From the LA Times over the weekend comes an article about a proposed 63 mile high desert freeway extending from Palmdale to Victorville, north to and paralleling CA-138 / CA -18.
http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-high-desert-freeway-20180210-htmlstory.html
I'm surprised that it hasn't been discussed here yet - I was surprised to hear of the proposal. If it ever came to fruition, it would relieve a lot off traffic off of CA-138.
Any comments?
--jpm
I haven't heard of this specific highway proposal before, but I'm not surprised they're looking at developing it. This corridor has been mentioned in this forum before as a possible metro LA bypass for I-10 traffic headed to/from points in California farther North. I know it has come up in discussions about The CA-58 corridor between Barstow & Bakersfield (what really should be an extension of I-40).
A Palmdale to Victorville freeway would be a decent start. But really the freeway corridor ought to be longer. I think CA-138 from the I-5 interchange over to CA-14 North of Lancaster should be upgraded. There's already a freeway to freeway quality interchange at I-5. It quickly drops down to a 2-lane road at Quail Lake. I think there should be at least a 4-lane expressway route between Victorville and Joshua Tree & Twentynine Palms. CA-62 between I-10 and Morongo Valley & Yucca Valley may be worthy of upgrades.
That LA Times article characterizes freeways as being old fashioned and that interest is mainly in mass transit. We're always going to need roads. I think what's going on with this mass transit vs freeways thing is a contest over where public money is being spent. It's politics. They're still promoting the fantasy of getting everyone to move into dense inner city neighborhoods and just rely on mass transit. Not everyone wants to do that for their own specific reasons. And the issue of affordability cannot be stressed high enough. Housing costs and living costs in general have grown ridiculous inside of America's largest cities, including LA. Yet the "experts" are wondering why communities on the wrong side of the San Gabriel Mountains are growing so much. I think a lot of those experts are just out of touch.
Maybe this won't exactly solve the problems experienced in the northern suburbs, but it's a nice start. The sooner, the better, as they say, and hopefully this may eventually become part of a giant loop around L.A. and San Diego so that those not heading to those cities may take it to access I-15 and I-10 a lot quicker to get to Las Vegas and Phoenix, respectively.
Isn't this just revisiting the old "Metropolitan Bypass" freeway that was proposed (and the I-5/CA 138 interchange was actually built for). Imagine if that had actually gotten built...
There certainly needs to be high-speed access between the two desert valleys (Antelope and Victor), not only to bypass the LA Basin, but because of the growth of the High Desert communities themselves.
I can foresee this freeway putting even more stress on I-15 through Cajon Pass if this is going to be used as a bypass around the LA Basin.....unless there are (very) long term plans to connect the eastern part to I-10 by going around the back of Mt San Gregornio. That would be high on the "impossible meter."
-jpm
Why wouldn't a four-lane configuration on an expressway grade work from I-5 east to I-15 work with CA 138 and CA 18? There are some segments near Victorville that probably ought to be controlled access but a full freeway wouldn't be really all that necessary in much of the jog west to I-5. An expressway could be groomed not to have traffic lights much like CA 198 and US 101 south of San Francisco is. Upgrades to a full freeway grade could be made as needed rather than all at once. US 395 could a similar upgrade from I-15 north to CA 58...Kramer Junction bypass or not.
I think CA-138 should at least be a 4-lane expressway between I-5 and CA-14. They could build the thing Texas-style: 2 roadways separated by a large median big enough to hold a future freeway. Development is sparse along that corridor
for now. It won't be long before increased development makes it difficult or impossible to upgrade.
It doesn't seem clear to me what the best alignment would be between Palmdale and Victorville. Upgrading parts of CA-138 and CA-18 seem very do-able in the undeveloped areas between the two cities. It's not going to be easy at all to lay down a new freeway over CA-18 inside Victorville and CA-138 within Palmdale. The longer it takes to acquire ROW the more difficult prospects for the highway will become.
Quote from: jpmI can foresee this freeway putting even more stress on I-15 through Cajon Pass if this is going to be used as a bypass around the LA Basin.....unless there are (very) long term plans to connect the eastern part to I-10 by going around the back of Mt San Gregornio. That would be high on the "impossible meter."
I think the thing to do is upgrade CA-247 to Joshua Tree (at least in 4-lane expressway format) and then CA-62 down to I-10. That would pull a lot of long distance bypass traffic on I-10 away from the I-15 option.
Another thing would be building at least some kind of road, even a 2-lane route between I-10 East of Desert Center and CA-62 to the Northwest. The route would skirt a couple solar power farms, Desert Center Airport and then connect to CA-62 about 30 miles East of Twentynine Palms. CA-62 makes a sharp bend around some mountains at that point. The valley is open and pretty flat between that point and I-10. Such a road would be a plus for road-based military traffic going between Twentynine Palms, MCAS Yuma and the Army's Yuma Proving Ground. This road would cut through the East side of Joshua Tree National Park. But it's not the focal area of that park land.
I seem to recall an seeing old Thomas Bros map (a long time ago) showing something similar as the Metropolitan Bypass. I think they showed it as CA 48.
Quote from: MarkF on February 13, 2018, 12:22:08 AM
I seem to recall an seeing old Thomas Bros map (a long time ago) showing something similar as the Metropolitan Bypass. I think they showed it as CA 48.
The 1990 state highway map shows a proposed 48 alignment taking over part of 138 east to US 395:
https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239483~5511824:State-Highway-Map,-1990-?sort=Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No&qvq=q:caltrans;sort:Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=1&trs=86
This is the "E-220" proposal mentioned back in 2005 within the legislative description of High Priority Corridor #71, part of that year's SAFETEA-LU omnibus transportation act. Generally talked about as a toll road, it is slated to terminate (W) at CA 14 north of downtown Palmdale (somewhere near the old "Skunk Works" aerospace plant) and extend east past Lake Los Angeles (more a desert retirement community than an actual lake!) and intersect US 395 in Adelanto. East of there the concept is merged with a relocation of CA 18, which will generally follow Air Base Parkway (which itself slides between the former George AFB to the north and the prison grounds to the south), interchanging with I-15 about 2-3 miles north of the present east CA 18 (D Street) exit in Victorville. From CA 14 to I-15 it is expected to be a full limited-access facility; but east of I-15 it is being planned as an expressway bypassing both Victorville and Apple Valley to the north, returning to the present CA 18 alignment east of Apple Valley.
Apparently the "E-220" designation indicates some sort of PPP arrangement (it certainly has nothing to do with a CA 220 designation, which exists some 350 miles northwest); it's probably just a "placeholder" number for the project, which may include some rail format (the west end just happens to be where the California HSR alignment is located; whether any rail along the corridor follows that format or a more conventional sort has yet TBD). The east end is near the major BNSF/UP Cajon Pass rail line -- but the area at either end of the corridor, while consistently growing, may not yet be able to support commute rail. My guess is that the corridor will be built as a limited-access tollway with enough space in the median to place a future rail line. What it will be actually designated is, at the moment, anyone's guess.
From the original Metropolitan Bypass concept dating from the late '50's, this area has seen proposal after proposal for access and connectivity; we'll just have to see if this one actually plays out.
The LA Times's perspective on the high desert freeway is disappointing.
There isn't another reasonably approach to addressing transportation needs for that part of the county. If the County was smart they would consider provisions for tolled express lanes along the corridor as a way to manage transportation demand in the long term.
It doesn't take too much googling to find how few passengers even fairly established LRT lines carry relative to the neighbouring highway network. In an exurban area such as the high desert there isn't any realistic alternative to transport by auto.
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on February 13, 2018, 08:41:41 PM
The LA Times's perspective on the high desert freeway is disappointing.
Is I-105 truly the last freeway built in LA County, or does that distinction go to the CA 30 now CA 210 freeway leading east toward San Bernardino County?
Quote from: andy3175 on February 13, 2018, 10:22:09 PM
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on February 13, 2018, 08:41:41 PM
The LA Times's perspective on the high desert freeway is disappointing.
Is I-105 truly the last freeway built in LA County, or does that distinction go to the CA 30 now CA 210 freeway leading east toward San Bernardino County?
