trees. Caltrans says the $5.5 million project is needed to alter the narrow section of highway – one of the last remaining bottlenecks on the North Coast's main thoroughfare – to meet federal standards for large trucks. ...

Still, environmental groups (Center for Biological Diversity and the Environmental Protection Information Center) said further study of the project's impacts would benefit the 1,000-year-old trees. They announced their dismissal of the lawsuit last week. "This is an important victory stopping a nonsensical project that would have done terrible damage to an ancient grove of giant redwoods in our state park," said Jeff Miller, spokesman for the Center for Biological Diversity. "We'll be ready to go back to court if Caltrans decides to pursue the project, and it'll have to completely start over on environmental review and the approval process."

Meanwhile, Dan Walters of the Sacramento Bee wrote on 9/2/14 of an alternative approach (http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/dan-walters/article2608323.html):

QuoteThe coalition has filed its third lawsuit against Caltrans' project to widen the narrow, 1915-vintage stretch of Highway 101 that snakes through the immense trees, and make it suitable for large trucks meeting a new federal standard. Caltrans says its 1.1-mile project would carefully avoid damage to old-growth trees, but environmental groups say it could undermine their shallow roots.

The Richardson Grove bottleneck needs to go, but widening the existing road is a poor solution at best because traffic would still disrupt what should be quietude in such a unique corner of California. A better solution would be to bypass the park altogether, or at least the portion containing old-growth trees. Caltrans had planned for decades to do exactly that, shifting the highway across the Eel River to the east, and leaving the old road as a quiet driveway for visitors.

In 2000, after 45 years of inaction on that plan, it was re-evaluated, and highway officials ultimately decided that the path of least resistance would be to widen the existing highway to make it safe for the federally approved freightliners. Moving the highway eastward is still the better plan, albeit costlier than a widening that, if anything, would allow even more noisy and dangerous traffic in the redwood grove.

We'll see what happens with the next environmental review of any improvements on US 101 through Richardson Grove.
Regards,
Andy

www.aaroads.com


andy3175

More criticism of Caltrans regarding funding the Richardson Grove Project ahead of other road projects in California's North Coast:

http://transportationpriorities.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/District-1-Safety-Analysis.pdf - report

QuoteCaltrans District 1 has attempted to justify the Richardson Grove Operational Improvement Project, the 197/199 Safe STAA Access Project, and other major highway projects in part by claiming they will improve safety, despite the fact that this is not the primary goal of any of the projects. In fact, in the case of the two projects identified, we argue that it is likely they will decrease highway safety rather than improve it. We identify 14 state highway segments in District 1 which have a substantially higher rate of fatal accidents than the district average, and note that only one of these segments overlaps with one of the projects identified above (and even in that case, the project boundaries do not include any of the fatal accidents in the segment). We challenge Caltrans to prioritize true safety projects that will make a real difference, and to stop using dubious safety claims to justify highway expansion projects.

Quote"The highest number of fatal accidents on any stretch of highway was on the 101 going through the town of Weott, where I happen to live,"  said Barbara Kennedy, a CRTP spokesperson. "But there were also very high rates on 101 in Arcata and Fortuna, on Routes 20 and 29 in Lake County, and in a number of other places."

"What's really an outrage is that for years Caltrans has been pushing these oversized truck access projects in Richardson Grove and on Highways 197 and 199 and calling them safety projects,"  Kennedy continued. "It turns out these projects are not actually targeting the dangerous parts of our highways. Anyway, Caltrans has given themselves exemptions from their own safety design standards to build these projects which will bring in more big, dangerous trucks. How can you call that safety? We challenge Caltrans to cancel Richardson Grove, cancel 199, and put the money toward real safety projects."

http://lostcoastoutpost.com/2015/nov/6/environmental-group-questions-caltrans-commitment/ - analysis

QuoteA McKinleyville-based environmental group comprised of longtime foes of the Richardson Grove Improvement Project is accusing the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) of pushing questionable highway expansion projects at the expense of more worthy public safety projects.

