Are there any longrange plans to add additional lanes at the Grapevine? 😳
I'm not aware of any, but driving it 6-8 times a year, I also don't see any need for it. Yes, it can get a little congested in places, but that's more due to people's inattentive driving rather than capacity issues.
IMO a better question would be are there any long range plans to add a third lane to I-5 between CA-99 and I-205 (or any portion thereof). Regardless of the time of day or conditions, I find it nearly impossible to maintain anything close to the speed limit for any appreciable length of time, mainly due to trucks passing each other.
Quote from: DTComposer on January 04, 2015, 12:22:47 AM
IMO a better question would be are there any long range plans to add a third lane to I-5 between CA-99 and I-205 (or any portion thereof). Regardless of the time of day or conditions, I find it nearly impossible to maintain anything close to the speed limit for any appreciable length of time, mainly due to trucks passing each other.
I concur with this, but I wonder if the high speed rail currently under construction in the Central Valley is seen by some as a suitable substitute for lane expansion along I-5 between 99 and 205. My opinion is that it is not; it is instead supplementary. Additional lanes on I-5 through the remote sections of the Central Valley were needed in the early 1990s when I first drove it, and they are still needed today. The Grapevine could benefit from an additional truck climbing lane uphill, but I am sure the costs would be huge.
Well, the rail line is more or less following the SR99 routing rather than the I-5 routing. And 99 is three lanes through Kern County, and then again through Fresno County, and being built at least in the northern part of Tulare.
The real problem is the truck speed limit of 55. They render the automobile speed limit of 70 in those stretches illusory.
Long range plans do call for a truck lane to be added from State 14 to State 138 around 2020, so we shall see. There are plans for a large housing development in the Tejon Ranch lands which will add traffic to I-5 through the mountains and Grapevine Canyon. Aside from that, there are no plans for widening. As a side note, the "new" bridge over the Santa Clara River did include provisions for a truck lane and HOV lane. Grapevine Canyon itself is not included in any expansion project at this time.
BTW, as to the "Grapevine" name... see this site:
http://socalregion.com/highways/us_99/
Quote from: andy3175 on January 04, 2015, 02:15:23 AM
I concur with this, but I wonder if the high speed rail currently under construction in the Central Valley is seen by some as a suitable substitute for lane expansion along I-5 between 99 and 205. My opinion is that it is not; it is instead supplementary.
Agreed. The high-speed rail line (which I am completely in favor of, although the execution leaves something to be desired) would do nothing to alleviate the truck traffic. It would be nice if the rail corridor included upgrades to the freight lines which would make them a more viable alternative to trucks.
Quote from: admtrap on January 04, 2015, 03:29:21 PM
The real problem is the truck speed limit of 55. They render the automobile speed limit of 70 in those stretches illusory.
Just finished another drive northbound - it's not even the differential between the 55 and 70 speed limits (since neither trucks nor cars seem interested in what the speed limit is). It's that, when one truck decides to pass another, their slow acceleration means they're often passing the other truck at a 2 to 3 mph difference; plus, because of the volume of auto traffic, trucks often move into the left lane without much warning. The ripple effect of that, plus the cars who do want to adhere to the speed limit (or even below), creates these pockets of congestion that, once you're stuck in one, can go along for 20 miles or more, then when you finally free yourself and can go 70 or above, it's maybe 5 miles before you hit the next pocket.
I wonder how feasible it would be to even have a third lane for a couple miles every 20 miles or so, with a no-truck-passing rule on the remaining two-lane sections.
Quote from: DTComposer on January 05, 2015, 12:47:13 AM
It would be nice if the rail corridor included upgrades to the freight lines which would make them a more viable alternative to trucks.
It gets the passenger trains (which have right-of-way) off the freight tracks.
Quote from: NE2 on January 05, 2015, 10:44:05 AM
Quote from: DTComposer on January 05, 2015, 12:47:13 AM
It would be nice if the rail corridor included upgrades to the freight lines which would make them a more viable alternative to trucks.
It gets the passenger trains (which have right-of-way) off the freight tracks.
Yeah, but in the Central Valley that's what, two trains a day. If that.
Quote from: kkt on January 05, 2015, 08:08:49 PM
Quote from: NE2 on January 05, 2015, 10:44:05 AM
Quote from: DTComposer on January 05, 2015, 12:47:13 AM
It would be nice if the rail corridor included upgrades to the freight lines which would make them a more viable alternative to trucks.