The CA 210 freeway east of CA 57 would be the most recent freeway built in LA County.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 12, 2018, 01:40:51 AM
A Palmdale to Victorville freeway would be a decent start. But really the freeway corridor ought to be longer. I think CA-138 from the I-5 interchange over to CA-14 North of Lancaster should be upgraded. There's already a freeway to freeway quality interchange at I-5. It quickly drops down to a 2-lane road at Quail Lake. I think there should be at least a 4-lane expressway route between Victorville and Joshua Tree & Twentynine Palms. CA-62 between I-10 and Morongo Valley & Yucca Valley may be worthy of upgrades.
I think the freeway corridor should originate at I-5/CA 138, extend east on CA 138 to CA-14, connect with the planned E-220 corridor between CA-14 and I-15 (maybe this will be CA-18?), and then extend east past Apple Valley to join with CA 247 at Lucerne Valley. The freeway (or maybe expressway, I just prefer separation of the two directions of traffic) travels toward Landers, then would drop south toward I-10 via CA-62. CA-62 could use more than just an expressway given the number of intersections along its route west and south of Yucca Valley. But that would create a clean bypass from I-5 to I-10 and also create a good east-west connector across the southern Mojave Desert that links the developing communities. I'm doubtful there can ever be an Interstate-standard freeway through Morongo Valley south of Yucca Valley, but at least this would promote a genuine bypass of the whole LA metro area as envisioned with the very old Metropolitan Bypass.
Quote from: emory on February 13, 2018, 10:25:52 PM
Quote from: andy3175 on February 13, 2018, 10:22:09 PM
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on February 13, 2018, 08:41:41 PM
The LA Times's perspective on the high desert freeway is disappointing.
Is I-105 truly the last freeway built in LA County, or does that distinction go to the CA 30 now CA 210 freeway leading east toward San Bernardino County?
The CA 210 freeway east of CA 57 would be the most recent freeway built in LA County.
That's what I have thought. I based on my concern on the title of piece, which reads "L.A. County set to build its first new freeway in 25 years, despite many misgivings." It is also mentioned in the article:
QuoteThe county's first new freeway in a quarter-century is something of a throwback, as regional planners have shifted their focus in recent years toward mass transit and infill development to combat snarled traffic and housing shortages. Yet it serves as a reminder that even as Los Angeles moves to encourage more density in its urban neighborhoods, development continues to push into the scrublands on the county's fringes.
Quote from: sparker on February 13, 2018, 05:42:56 PM
From CA 14 to I-15 it is expected to be a full limited-access facility; but east of I-15 it is being planned as an expressway bypassing both Victorville and Apple Valley to the north, returning to the present CA 18 alignment east of Apple Valley.
I just passed thru the area on I-15 around Thanksgiving weekend. There are several new exits along I-15 in the Victor Valley, but I noticed one on the far north end labeled "Dale Evans Parkway", and that there was a lot of construction going on near the I-15 interchanges with D & E Streets. Maybe it has nothing to do with this particular freeway project (I suspect it just has to do with the steadily increasing population), but isn't this near where the east end of the proposed freeway is to be located?
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on February 13, 2018, 08:41:41 PM
The LA Times's perspective on the high desert freeway is disappointing.
True, but hardly unexpected from the LA Times which like most media in the Golden State hates cars and highways. :popcorn:
The article does refer to this as the first new freeway in 25 years. Given that the 210 was a freeway extension and not an entirely new freeway, I would agree this is the first new freeway in 25 years. Except it will have been much more than 25 years before the first ground is moved, much less finished.
Surprising that this thread has been up three days and we haven't seen FritzOwl's "My plans make CA-138, CA-18 and CA-62 coast-to-coast Interstates and number them I-12, I-12.2 and I-12.4" :)
Re: first new freeway in L.A. County: in addition to being an extension rather than a whole new route, the 210 extension also had only about 5 of its 26 miles in L.A. County, so I'm not surprised it doesn't really "count."
As far as the route itself: how much traffic is currently going between Lancaster/Palmdale and Hesperia/Victorville? It seems to me like those are mainly exurbs with people either working within each urban area, or commuting into L.A. and/or the Inland Empire, in which case this route doesn't really help anything.
"Twinning" the entirety of CA 138 as expressway (procuring the ROW for freeway upgrade should that ever be necessary (which I doubt)) between I-15 and CA-14, and between CA-14 and I-15 at Cajon, and CA-18 between Llano and Victorville would seem to me the easiest solution. There would need to be new alignment in Victorville and in Palmdale and perhaps a little bypass here and there, but a whole new alignment doesn't seem like the best use of the money vs. need.
As far as long-distance traffic - if the goal is to get from Palm Springs and points east to Bakersfield and points north, wouldn't a better plan be continuing to upgrade CA-58 and then looking at CA-247 and CA-62 from Barstow to I-10? OR, from Phoenix and beyond, just using proposed I-11 to I-40 to CA-58? If the Victor and Antelope Valleys continue to grow as they have been, then long-distance traffic is just going to get mired there, instead of in L.A. Maybe not quite as bad, but I can easily see both those areas topping a million people within 30 years, so it would still be messy.
Quote from: DTComposer on February 14, 2018, 04:31:49 PM
Surprising that this thread has been up three days and we haven't seen FritzOwl's "My plans make CA-138, CA-18 and CA-62 coast-to-coast Interstates and number them I-12, I-12.2 and I-12.4" :)
FritzOwl knows better than the post that kind of stuff here. He's actually pretty good about confining his posts to the Fictional board.
Quote from: andy3175 on February 13, 2018, 10:28:23 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 12, 2018, 01:40:51 AM
A Palmdale to Victorville freeway would be a decent start. But really the freeway corridor ought to be longer. I think CA-138 from the I-5 interchange over to CA-14 North of Lancaster should be upgraded. There's already a freeway to freeway quality interchange at I-5. It quickly drops down to a 2-lane road at Quail Lake. I think there should be at least a 4-lane expressway route between Victorville and Joshua Tree & Twentynine Palms. CA-62 between I-10 and Morongo Valley & Yucca Valley may be worthy of upgrades.
I think the freeway corridor should originate at I-5/CA 138, extend east on CA 138 to CA-14, connect with the planned E-220 corridor between CA-14 and I-15 (maybe this will be CA-18?), and then extend east past Apple Valley to join with CA 247 at Lucerne Valley. The freeway (or maybe expressway, I just prefer separation of the two directions of traffic) travels toward Landers, then would drop south toward I-10 via CA-62. CA-62 could use more than just an expressway given the number of intersections along its route west and south of Yucca Valley. But that would create a clean bypass from I-5 to I-10 and also create a good east-west connector across the southern Mojave Desert that links the developing communities. I'm doubtful there can ever be an Interstate-standard freeway through Morongo Valley south of Yucca Valley, but at least this would promote a genuine bypass of the whole LA metro area as envisioned with the very old Metropolitan Bypass.
This is probably the best of all ideas regarding a true bypass of L.A. Metro; the original concept strictly along CA 138 has been rendered moot by the outsized development of the San Bernardino area -- dragging "bypass" traffic into that mess would hardly be a worthwhile project. And Andy is quite correct about the issues between Yucca Valley and I-10 -- mainly the Morongo Canyon south of Morongo Valley, where 4 lanes of CA 62 occupy much of the canyon floor. To get any high-capacity route through there, Interstate-grade or not, would likely require construction efforts similar to that on I-5 north of Castaic -- using the present alignment for one direction, and constructing a new-terrain set of lanes through the adjoining hills for the other. South and north of that particular obstacle there's little in the way of physical obstacles; from the canyon's mouth to I-10 is an existing (and readily upgradeable) divided expressway (although the last time I was through there circa 2012 the pavement needed a
lot of work!). North of there any facility would require considerable property-taking through Morongo Valley and the west side of Yucca Valley; houses and ranches dot the valley floor and hillsides. However, from there all the way "around the horn" following CA 247 and then CA 18 into Apple Valley is actually doable; SOP desert construction (although there are several normally dry waterways from the east side of the San Bernardino Mountains that will require bridging -- this is flash-flood territory on an alluvial "fan").