The Coalition for Responsible Transportation Priorities (CRTP) issued its own report today, saying that it analyzed data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Fatal Accident Reporting System and concluded that the state agency is ignoring the most dangerous stretches of road in the local district, choosing instead to finance road-widening projects to accommodate "more big, dangerous trucks."

In response, Caltrans insisted that safety is always the agency's No. 1 priority, and it questioned the methodology of the group's study. The improvement projects in question, the agency said, are designed not just to improve safety but also to accommodate industry-standard trucks, and given the nature of funding sources, comparing safety to logistics is a "very simple matter of comparing apples to oranges."

In a phone conversation this afternoon, CRTP spokesperson Barbara Kennedy said her group is an outgrowth, of sorts, of people in Humboldt and Del Norte counties who have long been opposed to both the Richardson Grove project and a similar widening project on State Route 199 through the Smith River canyon.
Regards,
Andy

www.aaroads.com

Milliontown

Caltrans did a feasibility study back in 200 or so for a bypass of the CA park lands.  Essentially it was completely infeasible, with huge cost and enormous amounts of excess soil to dispose of.  I believe this project came about a few years later after surveys indicated it was possible to do slight realignments to lift the STAA restrictions.  For a while, they were operating under the assumption there was no possible way to use the existing alignment.

nexus73

Quote from: Milliontown on November 22, 2015, 10:10:36 PM
Caltrans did a feasibility study back in 200 or so for a bypass of the CA park lands.  Essentially it was completely infeasible, with huge cost and enormous amounts of excess soil to dispose of.  I believe this project came about a few years later after surveys indicated it was possible to do slight realignments to lift the STAA restrictions.  For a while, they were operating under the assumption there was no possible way to use the existing alignment.

Nothing infeasible about the freeway proposal from back then at all.  If it was truly infeasible then how the heck did we ever build the Panama Canal over a century ago?  It was a lack of political will, not a lack of engineering knowhow which has left 101 with gaps of obsolete 2-lane. 

I always said stick the governor and the politicians behind the wheel of those big RV's and 18-wheelers with a start in San Francisco and tell them to drive to Grants Pass in order to understand the concept of "white knuckling".  Maybe then if these folks would actually get out in the real world like I do, they might realize roads from the Roaring Twenties are not what we need in the 21st century.

Rick
US 101 is THE backbone of the Pacific coast from Bandon OR to Willits CA.  Industry, tourism and local traffic would be gone or severely crippled without it being in functioning condition in BOTH states.

kkt

Of course, a lot of the opposition to those projects think 18-wheelers and large RVs shouldn't be taking 101 through California's north coast.  Very few places that wild are left, and they want to keep them that way.

And some of the opposition thinks it's silly to do the proposed small realignment through Richardson Grove because it will still be an unsafe road for 18 wheelers, and what 101 really needs is a reroute outside of the park.

The opposition has a good point, though, you can't claim it's all about safety and then ignore the accident statistics.  If it's really about 18-wheeler access, CalTrans should say so, and if that's not a good enough argument for the project, maybe it shouldn't go through?

I'm also surprised Weott has a particularly high accident rate.  I drive though there every year or two and I'm not seeing anything remarkably unsafe about it.  It's just a 4-lane road, divided by a line and not by a barrier.

nexus73

Quote from: kkt on November 23, 2015, 04:53:56 PM
Of course, a lot of the opposition to those projects think 18-wheelers and large RVs shouldn't be taking 101 through California's north coast.  Very few places that wild are left, and they want to keep them that way.

And some of the opposition thinks it's silly to do the proposed small realignment through Richardson Grove because it will still be an unsafe road for 18 wheelers, and what 101 really needs is a reroute outside of the park.

The opposition has a good point, though, you can't claim it's all about safety and then ignore the accident statistics.  If it's really about 18-wheeler access, CalTrans should say so, and if that's not a good enough argument for the project, maybe it shouldn't go through?

I'm also surprised Weott has a particularly high accident rate.  I drive though there every year or two and I'm not seeing anything remarkably unsafe about it.  It's just a 4-lane road, divided by a line and not by a barrier.


