Here is the link to my monthly post collecting highway headlines of interest (although I'm not noting all the storm closure headlines):
http://cahighways.org/wordpress/?p=12595
Ready, set, discuss.
Didn't know there was talk of removing I-980. Seems that would cause some traffic issues.
But if it does happen, can they please replace I-238 with I-980?
Speaking to the forward about the weather related highway closures. I had a run-in with the closures or aftermath for both CA 269 near Huron and 198 out in the Diablos:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=19576.0
It was definitely strange to see Caltrans trucks on a weekend using plows to rake up the muck west of Coalinga on 198. 269 was a complete disaster south of 198 but actually had a well signed detour route near Harris Ranch. G16 was in terrible shape near the Arroyo Seco River but passable, kind of neat to see much water in the San Luis Reservoir in the way back home. Needless to say it was a bumpy ride with the weather and something I haven't seen to that degree in a long time.
Quote from: Quillz on February 01, 2017, 11:39:02 PM
Didn't know there was talk of removing I-980. Seems that would cause some traffic issues.
But if it does happen, can they please replace I-238 with I-980?
Replacing 238 with 980 would not be a good plan. It would be moving a route number to another route close by, which would be certain to cause confusion.
If they wanted to go to the expense of renumbering I-238, it could be switched to I-480. It's been long enough for the negative associations with the Embarcadero Freeway to be mostly forgotten, and that was on the other side of the Bay anyway. It would even be somewhat mnemonic, with 480 leading to 580.
I hope they don't remove I-980, though. It's a useful connector that avoids sections of 580 and 880 that are usually terribly congested already. The ramps don't exist from 580 west to 880 south and vice versa, and it would be hard squeezing them in around the railroad, sewage treatment plant, and businesses that exist there.
Quote from: kkt on February 03, 2017, 12:18:43 PM
Quote from: Quillz on February 01, 2017, 11:39:02 PM
Didn't know there was talk of removing I-980. Seems that would cause some traffic issues.
But if it does happen, can they please replace I-238 with I-980?
Replacing 238 with 980 would not be a good plan. It would be moving a route number to another route close by, which would be certain to cause confusion.
If they wanted to go to the expense of renumbering I-238, it could be switched to I-480. It's been long enough for the negative associations with the Embarcadero Freeway to be mostly forgotten, and that was on the other side of the Bay anyway. It would even be somewhat mnemonic, with 480 leading to 580.
I hope they don't remove I-980, though. It's a useful connector that avoids sections of 580 and 880 that are usually terribly congested already. The ramps don't exist from 580 west to 880 south and vice versa, and it would be hard squeezing them in around the railroad, sewage treatment plant, and businesses that exist there.
So this is on the table again! Looks like the roving circus of the Congress for New Urbanism (how it morphed from a methodology to a quasi-philosophy is certainly bizarre) has touched down here with their boulevard "grandiosity". I-980 functions as a linchpin in the regional system; unless its function were to be replaced by ramps from I-880 north that linked into the I-580/CA 24 interchange (which in itself would involve considerable property-taking), the loss of 980 would certainly be felt in the traffic patterns of the region. But the urbanists, by their own admission, really don't have much concern for mobility, city-wide or regionally; the more radical of these actually decry the private ownership of automobiles. Reviving the "city-state" concept seems to be one of their longer-term aims. Whether their aims are worthy is a matter for conjecture; but it seems that there's little common ground for discussion -- welcome to the public-sector arena of 2017!
Quote from: sparker on February 03, 2017, 05:15:43 PM
Quote from: kkt on February 03, 2017, 12:18:43 PM
Quote from: Quillz on February 01, 2017, 11:39:02 PM
Didn't know there was talk of removing I-980. Seems that would cause some traffic issues.
But if it does happen, can they please replace I-238 with I-980?
Replacing 238 with 980 would not be a good plan. It would be moving a route number to another route close by, which would be certain to cause confusion.
If they wanted to go to the expense of renumbering I-238, it could be switched to I-480. It's been long enough for the negative associations with the Embarcadero Freeway to be mostly forgotten, and that was on the other side of the Bay anyway. It would even be somewhat mnemonic, with 480 leading to 580.