Unfortunately, anything east of Apple Valley isn't on any official radar screen at present; San Bernardino County remains a bit of a "backwater" as far as funding goes. If the "E-220" project didn't include L.A. County, the chances are it would remain a line on the map for good. By itself, the 14-to-15 segment does two main things: it connects the two developing areas in the High Desert, and provides a "shortcut" to the main Las Vegas route (as well as I-40 east of Barstow) that doesn't involve Inland Empire congestion; it's particularly useful to folks living in the western part of L.A. metro (at least that part west of I-405) as well as commercial transport originating or terminating in that area -- which enables a
lot of vehicles to reach those outlying areas sooner -- but also has the potential to cause even more congestion on CA 14 from I-5 to Palmdale than its current troublesome levels. In the short run, it may be simply trading the frying pan that is general congestion east of L.A. for the fire (CA 14 backups). If the corridor is built as planned, we'll see in about 20 years just what transpires.
Quote from: andy3175 on February 13, 2018, 10:28:23 PM
I think the freeway corridor should originate at I-5/CA 138, extend east on CA 138 to CA-14, connect with the planned E-220 corridor between CA-14 and I-15 (maybe this will be CA-18?), and then extend east past Apple Valley to join with CA 247 at Lucerne Valley. The freeway (or maybe expressway, I just prefer separation of the two directions of traffic) travels toward Landers, then would drop south toward I-10 via CA-62. CA-62 could use more than just an expressway given the number of intersections along its route west and south of Yucca Valley. But that would create a clean bypass from I-5 to I-10 and also create a good east-west connector across the southern Mojave Desert that links the developing communities. I'm doubtful there can ever be an Interstate-standard freeway through Morongo Valley south of Yucca Valley, but at least this would promote a genuine bypass of the whole LA metro area as envisioned with the very old Metropolitan Bypass.
Ah, the northern leg of my I-9 concept, with the southern leg being the CA 86/111/7 corridor to the border at Mexicali.
Quote from: bigdave on February 14, 2018, 01:20:43 PMTrue, but hardly unexpected from the LA Times which like most media in the Golden State hates cars and highways. :popcorn:
The article does refer to this as the first new freeway in 25 years.
The latter thing is surprising given the former. It's a factoid (that we're having issues with) that infers that LA's freeway network has been neglected wrt development in the county. A factoid that undermines LA's (outdated) image as Freeway-city.
Quote from: myosh_tino on February 14, 2018, 05:05:40 PM
FritzOwl knows better than the post that kind of stuff here. He's actually pretty good about confining his posts to the Fictional board.
Wow, I had no idea there is a Fictional board. Some of that stuff is great! :clap:
Quote from: sparkerAnd Andy is quite correct about the issues between Yucca Valley and I-10 -- mainly the Morongo Canyon south of Morongo Valley, where 4 lanes of CA 62 occupy much of the canyon floor. To get any high-capacity route through there, Interstate-grade or not, would likely require construction efforts similar to that on I-5 north of Castaic -- using the present alignment for one direction, and constructing a new-terrain set of lanes through the adjoining hills for the other. South and north of that particular obstacle there's little in the way of physical obstacles; from the canyon's mouth to I-10 is an existing (and readily upgradeable) divided expressway (although the last time I was through there circa 2012 the pavement needed a lot of work!). North of there any facility would require considerable property-taking through Morongo Valley and the west side of Yucca Valley; houses and ranches dot the valley floor and hillsides. However, from there all the way "around the horn" following CA 247 and then CA 18 into Apple Valley is actually doable; SOP desert construction (although there are several normally dry waterways from the east side of the San Bernardino Mountains that will require bridging -- this is flash-flood territory on an alluvial "fan").
CA-62 can be converted to a freeway from I-10 up through the mountain pass and up to the doorstep of the town of Morongo Valley. The road would need work in the mountain pass; it's already divided, but the shoulders appear inadequate in spots. It doesn't look like there are any driveways there.
It would take some creative ideas to get CA-62 converted into a freeway through the town of Morongo Valley. An elevated highway about 1 mile long over the current CA-62 four lane is do-able and wouldn't need to consume a bunch of property. But elevated highways face serious political headwinds. So that would force a new highway alignment.
Not many of the properties that dot the valley floor look valuable. It might not be all that difficult to acquire ROW. Bypassing Yucca Valley would be more tricky. There's too much development along CA-62 itself. At first glance a bypass around the north side of town would seen feasible. But there are some higher income homes and a golf course along that side.
These difficulties are one of the reasons I thought about an I-10 to CA-62 link starting near Desert Center. It would prevent Westbound I-10 traffic headed to Northern CA from having to back-track through Morongo Valley. It would be a more direct route to a larger LA High Desert Highway bypass.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 15, 2018, 02:27:19 PM
Quote from: sparkerAnd Andy is quite correct about the issues between Yucca Valley and I-10 -- mainly the Morongo Canyon south of Morongo Valley, where 4 lanes of CA 62 occupy much of the canyon floor. To get any high-capacity route through there, Interstate-grade or not, would likely require construction efforts similar to that on I-5 north of Castaic -- using the present alignment for one direction, and constructing a new-terrain set of lanes through the adjoining hills for the other. South and north of that particular obstacle there's little in the way of physical obstacles; from the canyon's mouth to I-10 is an existing (and readily upgradeable) divided expressway (although the last time I was through there circa 2012 the pavement needed a lot of work!). North of there any facility would require considerable property-taking through Morongo Valley and the west side of Yucca Valley; houses and ranches dot the valley floor and hillsides. However, from there all the way "around the horn" following CA 247 and then CA 18 into Apple Valley is actually doable; SOP desert construction (although there are several normally dry waterways from the east side of the San Bernardino Mountains that will require bridging -- this is flash-flood territory on an alluvial "fan").
CA-62 can be converted to a freeway from I-10 up through the mountain pass and up to the doorstep of the town of Morongo Valley. The road would need work in the mountain pass; it's already divided, but the shoulders appear inadequate in spots. It doesn't look like there are any driveways there.
It would take some creative ideas to get CA-62 converted into a freeway through the town of Morongo Valley. An elevated highway about 1 mile long over the current CA-62 four lane is do-able and wouldn't need to consume a bunch of property. But elevated highways face serious political headwinds. So that would force a new highway alignment.
Not many of the properties that dot the valley floor look valuable. It might not be all that difficult to acquire ROW. Bypassing Yucca Valley would be more tricky. There's too much development along CA-62 itself. At first glance a bypass around the north side of town would seen feasible. But there are some higher income homes and a golf course along that side.
These difficulties are one of the reasons I thought about an I-10 to CA-62 link starting near Desert Center. It would prevent Westbound I-10 traffic headed to Northern CA from having to back-track through Morongo Valley. It would be a more direct route to a larger LA High Desert Highway bypass.
Actually, if plans were to forego any part of the CA 62 alignment from I-10 to the Morongo/Yucca Valley separation (a shallow rise on EB 62), a facility from I-10 south of Desert Hot Springs through that "community" (the more of
that particular desert blight that's taken by eminent domain the better, IMHO!) and over the mountains west of the Joshua Tree NP boundaries and alighting either west or east of Yucca Valley might be a possibility (albeit not cheap!). While there's a few alignments through Morongo that, from my recollection on the ground there before 2012, could be utilized as a freeway routing (it's ranch country, with more outbuildings than residences), a new-terrain route to the east would likely involve less overall taking of improved property and, as Bobby mentions, would require considerably less backtracking than a CA 62-based alignment (also avoid that damn canyon!), making it more of a real metro bypass rather than something cobbled over a quasi-adequate corridor. I'll have to do a GSV look at that area -- after I finish putting out some recently-developed fires at work!
CA-62 can be converted to a freeway from I-10 up through the mountain pass and up to the doorstep of the town of Morongo Valley. The road would need work in the mountain pass; it's already divided, but the shoulders appear inadequate in spots. It doesn't look like there are any driveways there.