Sorry to say we count on tourists and trucks out here.  Teleporters and have not been invented yet...LOL!  Thus the need for good roads.

Caltrans can say all sorts of silly things and drag their feet when it is time to deal with a project so I won't be defending those bureaucrats.  No sirree!

Rick
US 101 is THE backbone of the Pacific coast from Bandon OR to Willits CA.  Industry, tourism and local traffic would be gone or severely crippled without it being in functioning condition in BOTH states.

kkt

It's not CalTrans.  If it was up to CalTrans, 101 would have been interstate grade 50 years ago.

You only see 18-wheelers vs. teleporters, really?  There are smaller trucks, there are tourists who come by car or small RV.  Yes, goods cost more because they're transferred to smaller trucks for delivery to the north coast... but that same limited access keeps the land prices down and keeps the area rural.

nexus73

We who live here are not particularly interested in being turned into a park for the metro areas to visit.  My father used to talk about that in the Sixties.  It looks like the same mindset is at work today.  Sorry kkt, you will not get many of us here on the coast to agree with that outcome but you can write off ever coming here once the Cascadia Subduction Zone quake hits.  It will be decades before the coastal region from Ft. Bragg to the southern third of British Columbia recovers and is once again fully open, populated and has the services required that we currently enjoy today.

That'll guarantee we'll be a park...LOL!

Rick
US 101 is THE backbone of the Pacific coast from Bandon OR to Willits CA.  Industry, tourism and local traffic would be gone or severely crippled without it being in functioning condition in BOTH states.

kkt

I'm sure there are quite a few people there who would like freeway access... but there are also a lot of people there who want to keep it a quiet, rural area, and see lack of a freeway as the best way to accomplish that.  It's not the metro areas filing law suits scaling back and delaying the projects, it's people who live there.

Not sure what the Cascadia Subduction Zone has to do with anything.  Nothing CalTrans might do would prevent the earthquake, or even survive landslides and a tsunami.  Hope FEMA can land supplies by boat at the ports or beaches or helicopter them in, and get good at putting up temporary bridges afterward.

nexus73

Let me connect the dots for you kkt.

1-Cascadia Subduction Zone quake hits

2-Everything is destroyed along the coast.

3-Survivors are evacuated.

4-Between the government unable to handle damage in the trillions of dollars and there being a lack of corporate and private funds to build enough infrastructure to sustain any sort of industrial, agricultural or fishing endeavors, the coast remains deserted.

5-Add in 10 years of aftershocks which prevent building of new bridges. 

6-The end result is that you Big City people get your wish of having the coast turned into a giant park but with no highways or railways, you will have no way to visit.

If you were truly educated in emergency response to the coming quake and the lay of the land here, you would know the ports will be rendered useless, the beaches will be filled with debris and finding flat ground for helicopters will be problematical.  Given that bridge lengths can go half a mile to a mile-plus, there is no temporary bridge option. 

Most opposition to development here comes from well funded enviro groups.  There is some local opposition mixed with local support but neither side is full of $$$ to drag the projects into courts for years and years like the Sierra Club and others of their ilk.

Rick

US 101 is THE backbone of the Pacific coast from Bandon OR to Willits CA.  Industry, tourism and local traffic would be gone or severely crippled without it being in functioning condition in BOTH states.

kkt

All those things are equally likely whether or not 101 is made a 4-lane, grade separated highway.  In fact, the grade separations would make clearing the road after a large quake even more of a problem.  In addition to clearing landslides and collapsed bridges, every couple of miles there would be the remains of a reinforced concrete overpass to be cleared away.

andy3175

http://www.krcrtv.com/north-coast-news/epic-files-lawsuit-against-caltrans-road-adjustment-1/565499928

QuoteEPIC files lawsuit against CalTrans road adjustment
June 27, 2017

An ongoing legal battle between the California Department of Transportation and the Environmental Protection Information Center has delayed adjustments to the stretch of Highway 101 that goes through Richardson Grove State Park. The most recent lawsuit was filed in the Humboldt County Superior Court on June 23. CalTrans representative Eli Rohl said that the discussion has been an ongoing issue for nearly a decade.