It gets the passenger trains (which have right-of-way) off the freight tracks.
Yeah, but in the Central Valley that's what, two trains a day. If that.
Twelve (six in each direction): http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/87/724/San-Joaquin-Schedule-060914,0.pdf
Quote from: DTComposer on January 05, 2015, 12:47:13 AM
Quote from: admtrap on January 04, 2015, 03:29:21 PM
The real problem is the truck speed limit of 55. They render the automobile speed limit of 70 in those stretches illusory.
Just finished another drive northbound - it's not even the differential between the 55 and 70 speed limits (since neither trucks nor cars seem interested in what the speed limit is). It's that, when one truck decides to pass another, their slow acceleration means they're often passing the other truck at a 2 to 3 mph difference; plus, because of the volume of auto traffic, trucks often move into the left lane without much warning. The ripple effect of that, plus the cars who do want to adhere to the speed limit (or even below), creates these pockets of congestion that, once you're stuck in one, can go along for 20 miles or more, then when you finally free yourself and can go 70 or above, it's maybe 5 miles before you hit the next pocket.
I wonder how feasible it would be to even have a third lane for a couple miles every 20 miles or so, with a no-truck-passing rule on the remaining two-lane sections.
I dunno. I seldom see trucks going 60 except after that slow acceleration to pass. CHP likes to nab truckers. In other states, where the truck and auto speed limits are the same, the truck-passing-truck issue just doesn't seem to be nearly as big of a problem there. Given how slowly lane expansion is going (by the time we get a third lane fully in place, we'll need a fifth one), and the expenses that are involved, pulling down the truck 55 limit would be a cheap way to increase effective capacity.
I know they won't do it, but they don't really have an excuse beyond "I don't wanna."
We can't make trucks accelerate faster; as Scotty would say, "I canna change the laws of physics, Cap'n." But we can allow them to go faster, which allows the rest of us to do the same. With as many trucks as we have on these routes, the truck limit is the de facto auto limit more often than not.
QuoteI'm not aware of any, but driving it 6-8 times a year, I also don't see any need for it. Yes, it can get a little congested in places, but that's more due to people's inattentive driving rather than capacity issues.
IMO a better question would be are there any long range plans to add a third lane to I-5 between CA-99 and I-205 (or any portion thereof). Regardless of the time of day or conditions, I find it nearly impossible to maintain anything close to the speed limit for any appreciable length of time, mainly due to trucks passing each other.
I agree with you, though a truck climbing lane would be helpful in parts. Between 99 and 205 it would be nice to have an extra lane simply due to the truck traffic.
The Pennsylvania & Ohio Turnpikes have the same speed limit for trucks as for motorcars and truck-passing-truck is a problem on their two lane sections.
Quote from: DTComposer on January 05, 2015, 12:47:13 AM
Quote from: andy3175 on January 04, 2015, 02:15:23 AM
I concur with this, but I wonder if the high speed rail currently under construction in the Central Valley is seen by some as a suitable substitute for lane expansion along I-5 between 99 and 205. My opinion is that it is not; it is instead supplementary.
Agreed. The high-speed rail line (which I am completely in favor of, although the execution leaves something to be desired) would do nothing to alleviate the truck traffic. It would be nice if the rail corridor included upgrades to the freight lines which would make them a more viable alternative to trucks.
Quote from: admtrap on January 04, 2015, 03:29:21 PM
The real problem is the truck speed limit of 55. They render the automobile speed limit of 70 in those stretches illusory.
Just finished another drive northbound - it's not even the differential between the 55 and 70 speed limits (since neither trucks nor cars seem interested in what the speed limit is). It's that, when one truck decides to pass another, their slow acceleration means they're often passing the other truck at a 2 to 3 mph difference; plus, because of the volume of auto traffic, trucks often move into the left lane without much warning. The ripple effect of that, plus the cars who do want to adhere to the speed limit (or even below), creates these pockets of congestion that, once you're stuck in one, can go along for 20 miles or more, then when you finally free yourself and can go 70 or above, it's maybe 5 miles before you hit the next pocket.
I wonder how feasible it would be to even have a third lane for a couple miles every 20 miles or so, with a no-truck-passing rule on the remaining two-lane sections.
But even with the occasional third lane, which I agree would help, you can't necessarily restrict trucks from passing each other only in the 3 lane section. And it might be too expensive to have a continuous 3rd lane for over 200 miles.