News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered at https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=33904.0
Corrected several already and appreciate your patience as we work through the rest.

Main Menu

California

Started by andy3175, July 20, 2016, 12:17:21 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Occidental Tourist

Except the Alameda NAS land has already been set aside for development of the Alameda Point community.


sparker

Quote from: 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.

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.

mrpablue

What happened to this thread?

Max Rockatansky

Quote from: mrpablue on February 22, 2018, 06:36:22 PM
What happened to this thread?

Not much going on in the state or forum right now. 

oscar

#429
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 22, 2018, 06:51:49 PM
Quote from: mrpablue on February 22, 2018, 06:36:22 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.
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

Max Rockatansky

Quote from: oscar on February 22, 2018, 06:59:59 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 22, 2018, 06:51:49 PM
Quote from: mrpablue on February 22, 2018, 06:36:22 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. 

mrsman

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 22, 2018, 06:51:49 PM
Quote from: mrpablue on February 22, 2018, 06:36:22 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.

Max Rockatansky

Quote from: mrsman on February 24, 2018, 09:41:42 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 22, 2018, 06:51:49 PM
Quote from: mrpablue on February 22, 2018, 06:36:22 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.

sparker

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.   

Techknow

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!


Max Rockatansky

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.

sparker

Quote from: 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.

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!

Alps

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.

Max Rockatansky

Quote from: 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.

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. 

andy3175

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 24, 2018, 10:24:29 PM
Quote from: mrsman on February 24, 2018, 09:41:42 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 22, 2018, 06:51:49 PM
Quote from: mrpablue on February 22, 2018, 06:36:22 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.

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.
Regards,
Andy

www.aaroads.com

Plutonic Panda

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.

Max Rockatansky

Quote from: sparker on February 26, 2018, 01:33:35 AM
Quote from: 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.

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. 

kkt

Quote from: Alps on February 26, 2018, 07:12:46 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.


silverback1065

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.

J N Winkler

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 26, 2018, 03:52:00 PMIs 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.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 26, 2018, 03:52:00 PM. . . 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.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

mrsman

Quote from: kkt on February 26, 2018, 07:39:08 PM
Quote from: Alps on February 26, 2018, 07:12:46 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.


Techknow

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.

TheStranger

Quote from: silverback1065 on February 26, 2018, 07:59:59 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)
Chris Sampang

The Ghostbuster

Is the 280 truncation to 16th Street still an active proposal? Or has it gone dormant, or been canceled altogether?

DTComposer

Quote from: 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?

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.



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.