It would take some creative ideas to get CA-62 converted into a freeway through the town of Morongo Valley. An elevated highway about 1 mile long over the current CA-62 four lane is do-able and wouldn't need to consume a bunch of property. But elevated highways face serious political headwinds. So that would force a new highway alignment.
Not many of the properties that dot the valley floor look valuable. It might not be all that difficult to acquire ROW. Bypassing Yucca Valley would be more tricky. There's too much development along CA-62 itself. At first glance a bypass around the north side of town would seen feasible. But there are some higher income homes and a golf course along that side.
These difficulties are one of the reasons I thought about an I-10 to CA-62 link starting near Desert Center. It would prevent Westbound I-10 traffic headed to Northern CA from having to back-track through Morongo Valley. It would be a more direct route to a larger LA High Desert Highway bypass.
[/quote]
I think anything elevated in that area would be a non-starter for two reasons: Cost and seismic risk.
Quote from: sparkerActually, if plans were to forego any part of the CA 62 alignment from I-10 to the Morongo/Yucca Valley separation (a shallow rise on EB 62), a facility from I-10 south of Desert Hot Springs through that "community" (the more of that particular desert blight that's taken by eminent domain the better, IMHO!) and over the mountains west of the Joshua Tree NP boundaries and alighting either west or east of Yucca Valley might be a possibility (albeit not cheap!).
I wasn't talking about Desert Hot Springs. Desert Center is an hour drive East on I-10 from the CA-62 exit (117).
The gap I describe spanning would begin around mile marker 199 on I-10 a little East of Desert Center. It would run just east of the Desert Center airport and Chuckwalla Valley Raceway. The road would cross CA-177 and skirt east of a large solar power farm and the Eagle Mountain community. Then it would shoot a modest gap in the Coxcomb Mountains and proceed through a wide open desert valley to CA-62, near a point where CA-62 makes a fairly sharp bend around a mountain range. Then the upgraded highway would approach Twentynine Palms from the East. This concept could bypass the town of Twentynine Palms to the north and provide closer service to the Marine Corps base to the North. The road could also avoid the development in Joshua Tree and Yucca Valley, hooking into CA-247 near the town of Landers.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 16, 2018, 11:15:07 AM
Quote from: sparkerActually, if plans were to forego any part of the CA 62 alignment from I-10 to the Morongo/Yucca Valley separation (a shallow rise on EB 62), a facility from I-10 south of Desert Hot Springs through that "community" (the more of that particular desert blight that's taken by eminent domain the better, IMHO!) and over the mountains west of the Joshua Tree NP boundaries and alighting either west or east of Yucca Valley might be a possibility (albeit not cheap!).
I wasn't talking about Desert Hot Springs. Desert Center is an hour drive East on I-10 from the CA-62 exit (117).
The gap I describe spanning would begin around mile marker 199 on I-10 a little East of Desert Center. It would run just east of the Desert Center airport and Chuckwalla Valley Raceway. The road would cross CA-177 and skirt east of a large solar power farm and the Eagle Mountain community. Then it would shoot a modest gap in the Coxcomb Mountains and proceed through a wide open desert valley to CA-62, near a point where CA-62 makes a fairly sharp bend around a mountain range. Then the upgraded highway would approach Twentynine Palms from the East. This concept could bypass the town of Twentynine Palms to the north and provide closer service to the Marine Corps base to the North. The road could also avoid the development in Joshua Tree and Yucca Valley, hooking into CA-247 near the town of Landers.
Where is the traffic that would utilize this bypass coming from? Once the bypass starts this far east, wouldn't most of the traffic be coming from Phoenix and points east? At that point, why not complete and use the I-11/I-40/CA-58 corridor?
Quote from: DTComposer on February 16, 2018, 12:31:07 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 16, 2018, 11:15:07 AM
Quote from: sparkerActually, if plans were to forego any part of the CA 62 alignment from I-10 to the Morongo/Yucca Valley separation (a shallow rise on EB 62), a facility from I-10 south of Desert Hot Springs through that "community" (the more of that particular desert blight that's taken by eminent domain the better, IMHO!) and over the mountains west of the Joshua Tree NP boundaries and alighting either west or east of Yucca Valley might be a possibility (albeit not cheap!).
I wasn't talking about Desert Hot Springs. Desert Center is an hour drive East on I-10 from the CA-62 exit (117).
The gap I describe spanning would begin around mile marker 199 on I-10 a little East of Desert Center. It would run just east of the Desert Center airport and Chuckwalla Valley Raceway. The road would cross CA-177 and skirt east of a large solar power farm and the Eagle Mountain community. Then it would shoot a modest gap in the Coxcomb Mountains and proceed through a wide open desert valley to CA-62, near a point where CA-62 makes a fairly sharp bend around a mountain range. Then the upgraded highway would approach Twentynine Palms from the East. This concept could bypass the town of Twentynine Palms to the north and provide closer service to the Marine Corps base to the North. The road could also avoid the development in Joshua Tree and Yucca Valley, hooking into CA-247 near the town of Landers.
Where is the traffic that would utilize this bypass coming from? Once the bypass starts this far east, wouldn't most of the traffic be coming from Phoenix and points east? At that point, why not complete and use the I-11/I-40/CA-58 corridor?
The other issue with taking a bypass out past 29 Palms and then dropping it down to I-10 somewhere near CA 177 is that it would not serve either the Coachella Valley area or the Salton Sea region (Coachella down to Calexico); there's considerable agricultural truck traffic going back and forth from the Imperial to Central Valleys -- and much of that seems to wind up on Cajon Pass, US 395, and CA 58. Getting
that out of the Inland Empire would seem to be a primary reason for deploying a bypass in the first place; configuring the bypass to serve as many traffic originators as possible would seem to me to be a more than reasonable concept. It would certainly boost the potential AADT of such a bypass corridor -- possibly to the point of actual feasibility.
Quote from: DTComposerWhere is the traffic that would utilize this bypass coming from? Once the bypass starts this far east, wouldn't most of the traffic be coming from Phoenix and points east? At that point, why not complete and use the I-11/I-40/CA-58 corridor?
I-11 will primarily be for traffic headed between Las Vegas and Phoenix and other points along that diagonal.
This bypass I describe would actually give I-10 traffic coming from Phoenix a more direct path to the I-5 corridor North of LA than taking the I-11/I-40/CA-58 route through Bakersfield. The I-11/I-40 combo would make a really big, time/mileage-wasting "S" shape going up to I-40 and through Kingman, AZ. Bakersfield is a fairly big city and I-5 acts as a regional bypass to it. Traffic joining I-5 at the CA-138 interchange would have the option of using either the CA-99 or I-5 corridor.
I still think CA-58 from Barstow to Bakersfield and I-5 should be fully upgraded to Interstate standards, and that's for all the traffic coming from I-40. That's a major corridor too.
It's worth mentioning again the military benefits of this kind of connection. It would cut a lot of mileage off road trips between the Twentynine Palms and MCAS Yuma Marine Corp bases. The Army has Yuma Proving Ground just North of Yuma; Luke AFB and its giant range is East of Yuma. Twentynine Palms has its own large bombing/artillery range. Lots of equipment and personnel move between those installations. Politicians are trying hard to sell I-14 ideas back East as a means of linking military installations. I see little benefit in their example. Improving connections in SE CA could actually be pretty useful. The route wouldn't be nearly as long either.
Quote from: sparkerThe other issue with taking a bypass out past 29 Palms and then dropping it down to I-10 somewhere near CA 177 is that it would not serve either the Coachella Valley area or the Salton Sea region (Coachella down to Calexico); there's considerable agricultural truck traffic going back and forth from the Imperial to Central Valleys -- and much of that seems to wind up on Cajon Pass, US 395, and CA 58. Getting that out of the Inland Empire would seem to be a primary reason for deploying a bypass in the first place; configuring the bypass to serve as many traffic originators as possible would seem to me to be a more than reasonable concept. It would certainly boost the potential AADT of such a bypass corridor -- possibly to the point of actual feasibility.