"Back in 2007 we proposed a project that would allow industry standard trucks to pass through Richardson Grove," Rohl said. "We've got some curves where STAA length trucks can't properly make the turns on the highway."

STAA trucks are slightly longer than standard semi-trucks, making it difficult for them to drive on winding roads, according to Rohl.

"We can see there is some off-tracking due to the geometry of the roadway, which off-tracking is a fancy way of saying some part of the truck at one point or another crosses into oncoming traffic."

Rohl said the legal battle has cost CalTrans $30 million for what was supposed to be a $3 million project. But for EPIC program manager Tom Wheeler, the fight is worth it to prevent harm to the trees that line the road through Richardson Grove. 

"We have so few of these forests left, these ancient Redwood forests, and they are incredibly precious," Wheeler said. "They have been standing for over a thousand years and to harm them, to pave them is an affront to deeply held values."

CalTrans said the agency has spent time and money conducting environmental impact studies to combat EPIC's lawsuit. Then in 2012, they said an appellate court told them the studies they had already conducted were not sufficient.

"Basically what the appellate court said was we can't support your finding of no significant impact without further environmental studies, and so we went back and did another three years of environmental studies," Wheeler said.

Rohl said that adjusting the road will be economically beneficial to the businesses in Humboldt because shipping would be more convenient. Wheeler combated this saying that Highway 5 is the optimal route for shipping, and that the benefits do not compare to the risks that construction poses to old growth redwood trees.

However, Rohl said that the project will only remove non-old growth trees and will impact the land as minimally as possible.

"We never had the intention to remove old growth redwood trees," Rohl said

Despite conservation efforts from CalTrans, EPIC still sees the project as a threat to the trees.

"The project will result in harm to ancient redwood trees and that fact is indisputable," Wheeler said. "The degree to which this harm occurs is perhaps up in the air."
Regards,
Andy

www.aaroads.com

nexus73

Try to do things right with minimal impact and still get sued by the enviros.  Next time plan on leveling all the redwoods and putting in an 8-lane freeway, then maybe these organizations will be happy when a reasonable plan like the one being proposed, is put into place.

Rick
US 101 is THE backbone of the Pacific coast from Bandon OR to Willits CA.  Industry, tourism and local traffic would be gone or severely crippled without it being in functioning condition in BOTH states.

roadfro

Mod Note: Removed several posts containing unnecessary/off-topic banter. –Roadfro
Roadfro - AARoads Pacific Southwest moderator since 2010, Nevada roadgeek since 1983.

NE2

Quote from: nexus73 on June 28, 2017, 10:55:58 AM
Try to do things right with minimal impact and still get sued by the enviros.  Next time plan on leveling all the redwoods and putting in an 8-lane freeway, then maybe these organizations will be happy when a reasonable plan like the one being proposed, is put into place.

Rick
You're an idiot...LOL!
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

english si

Quote from: nexus73 on June 28, 2017, 10:55:58 AM
Try to do things right with minimal impact and still get sued by the enviros.  Next time plan on leveling all the redwoods and putting in an 8-lane freeway, then maybe these organizations will be happy when a reasonable plan like the one being proposed, is put into place.
That seems to have been the tactic of some city councils over here in the 1960s - have a plan to demolish three-quarters of the city to build some urban freeways, and they might just let you get away with merely demolishing some of the city for better roads (and bare in mind that a lot of this was in the rebuild-the-cities post-blitz period, when there were areas of shoddy housing that were to be redeveloped as well as the literal bombsites).

kkt

Quote from: nexus73 on June 28, 2017, 10:55:58 AM
Try to do things right with minimal impact and still get sued by the enviros.  Next time plan on leveling all the redwoods and putting in an 8-lane freeway, then maybe these organizations will be happy when a reasonable plan like the one being proposed, is put into place.

Rick

All right, I'll try again.

Richardson Grove is a park.  Its mission is preservation and recreation.

Preservation.  There are very few stands of never-logged forest at river level.  Losing that forest takes centuries to recover.  It's wrong to lose any of it.