I hope they don't remove I-980, though. It's a useful connector that avoids sections of 580 and 880 that are usually terribly congested already. The ramps don't exist from 580 west to 880 south and vice versa, and it would be hard squeezing them in around the railroad, sewage treatment plant, and businesses that exist there.
So this is on the table again! Looks like the roving circus of the Congress for New Urbanism (how it morphed from a methodology to a quasi-philosophy is certainly bizarre) has touched down here with their boulevard "grandiosity". I-980 functions as a linchpin in the regional system; unless its function were to be replaced by ramps from I-880 north that linked into the I-580/CA 24 interchange (which in itself would involve considerable property-taking), the loss of 980 would certainly be felt in the traffic patterns of the region. But the urbanists, by their own admission, really don't have much concern for mobility, city-wide or regionally; the more radical of these actually decry the private ownership of automobiles. Reviving the "city-state" concept seems to be one of their longer-term aims. Whether their aims are worthy is a matter for conjecture; but it seems that there's little common ground for discussion -- welcome to the public-sector arena of 2017!
I don't think this has anything to do with New Urbanism. I think this has a certain appeal to an Oakland gentrifier, who looks at the "urban boulevard" renderings, with all its happy, stick-ish people in mid-stride, and reacts fondly to an imagined bygone era of Main Street America.
Considering how it looks on Sunday night at 11pm, I don't know that it would be that hard to manipulate 980's traffic counts to make it look useless. But I also don't actually think that it will go away.
Quote from: coatimundi on February 04, 2017, 03:45:19 AM
I don't think this has anything to do with New Urbanism. I think this has a certain appeal to an Oakland gentrifier, who looks at the "urban boulevard" renderings, with all its happy, stick-ish people in mid-stride, and reacts fondly to an imagined bygone era of Main Street America.
Considering how it looks on Sunday night at 11pm, I don't know that it would be that hard to manipulate 980's traffic counts to make it look useless. But I also don't actually think that it will go away.
Just an aside -- it's uncanny how many of the renderings of post-freeway cities, with their hordes of folks enjoying strolling down their "retro" boulevards, look a lot like R. Crumb or Gilbert Shelton cartoons from the late '60's/early '70's. I keep looking for the Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers skulking about when I see such illustrations! :cool:
Quote from: sparker on February 04, 2017, 03:00:12 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on February 04, 2017, 03:45:19 AM
I don't think this has anything to do with New Urbanism. I think this has a certain appeal to an Oakland gentrifier, who looks at the "urban boulevard" renderings, with all its happy, stick-ish people in mid-stride, and reacts fondly to an imagined bygone era of Main Street America.
Considering how it looks on Sunday night at 11pm, I don't know that it would be that hard to manipulate 980's traffic counts to make it look useless. But I also don't actually think that it will go away.
Just an aside -- it's uncanny how many of the renderings of post-freeway cities, with their hordes of folks enjoying strolling down their "retro" boulevards, look a lot like R. Crumb or Gilbert Shelton cartoons from the late '60's/early '70's. I keep looking for the Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers skulking about when I see such illustrations! :cool:
Don't forget Norbert the Narc, Fat Freddy's Cat and of course, Mr. Natural! R. Crumb is a very private person these days although when he passed through Port Orford OR, a good friend of mine spotted him and being a lover of all things Crumb, he was able to pull off the miracle of getting an autograph, which was more a work of art than a mere signature. Very cool!
Rick
Quote from: nexus73 on February 04, 2017, 06:54:37 PM
Don't forget Norbert the Narc, Fat Freddy's Cat and of course, Mr. Natural! R. Crumb is a very private person these days although when he passed through Port Orford OR, a good friend of mine spotted him and being a lover of all things Crumb, he was able to pull off the miracle of getting an autograph, which was more a work of art than a mere signature. Very cool!
Rick
Ah yes -- some of the Freak cartoons rank among the classics (the one where Freddy's Cat shits in his headphones as revenge for not being let outside is priceless). Prior to recently, it's clear that the subject matter of the comic books prevented some enterprising animation outfit from producing a Freak Bros. film -- but after "Sausage Party" -- and even "Family Guy" -- perhaps there's still hope!