CA-62 and I-15 are the only options to get to the High Desert Highway for Coachella traffic and traffic coming up from El Centro and other points along the CA-111 corridor. There are no other gateways. The highway concept I describe going from I-10 mile 199 near Desert Center and Northwest up to CA-62 is the literally the nearest next possible opening for serious highway traffic. CA-177 sort of spans that gap, but going in a different diagonal direction. Cottonwood Springs Road & Pinto Basin Road is literally the only fully paved North-South road between Morongo Valley and CA-177. But that's a scenic road going through the Joshua Tree Park. The way that narrow road winds through mountains would not be friendly at all to truck traffic.
Hence my suggestion for a new-terrain facility through (gag) Desert Hot Springs and skirting the west end of the national park; how it traverses Yucca Valley and environs would be an issue TBD once the routing of the segment over the hills was finalized. Other than that, the rest of the corridor could go via Landers, Lucerne Valley, and segue onto the planned Apple Valley north bypass (and on to "E-220" and/or US 395).
Desert Hot Springs has a lot of mountains North of it. There are no existing roads going North out of that town that reach into the vicinity of Yucca Valley. One could try building a new highway along Long Canyon Road and follow the river bed cutting through those mountains going directly north. Long Canyon Road dead ends not far into those mountains. Designing the highway to not be prone to flash floods and keeping the road grade at/under 6% through there would be a very expensive endeavor, and it would seem pretty ridiculous with CA-62 only about 8 miles to the West. Given the choice, it would be cheaper buying out a bunch of property owners in Morongo Valley and Yucca Valley to build a freeway there. Caltrans may eventually have to do that anyway.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 16, 2018, 04:02:02 PM
Quote from: DTComposerWhere is the traffic that would utilize this bypass coming from? Once the bypass starts this far east, wouldn't most of the traffic be coming from Phoenix and points east? At that point, why not complete and use the I-11/I-40/CA-58 corridor?
I-11 will primarily be for traffic headed between Las Vegas and Phoenix and other points along that diagonal.
This bypass I describe would actually give I-10 traffic coming from Phoenix a more direct path to the I-5 corridor North of LA than taking the I-11/I-40/CA-58 route through Bakersfield. The I-11/I-40 combo would make a really big, time/mileage-wasting "S" shape going up to I-40 and through Kingman, AZ. Bakersfield is a fairly big city and I-5 acts as a regional bypass to it. Traffic joining I-5 at the CA-138 interchange would have the option of using either the CA-99 or I-5 corridor.
Right now, Phoenix to San Francisco is 791 miles if we use an approximation of this bypass (I-10/CA-177/CA-62/CA-247/CA-18/CA-138/I-5/I-580/I-80). Assuming a freeway/expressway straightens out this route a little, let's say 775 miles or so.
Phoenix to San Francisco using (US-93 (future I-11)/I-40/CA-58/I-5/I-580/I-80) is 812 miles. Again, assuming some straightening (but not as much since more of this route is already at least expressway), let's say 805 miles.
Yes, Bakersfield is a big city to drive through (urban area is about 575,000) but the High Desert Highway would be going through both Victorville/Hesperia and Lancaster/Palmdale (both 350,000+), so that's kind of a wash.
So asking this again, but slightly differently: is there enough traffic to warrant the cost of upgrading 200+ miles of two-lane road to expressway and/or freeway to save 30 miles from a routing that is already almost entirely expressway or better, and is already slated to be upgraded along the rest of the route?
Quote from: DTComposer on February 16, 2018, 04:51:07 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 16, 2018, 04:02:02 PM
Quote from: DTComposerWhere is the traffic that would utilize this bypass coming from? Once the bypass starts this far east, wouldn't most of the traffic be coming from Phoenix and points east? At that point, why not complete and use the I-11/I-40/CA-58 corridor?
I-11 will primarily be for traffic headed between Las Vegas and Phoenix and other points along that diagonal.
This bypass I describe would actually give I-10 traffic coming from Phoenix a more direct path to the I-5 corridor North of LA than taking the I-11/I-40/CA-58 route through Bakersfield. The I-11/I-40 combo would make a really big, time/mileage-wasting "S" shape going up to I-40 and through Kingman, AZ. Bakersfield is a fairly big city and I-5 acts as a regional bypass to it. Traffic joining I-5 at the CA-138 interchange would have the option of using either the CA-99 or I-5 corridor.
Right now, Phoenix to San Francisco is 791 miles if we use an approximation of this bypass (I-10/CA-177/CA-62/CA-247/CA-18/CA-138/I-5/I-580/I-80). Assuming a freeway/expressway straightens out this route a little, let's say 775 miles or so.
Phoenix to San Francisco using (US-93 (future I-11)/I-40/CA-58/I-5/I-580/I-80) is 812 miles. Again, assuming some straightening (but not as much since more of this route is already at least expressway), let's say 805 miles.
Yes, Bakersfield is a big city to drive through (urban area is about 575,000) but the High Desert Highway would be going through both Victorville/Hesperia and Lancaster/Palmdale (both 350,000+), so that's kind of a wash.
So asking this again, but slightly differently: is there enough traffic to warrant the cost of upgrading 200+ miles of two-lane road to expressway and/or freeway to save 30 miles from a routing that is already almost entirely expressway or better, and is already slated to be upgraded along the rest of the route?
The principal advantage to a closer-in bypass such as a composite one via (more or less) Yucca Valley, Victorville, and Lancaster would be as a "double-duty" facility serving to connect the exurban areas of northern L.A. County with the High Desert exurban complex (V'ville, Hesperia, etc.) clustered along I-15
as well as serving as a more convenient bypass which also serves the Coachella Valley. Of course, there are both upsides and downsides to this approach; the service potential described above is part & parcel of the upside; but another potential -- that for congestion if commute traffic dominates at recurring periods -- is always present. Since the "E-220" central section now under study & planning will clearly be the first piece of finished roadway of any extended bypass concept, it would be worthwhile for both local planners and Caltrans to keep a close eye on not only the volume but the composition of the traffic initially utilizing the new road, as it would indicate whether the dominant use of the new road is to augment existing commute patterns or servicing longer-distance travel as part of an alternate interregional picture. The findings may indicate whether or not utilizing the route as part of a more extensive metro bypass is (a) feasible and/or (b) appropriate in light of the improvements to CA 58 (which would be additionally telling if CA 14 were extended to CA 58 as a full freeway around Mojave as well as developing a freeway connection along US 395 between the Victorville area and CA 58) and the progress along the I-11 corridor well to the east. If that composite corridor comes on line in relatively short order, it may obviate -- at least for the near term -- any perceived pressing need to install the metro bypass as previously described in this thread.
I recall reading an article on TRN some years back about possibly building the highway as a toll road. It'll be interesting to see how that develops.
Quote from: theroadwayone on February 20, 2018, 01:30:43 AM
I recall reading an article on TRN some years back about possibly building the highway as a toll road. It'll be interesting to see how that develops.
AFAIK, it was always intended to be an ORT facility between Palmdale and US 395; the PPP nature of its proposed development virtually dictates that status. Whether there will be a transponder link with the existing toll facilities further south in Orange and possibly San Diego counties -- or the toll-lane segments in and around L.A. county -- hasn't been publicized as of yet; I'd stay tuned to see if that transpires.
I think the preferred alternative is a toll road concept that has parts of it being free to use. I support the entire thing being a freeway just to have a better freeway network.
The components of this are HSR and a bike trail.
Project homepage: https://www.metro.net/projects/high-desert-corridor/
I've been following this project with high hopes it gets built. The final EIRS was released last fall.
Final EIRS: http://www.dot.ca.gov/d7/env-docs/docs/hdc/
Who says this will get built? I am getting a little worried projects like and the 710 South expansion will get scaled back or even canceled with the current anti-freeway sentiment in California.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 22, 2018, 12:53:23 AM
I think the preferred alternative is a toll road concept that has parts of it being free to use. I support the entire thing being a freeway just to have a better freeway network.
The components of this are HSR and a bike trail.