Recreation.  The campground at Richardson Grove is across the highway from the river's beach.  People are going back and forth between the river and the campground all day long.  The danger and noise are significant problems already, and a better road for trucks would make them worse. 

101 through Richardson Grove was barely acceptable back in the 1930s when all trucks were about the size of delivery trucks today.  Truck drivers do not always respect slow speed limits or pedestrian right of way.

The highway has been whittling away at the trees, a little wider every decade or two to accommodate ever-growing trucks.  That needs to stop.  Just because some standards committee that never even heard of the north coast invents a standard for longer trucks that's appropriate for interstates, does not mean they must be adopted for every highway everywhere.

Industry and logging on the north coast does need a better highway.  The way to accomplish that is bypassing the park.  The road through Richardson Grove should be only for people going TO Richardson Grove.

The north coast is a geographically isolated region, a long drive at best, and fairly regularly cut off from the obvious routes in or out for days or weeks at a time.  A better highway won't change that, so you connectedness is what you value, consider relocating.

nexus73

Quote from: kkt on June 30, 2017, 06:09:51 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on June 28, 2017, 10:55:58 AM
Try to do things right with minimal impact and still get sued by the enviros.  Next time plan on leveling all the redwoods and putting in an 8-lane freeway, then maybe these organizations will be happy when a reasonable plan like the one being proposed, is put into place.

Rick

All right, I'll try again.

Richardson Grove is a park.  Its mission is preservation and recreation.

Preservation.  There are very few stands of never-logged forest at river level.  Losing that forest takes centuries to recover.  It's wrong to lose any of it.

Recreation.  The campground at Richardson Grove is across the highway from the river's beach.  People are going back and forth between the river and the campground all day long.  The danger and noise are significant problems already, and a better road for trucks would make them worse. 

101 through Richardson Grove was barely acceptable back in the 1930s when all trucks were about the size of delivery trucks today.  Truck drivers do not always respect slow speed limits or pedestrian right of way.

The highway has been whittling away at the trees, a little wider every decade or two to accommodate ever-growing trucks.  That needs to stop.  Just because some standards committee that never even heard of the north coast invents a standard for longer trucks that's appropriate for interstates, does not mean they must be adopted for every highway everywhere.

Industry and logging on the north coast does need a better highway.  The way to accomplish that is bypassing the park.  The road through Richardson Grove should be only for people going TO Richardson Grove.

The north coast is a geographically isolated region, a long drive at best, and fairly regularly cut off from the obvious routes in or out for days or weeks at a time.  A better highway won't change that, so you connectedness is what you value, consider relocating.


The amount of trees impacted is minimal, very minimal.  Up here in Oregon we had a similar narrow area to deal with that was curvy.  This was the Humbug Mountain State Park section of US 101.  Despite the lack of any real right of way, ODOT did come up with a plan than enabled trucks and giant RV's (some with "toy" trailers so they're as long as an 18-wheeler) to traverse the section in greater safety.  It appears to me the Caltrans plan will cause no more disruption to the natural setting than what happened here.

Caltrans did have plans for bypasses and tunnels but the expense was quite high, so the current proposal was created. 

When you make mountains out of tiny molehills, you discredit your cause but that does seem typical for the enviros.  As for relocating, uh-uh.  There's nothing that a better road can't solve and the problems are very solvable.  It just takes the will to do so.

Rick
US 101 is THE backbone of the Pacific coast from Bandon OR to Willits CA.  Industry, tourism and local traffic would be gone or severely crippled without it being in functioning condition in BOTH states.

nexus73

Quote from: NE2 on June 30, 2017, 03:44:17 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on June 28, 2017, 10:55:58 AM
Try to do things right with minimal impact and still get sued by the enviros.  Next time plan on leveling all the redwoods and putting in an 8-lane freeway, then maybe these organizations will be happy when a reasonable plan like the one being proposed, is put into place.

Rick
You're an idiot...LOL!

You're rattled as always...LOL!  MAGA!