Project homepage: https://www.metro.net/projects/high-desert-corridor/
I've been following this project with high hopes it gets built. The final EIRS was released last fall.
Final EIRS: http://www.dot.ca.gov/d7/env-docs/docs/hdc/
Who says this will get built? I am getting a little worried projects like and the 710 South expansion will get scaled back or even canceled with the current anti-freeway sentiment in California.
With the mixed track record of SoCal toll facilities, this project -- while preliminarily considered to be a tolled facility -- could be shifted to a standard freeway project by the time construction actually starts in the early-to-mid 2020's. As far as the rail component is concerned, while the west end of the project
does correspond with the proposed HSR route, it also is the location of the Lancaster branch of the Metrorail commuter network; if HSR "bites the dust" or otherwise fades into oblivion, the ROW reserved for rail (presumably the median) could conceivably become a Metrorail extension out to Victorville (BNSF has shown no inclination to host an extension of the San Bernardino Metrorail line over Cajon Pass to the Victorville area, primarily due to the sheer amount of freight traffic over that line -- a train each way at about 20-30 minute intervals -- essentially 24/7!).
There seem to be interests lined up to support this corridor -- from Vegas honchos who've always supported ways to make access to their attractions easier, to the developers looking for a place to slap down housing (this region has historically been among the more affordable areas of SoCal), and to San Bernardino County officials, who need a shiny new project such as this to draw attention away from the fiscal problems endemic to Inland Empire cities -- particularly the namesake county seat. And being that it's on the "wrong side of the mountains" and out of the line of fire of most of the region's urban activist core (and has bike & rail components), it's likely to be the one new-terrain project that'll get traction in the area.
You do paint a positive picture on it. Time will tell. I'm not sure whether I'd like to see efforts placed on this or extension of I-40, but the high desert needs some love ASAP! I am very skeptical of the ExpressWest HSR proposal even more so than I am of the LA to SF HSR project which I don't think will happen.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 22, 2018, 02:02:45 AM
You do paint a positive picture on it. Time will tell. I'm not sure whether I'd like to see efforts placed on this or extension of I-40, but the high desert needs some love ASAP! I am very skeptical of the ExpressWest HSR proposal even more so than I am of the LA to SF HSR project which I don't think will happen.
The LA to SF HSR project is on thin ice politically; whether it survives into the next gubernatorial term will depend upon the whims of whomever occupies that office; none of the leading candidates seem to be as committed to the project as Brown is; the likely question will be how to best utilize the Valley portion currently under construction. As far as the ExpressWest connection to a Vegas-serving HSR, the latter has always been a roller-coaster ride, largely dependent upon Nevada money (which seems to run hot and cold almost randomly). Neither major project is a sure bet; a dependent connector between the two is even less so. But reserving a space in the median for some sort of rail on a relatively flat alignment such as this isn't a terrible idea; as I've iterated before, a more conventional sort of rail -- whether a commuter line, freight reliever, or both -- could readily be deployed even after the roadway portion was in service. It also seems that this project is completely independent of the CA 58 efforts some thirty miles north;
that tends to serve a more interregional and/or commercial purpose than the "E-220" corridor; its provision of access to Northern California (via Tehachapi Summit) sets it apart from the rationale for the shorter corridor.
High Speed Rail is going absolutely nowhere in the United States. From my perspective it looks like politicians, planners, anti-freeway activists and anyone else cheerleading HSR are all ignoring the issue of cost, as if the high price of this stuff is not a problem. These folks are out of touch with reality. HSR is a luxury version of ordinary commuter rail. Here in the United States we can't even figure out how to build ordinary commuter rail lines without costs exploding into the stratosphere. We also can't figure out how to build something like that without the process taking decades. It's bad enough how slow we are at building highways.
I don't understand the motivation to build a high speed rail line through the high desert cities and towns North of the San Gabriel mountains. That makes about as much sense as building a 20 lane wide freeway between Nome and Fairbanks.
Regarding the anti-freeway sentiment in California, it will be interesting to see if those attitudes are still the same 10 years from now. The real estate market in SoCal cities (and much of the US) could be a lot different. Interest rates are creeping up; higher borrowing costs could slow down and reverse that market. Ever rising health care costs, living costs, etc are pushing the US fertility rate into baby bust territory. Over the long term that's going to push real estate demand downward. People will down-size their living spaces. Homes & apartments will get smaller. Many jobs are going to be eliminated via automation, robotics & artificial intelligence. Ever faster broadband and mobile service will change how and where people work; fewer people will commute back and forth to a central office. These factors aren't good for mass transit platforms that only move people in large groups.
The automobile is poised to go roaring through another golden age once self-driving capable cars are sold widely to the public. Auto makers are even designing vehicles that have no steering wheel and run in fully autonomous fashion. That technology is going to be disruptive in ways we can't even predict. It's going to make a big dent in the enthusiasm for mass transit.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 23, 2018, 04:31:25 PM
High Speed Rail is going absolutely nowhere in the United States. From my perspective it looks like politicians, planners, anti-freeway activists and anyone else cheerleading HSR are all ignoring the issue of cost, as if the high price of this stuff is not a problem. These folks are out of touch with reality. HSR is a luxury version of ordinary commuter rail. Here in the United States we can't even figure out how to build ordinary commuter rail lines without costs exploding into the stratosphere. We also can't figure out how to build something like that without the process taking decades. It's bad enough how slow we are at building highways.
I don't understand the motivation to build a high speed rail line through the high desert cities and towns North of the San Gabriel mountains. That makes about as much sense as building a 20 lane wide freeway between Nome and Fairbanks.
Regarding the anti-freeway sentiment in California, it will be interesting to see if those attitudes are still the same 10 years from now. The real estate market in SoCal cities (and much of the US) could be a lot different. Interest rates are creeping up; higher borrowing costs could slow down and reverse that market. Ever rising health care costs, living costs, etc are pushing the US fertility rate into baby bust territory. Over the long term that's going to push real estate demand downward. People will down-size their living spaces. Homes & apartments will get smaller. Many jobs are going to be eliminated via automation, robotics & artificial intelligence. Ever faster broadband and mobile service will change how and where people work; fewer people will commute back and forth to a central office. These factors aren't good for mass transit platforms that only move people in large groups.
The automobile is poised to go roaring through another golden age once self-driving capable cars are sold widely to the public. Auto makers are even designing vehicles that have no steering wheel and run in fully autonomous fashion. That technology is going to be disruptive in ways we can't even predict. It's going to make a big dent in the enthusiasm for mass transit.
The one thing that always bugged me about the CA HSR plan was the almost complete lack of need assessment. Touted as the transportation system of the future, there were few if any published data regarding exactly
who the potential customers were -- or from where they would be drawn -- automobile travelers between L.A. and the Bay Area or from one or another of the airlines (mainly Southwest and Alaska) serving that corridor. It's just as likely that regular travelers between the areas already use the airlines, as they have near-saturation service from the various L.A.-area airports and the equivalent in the Bay Area; these would include business travelers as well as people visiting family, friends, or loved ones on a regular basis. Non-commercial automotive traffic is likely to be somewhat more sporadic -- the occasional trip for one or more of many purposes. If cargo (gifts, household items, etc.) need to be transported (and UPS or FedEx service is deemed not to be cost-effective), then automobile travel comes into play as well. And since the whole premise of HSR is daily multi-train service, to render it cost-effective those trains have to be full or close to it. But the logistics at either end make it something of a wash when it comes to competing with airports -- the traveler has to go to a station, park their car (unless given a ride, like with air travel), and go through the terminal process before boarding; this applies to
either mode. The time involved -- particularly given the fact that there will be a few urban stations along the single rail line, whereas the airports (particularly around L.A.) are dispersed around the metro area; a rail passenger from Orange County would either have to travel to Los Angeles or take local transportation (ostensibly Metrolink) to the HSR terminal whereas there's a local airport (John Wayne) with numerous daily flights to S.F., Oakland, and San Jose. HSR won't get folks off the road; initially it may get travelers who want the novelty, but even if it catches on, it'll primarily draw customers from air travel -- but, IMO, probably not enough to ensure cost coverage much less any hint of profitability.