Rick
US 101 is THE backbone of the Pacific coast from Bandon OR to Willits CA.  Industry, tourism and local traffic would be gone or severely crippled without it being in functioning condition in BOTH states.

compdude787

Quote from: nexus73 on June 30, 2017, 09:38:16 PM
The amount of trees impacted is minimal, very minimal.

Yeah, and the article even said that Caltrans is NOT planning to remove any old-growth trees. Thus, this environmental group is clearly raising a stink over nothing. If they were trying to remove old-growth trees, then I can understand the environmentalists screaming bloody murder, but if they're not cutting down old-growth trees, well then boohoo, cry me a river. Big flippin' deal.

myosh_tino

#20
Looks like roadfro has more "cleaning up" to do...  :rolleyes:

Quote from: nexus73 on November 23, 2015, 12:58:57 AM
Nothing infeasible about the freeway proposal from back then at all.  If it was truly infeasible then how the heck did we ever build the Panama Canal over a century ago?  It was a lack of political will, not a lack of engineering knowhow which has left 101 with gaps of obsolete 2-lane. 

This reminds me of Caltrans' issues with CA-17 between Scotts Valley and Los Gatos.  I believe Caltrans had visions of upgrading the 4-lane expressway into a 4-lane freeway to improve safety on more than one occasion but cost and the desire of the city of Santa Cruz to remain "separated" from the S.F. Bay Area killed the upgrade efforts.


Quote from: nexus73 on November 23, 2015, 12:58:57 AM
I always said stick the governor and the politicians behind the wheel of those big RV's and 18-wheelers with a start in San Francisco and tell them to drive to Grants Pass in order to understand the concept of "white knuckling".

Ummm... what's so "white knuckling" about driving a big rig or RV on I-80, I-505 and I-5 when driving from San Francisco to Grants Pass.  You might want to select a destination on the Oregon coast to make your point.
Quote from: golden eagle
If I owned a dam and decided to donate it to charity, would I be giving a dam? I'm sure that might be a first because no one really gives a dam.

nexus73

Quote from: myosh_tino on July 01, 2017, 01:10:55 AM
Looks like roadfro has more "cleaning up" to do...  :rolleyes:

Quote from: nexus73 on November 23, 2015, 12:58:57 AM
Nothing infeasible about the freeway proposal from back then at all.  If it was truly infeasible then how the heck did we ever build the Panama Canal over a century ago?  It was a lack of political will, not a lack of engineering knowhow which has left 101 with gaps of obsolete 2-lane. 

This reminds me of Caltrans' issues with CA-17 between Scotts Valley and Los Gatos.  I believe Caltrans had visions of upgrading the 4-lane expressway into a 4-lane freeway to improve safety on more than one occasion but cost and the desire of the city of Santa Cruz to remain "separated" from the S.F. Bay Area killed the upgrade efforts.


Quote from: nexus73 on November 23, 2015, 12:58:57 AM
I always said stick the governor and the politicians behind the wheel of those big RV's and 18-wheelers with a start in San Francisco and tell them to drive to Grants Pass in order to understand the concept of "white knuckling".

Ummm... what's so "white knuckling" about driving a big rig or RV on I-80, I-505 and I-5 when driving from San Francisco to Grants Pass.  You might want to select a destination on the Oregon coast to make your point.

Myosh, look at a map.  US 101 from SF to Crescent City.  Go 3 miles north of Crescent City to catch US 199 to Grants Pass.  Apparently you have no acquaintance with our lay of the land so I invite you to make the drive to know For Reeelz what is going on up here.  Join the locals, turistas and truckers as they slog their way through narrow crooked two lane sections and see how white your knuckles get, especially if you are driving a Big Ass RV that would do Paul Bunyan justice!

Rick
US 101 is THE backbone of the Pacific coast from Bandon OR to Willits CA.  Industry, tourism and local traffic would be gone or severely crippled without it being in functioning condition in BOTH states.

citrus

Quote from: nexus73 on July 01, 2017, 12:27:51 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on July 01, 2017, 01:10:55 AM
Quote from: nexus73 on November 23, 2015, 12:58:57 AM
I always said stick the governor and the politicians behind the wheel of those big RV's and 18-wheelers with a start in San Francisco and tell them to drive to Grants Pass in order to understand the concept of "white knuckling".