As far as the E-W High Desert extension along the "E-220/High Desert" corridor, this is simply speculation assuming (a) that the main HSR line paralleling CA 14 will be completed as planned, and (b) the private Victorville-Vegas venture also reaches fruition. If both don't happen in the near-to-mid term, there won't be HSR in the median of the highway; something else (I'll reiterate my guess as to conventional rail) will be placed there.
If any kind of rail line would be put in the median my vote would be for regular speed commuter rail. More stations could be built, more communities directly served and the rail line could conform more easily with the freeway alignment. High speed rail demands grade inclines and curves far more gradual than even the smoothest, most modern super highways can manage.
In some respects I wish the US had a decent HSR network at least connecting its biggest cities. It is kind of embarassing that many other developed nations have high speed rail systems but the US does not. But the costs and legal/regulatory issues are just so extreme to make the effort not worth pursuing. And that's assuming the system could even attract the ridership necessary to sustain it if it was built.
I can imagine self-driving vehicles becoming a work/living space away from home. There's no doubt people will be doing all sorts of work while riding in these vehicles. On longer trips they'll be watching TV shows, playing games, video chatting and doing all sorts of other stuff -maybe even things other drivers don't want to see through the car windows. They'll have their own mobile, private environment. You don't get any privacy riding with a group of people on a bus or train.
Quote from: sparker on February 23, 2018, 05:07:32 PM
The time involved -- particularly given the fact that there will be a few urban stations along the single rail line, whereas the airports (particularly around L.A.) are dispersed around the metro area; a rail passenger from Orange County would either have to travel to Los Angeles or take local transportation (ostensibly Metrolink) to the HSR terminal whereas there's a local airport (John Wayne) with numerous daily flights to S.F., Oakland, and San Jose.
I feel like we've had this conversation before, but why are you implying L.A. is going to have only one station?
In phase 1 there are going to be stations at Burbank (near the airport), Los Angeles/Union Station, either Norwalk or Fullerton, and Anaheim. Phase 2 will have stations in the San Gabriel Valley, at/near Ontario Airport, Riverside and Temecula/Murrieta.
Quote from: DTComposer on February 26, 2018, 04:39:22 PM
Quote from: sparker on February 23, 2018, 05:07:32 PM
The time involved -- particularly given the fact that there will be a few urban stations along the single rail line, whereas the airports (particularly around L.A.) are dispersed around the metro area; a rail passenger from Orange County would either have to travel to Los Angeles or take local transportation (ostensibly Metrolink) to the HSR terminal whereas there's a local airport (John Wayne) with numerous daily flights to S.F., Oakland, and San Jose.
I feel like we've had this conversation before, but why are you implying L.A. is going to have only one station?
In phase 1 there are going to be stations at Burbank (near the airport), Los Angeles/Union Station, either Norwalk or Fullerton, and Anaheim. Phase 2 will have stations in the San Gabriel Valley, at/near Ontario Airport, Riverside and Temecula/Murrieta.
Perhaps you're misreading my comment, but I stated that there would be a few stations but arrayed along a
single line -- and, at this point, that line will coincide with the present Amtrak and/or Metrolink service. The point I was attempting to make was that this train service features little difference in traveler preparation -- including transport to the nearest station, parking as needed, etc. It's basically Amtrak-type service but with higher speeds once away from the urban center. But since lower speeds are planned from Santa Clarita southward, since it will "piggyback" on Metrolink or Amtrak (former UP and BNSF) tracks down to Anaheim (and LAUPT itself, as a single-ended terminal, is hardly the epitome of efficiency), being the nicest-looking and newest trainset in the bunch is hardly the rider magnet that its backers seem to think it will be. If the high-speed concept had been extended into central L.A. (on the viaducts that were part of the first iteration) with a dedicated set of stations and possibly a "hub & spoke" feeder system other than Metrolink and LR, then I might be singing a different tune. But, IMO, there's little to attract riders, at least from the southern end of the system (and the northern end, at least in the initial phase, will mimic its southern counterpart by utilizing the Caltrain trackage up the Peninsula to S.F.). And since most of the projected ridership originates at the ends of that first stage (whether they'll ever get to Phase Two is TBD by the performance of Phase One; if that falls flat, then P2 likely won't see the light of day), there's little incentive to forsake Southwest and Alaska for a jaunt downtown!
^^ But that is how French-style and Germanic High Speed Rail usually works - build fast new tracks outside the cities, but dump onto upgraded existing lines to reach upgraded existing stations.
That HS2 in England doesn't do this has been a major gripe against it. Especially in Birmingham, Leeds, and Sheffield. Sheffield successfully lobbied to replace its proposed high-frequency service to a pre-existing out-of-town transport hub with a proposed lower-frequency, slower, service that uses the existing tracks to the existing city centre station.
Japan has one of the best high speed rail systems, and it has been that way for over 50 years. The Shinkansen lines are all discrete, separate rail track apart from the other commuter/freight rail lines. The rail lines were specifically designed for high speed use, not for sharing with other trains (such as freight trains). They couldn't even share service with other rail systems anyway since the "bullet train" runs on a 4' 8.5" gauge while the other lines run on a more narrow 3' 6" gauge. This is very much unlike the various proposals for different regions in the US which would stick so-called "high speed" trains on quite a bit of existing low-speed track. The Shinkansen also doesn't have lots and lots of stations. Passengers typically take other commuter rail lines, subway lines or other modes of transportation to reach a central station featuring a bullet train stop. Even with totally new track high speed rail would be anything but high speed if the train was making frequent stops.
This is starting to get a little off-topic here. Any other thoughts about the highway itself? I'm trying to speculate on what it'll be designated as, an interstate or a state route; and if an interstate, either a 2di or 3di.
Is it be possible to sign as an x40 if I-15 and I-5 are consigned as x40 to connect to I-40? Would that even be worth it?
With the federal government expecting the states to pony up much of the government funding on these projects (and rely on private funding to cover as much as possible) I think chances are slim to none the High Desert Highway would carry an Interstate designation if built. If the road is built as a toll road then chances for an Interstate designation would pretty much be nil.
None of the toll roads built in SoCal in the last couple or so decades received an Interstate designation. Then there's the issue of Caltrans and the state government showing little desire to get Interstate designations for roads like the Eastern part of CA-210 in San Bernadino, CA-15 and CA-905 in San Diego. Even if CA-58 was upgraded to full Interstate standards between Barstow and Bakersfield there's no guarantee they would do what most of us want: extend I-40 on it.
Texas is another example of this. There's a decent number of turnpikes and freeways in metro Houston, Dallas-Fort Worth, Austin and San Antonio not carrying any Interstate designation.
It appears trump is trying to lax the laws around tolling and interstates so maybe that won't affect this tollway that much.
As far as designation goes, the logical possibilities are as an extension of CA 18 (which will be the designation of the non-tollway portion east of US 395 or I-15 in any case), replacing the surface CA 18 from I-15 west to CA 138. If not, then any unused state designation might be applicable (I'd reuse CA 30 for this one if it were my call). An Interstate designation (x15) would be a long shot, seeing how CA mimics TX in not seeking Interstate designations for toll roads (or much of anything, for that matter!).
Quote from: sparker on February 27, 2018, 04:55:32 AM
Quote from: DTComposer on February 26, 2018, 04:39:22 PM
Quote from: sparker on February 23, 2018, 05:07:32 PM
The time involved -- particularly given the fact that there will be a few urban stations along the single rail line, whereas the airports (particularly around L.A.) are dispersed around the metro area; a rail passenger from Orange County would either have to travel to Los Angeles or take local transportation (ostensibly Metrolink) to the HSR terminal whereas there's a local airport (John Wayne) with numerous daily flights to S.F., Oakland, and San Jose.
I feel like we've had this conversation before, but why are you implying L.A. is going to have only one station?
In phase 1 there are going to be stations at Burbank (near the airport), Los Angeles/Union Station, either Norwalk or Fullerton, and Anaheim. Phase 2 will have stations in the San Gabriel Valley, at/near Ontario Airport, Riverside and Temecula/Murrieta.