Ummm... what's so "white knuckling" about driving a big rig or RV on I-80, I-505 and I-5 when driving from San Francisco to Grants Pass.  You might want to select a destination on the Oregon coast to make your point.

Myosh, look at a map.  US 101 from SF to Crescent City.  Go 3 miles north of Crescent City to catch US 199 to Grants Pass.  Apparently you have no acquaintance with our lay of the land so I invite you to make the drive to know For Reeelz what is going on up here.  Join the locals, turistas and truckers as they slog their way through narrow crooked two lane sections and see how white your knuckles get, especially if you are driving a Big Ass RV that would do Paul Bunyan justice!

Rick

If the route is really just SF to Grants Pass, going over to I-5 is 2 hours shorter (and also 44 miles shorter, so even if 101 were built to the standards of I-5, it would still be longer).

nexus73

Quote from: citrus on July 01, 2017, 04:55:31 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on July 01, 2017, 12:27:51 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on July 01, 2017, 01:10:55 AM
Quote from: nexus73 on November 23, 2015, 12:58:57 AM
I always said stick the governor and the politicians behind the wheel of those big RV's and 18-wheelers with a start in San Francisco and tell them to drive to Grants Pass in order to understand the concept of "white knuckling".

Ummm... what's so "white knuckling" about driving a big rig or RV on I-80, I-505 and I-5 when driving from San Francisco to Grants Pass.  You might want to select a destination on the Oregon coast to make your point.

Myosh, look at a map.  US 101 from SF to Crescent City.  Go 3 miles north of Crescent City to catch US 199 to Grants Pass.  Apparently you have no acquaintance with our lay of the land so I invite you to make the drive to know For Reeelz what is going on up here.  Join the locals, turistas and truckers as they slog their way through narrow crooked two lane sections and see how white your knuckles get, especially if you are driving a Big Ass RV that would do Paul Bunyan justice!

Rick

If the route is really just SF to Grants Pass, going over to I-5 is 2 hours shorter (and also 44 miles shorter, so even if 101 were built to the standards of I-5, it would still be longer).

Length of route is immaterial.  The tourists are out to see the coast, not I-5.  The locals live on 101 and have to transit in between GP and SF to varying distances.  Trucks have to deliver and move goods along this routing.  Hope you get the point.

Rick
US 101 is THE backbone of the Pacific coast from Bandon OR to Willits CA.  Industry, tourism and local traffic would be gone or severely crippled without it being in functioning condition in BOTH states.

myosh_tino

#24
Quote from: nexus73 on July 01, 2017, 12:27:51 PM
Myosh, look at a map.  US 101 from SF to Crescent City.  Go 3 miles north of Crescent City to catch US 199 to Grants Pass.  Apparently you have no acquaintance with our lay of the land so I invite you to make the drive to know For Reeelz what is going on up here.

Nah, I'm good.  If I need to get to Grants Pass, I'll stick to the freeways (80, 505 and 5).  It'll get me there faster and I won't use as much gas.  :)


Quote from: nexus73 on July 01, 2017, 07:00:30 PM
Length of route is immaterial.  The tourists are out to see the coast, not I-5.  The locals live on 101 and have to transit in between GP and SF to varying distances.

But that's not what you said.  You said to tell them to get "behind the wheel of those big RV's and 18-wheelers with a start in San Francisco and tell them to drive to Grants Pass."  To me, that implies the starting point is San Francisco and the destination is Grants Pass, in which I correctly pointed out the preferred route is 80 -> 505 -> 5 which is far from a white-knuckle drive (unless you start during the evening commute in which case that's more of a "hair-pulling" drive).

Now, if you had made the starting point Crescent City and the destination is San Francisco *or* Grants Pass, then I guess I can see your point as you'd have to traverse the 2-lane sections of 101 and/or 199.
Quote from: golden eagle
If I owned a dam and decided to donate it to charity, would I be giving a dam? I'm sure that might be a first because no one really gives a dam.



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.