Perhaps you're misreading my comment, but I stated that there would be a few stations but arrayed along a single line -- and, at this point, that line will coincide with the present Amtrak and/or Metrolink service. The point I was attempting to make was that this train service features little difference in traveler preparation -- including transport to the nearest station, parking as needed, etc. It's basically Amtrak-type service but with higher speeds once away from the urban center. But since lower speeds are planned from Santa Clarita southward, since it will "piggyback" on Metrolink or Amtrak (former UP and BNSF) tracks down to Anaheim (and LAUPT itself, as a single-ended terminal, is hardly the epitome of efficiency), being the nicest-looking and newest trainset in the bunch is hardly the rider magnet that its backers seem to think it will be. If the high-speed concept had been extended into central L.A. (on the viaducts that were part of the first iteration) with a dedicated set of stations and possibly a "hub & spoke" feeder system other than Metrolink and LR, then I might be singing a different tune. But, IMO, there's little to attract riders, at least from the southern end of the system (and the northern end, at least in the initial phase, will mimic its southern counterpart by utilizing the Caltrain trackage up the Peninsula to S.F.). And since most of the projected ridership originates at the ends of that first stage (whether they'll ever get to Phase Two is TBD by the performance of Phase One; if that falls flat, then P2 likely won't see the light of day), there's little incentive to forsake Southwest and Alaska for a jaunt downtown!
I appreciate the clarification. I think, if both phases are built, it can be successful for business travelers between downtown SF (or SJ) and downtown LA; the door-to-door time will in all likelihood be comparable, but with less logistical hassle and more time to work/relax during the trip.
I think it would also be easier for families with younger children: right now, the process of checking a car seat and stroller and getting them from baggage claim at the airport is a lot more of a hassle than doing so at the Amtrak stations; people are more free to roam the cabins on trains; and children are less likely to be afraid on trains. I know one trip I would do regularly (San Jose to Anaheim or Fullerton) would be a lot easier logistically and about the same amount of time door-to-door than the current flight (SJC to SNA or LGB).
Back on topic:
Quote from: theroadwayone on February 28, 2018, 01:18:42 PM
This is starting to get a little off-topic here. Any other thoughts about the highway itself? I'm trying to speculate on what it'll be designated as, an interstate or a state route; and if an interstate, either a 2di or 3di.
As mentioned elsewhere, Caltrans hasn't done any new Interstate designations since I-105 was completed. That said, since the proposed highway takes parts of the alignments of two different routes (CA-18 and CA-138), there will need to be some new number or renumbering involved.
What makes the most sense to me is truncating the west end of CA-138 at Palmdale (but having it continue on Pearblossom Highway to CA-14 rather than going north on 47th Street East, having the new highway take CA-18, and then having CA-18 take over the current CA-138 between Lancaster and Gorman.
IF it were to get an Interstate number, I'd consider I-515 since it would likely someday connect I-5 and I-15. I know I-515 exists in Las Vegas, but I think they're far enough apart (there's I-580 in both Northern California and in Reno/Carson City).
Quote from: DTComposer on February 28, 2018, 05:58:18 PM
What makes the most sense to me is truncating the west end of CA-138 at Palmdale (but having it continue on Pearblossom Highway to CA-14 rather than going north on 47th Street East, having the new highway take CA-18, and then having CA-18 take over the current CA-138 between Lancaster and Gorman.
IF it were to get an Interstate number, I'd consider I-515 since it would likely someday connect I-5 and I-15. I know I-515 exists in Las Vegas, but I think they're far enough apart (there's I-580 in both Northern California and in Reno/Carson City).
Actually -- if the "18" number were to be appropriated for the E-220 portion of the corridor --
and the corridor were to be extended west to I-5 (either as a toll extension or a freeway), it could (fancifully?) be designated as I-18 (it kinda fits in the grid that way), with CA 18 continuing east from I-15 per common practice. Wouldn't be the shortest 2di around by any means (about 90-95 miles depending upon the actual alignment between I-5 and CA 14) and would provide a continuous number -- which would function particularly well if previous speculations about a "metro bypass" extension around the mountains to I-10 were to reach fruition in the future. Just a thought! Besides, it would make more appropriate use of that nice but overbuilt-for-present-usage I-5/CA 138 junction interchange (built on original "Metro Bypass" spec).
Quote from: sparker on February 28, 2018, 08:57:08 PM
Quote from: DTComposer on February 28, 2018, 05:58:18 PM
What makes the most sense to me is truncating the west end of CA-138 at Palmdale (but having it continue on Pearblossom Highway to CA-14 rather than going north on 47th Street East, having the new highway take CA-18, and then having CA-18 take over the current CA-138 between Lancaster and Gorman.
IF it were to get an Interstate number, I'd consider I-515 since it would likely someday connect I-5 and I-15. I know I-515 exists in Las Vegas, but I think they're far enough apart (there's I-580 in both Northern California and in Reno/Carson City).
Actually -- if the "18" number were to be appropriated for the E-220 portion of the corridor -- and the corridor were to be extended west to I-5 (either as a toll extension or a freeway), it could (fancifully?) be designated as I-18 (it kinda fits in the grid that way), with CA 18 continuing east from I-15 per common practice. Wouldn't be the shortest 2di around by any means (about 90-95 miles depending upon the actual alignment between I-5 and CA 14) and would provide a continuous number -- which would function particularly well if previous speculations about a "metro bypass" extension around the mountains to I-10 were to reach fruition in the future. Just a thought! Besides, it would make more appropriate use of that nice but overbuilt-for-present-usage I-5/CA 138 junction interchange (built on original "Metro Bypass" spec).
The CA 48 number, which was supposed to be used for the highway that was proposed many years ago, is currently unconstructed within the CA highway system. It would be nice to have one number for the corridor and CA 48 is there.
I hope not to delve too deeply into fictional, but I can easily see eastern 138 (Wrightwood-Cajon-Crestline) becoming an extension of CA 2 (as it used to be part of CA 2). The C-shaped nature of CA-18 bothered me, so I could see CA-18 limited to San Bernardino-Lucerne Valley and CA-48 taking over the main east-west portion of the routing Palmdale-Victorville-Lucerne Valley. The remaining part of 138 could be a new number that is signed as XX west to CA-48 Palmdale and XX east to CA-2 Cajon. The main point of doing this is keeping the main east-west bypass route with one number.
Is this freeway really going to be constructed? Count me as skeptical.
I'm feeling the same way. Metro just decided against widening 710 for the time being. It seems people in California are content with sitting in traffic until they beleive transit will save them as that is what is being touted. Maybe soon the public will realize transit won't solve traffic problems and perhaps finally wake up to this non sense.
Well, "transit as the solution to traffic congestion" has been promoted around the country since the freeway revolts of the 1960s and 1970s. I wish your last sentence prediction well, Plutonic Panda, but I do not have a lot of optimism.
Quote from: DTComposer on February 28, 2018, 05:58:18 PM
IF it were to get an Interstate number, I'd consider I-515 since it would likely someday connect I-5 and I-15. I know I-515 exists in Las Vegas, but I think they're far enough apart (there's I-580 in both Northern California and in Reno/Carson City).
The shortest distance between 3dis of the same number is 23 miles--between the I-291s in Springfield, MA and Hartford, CT.
Quote from: theroadwayone on March 03, 2018, 11:26:59 PM
Quote from: DTComposer on February 28, 2018, 05:58:18 PM
IF it were to get an Interstate number, I'd consider I-515 since it would likely someday connect I-5 and I-15. I know I-515 exists in Las Vegas, but I think they're far enough apart (there's I-580 in both Northern California and in Reno/Carson City).
The shortest distance between 3dis of the same number is 23 miles--between the I-291s in Springfield, MA and Hartford, CT.
That seems very confusing IMO. I think 23 miles is too short to have two separate highways of the same number. But I don't see the problem for I-515, since 1) you are well into Las Vegas before you reach the 15/515 interchange and 2) I-515 will eventually be replaced with I-11, probably befoer teh high desert highway is completed.
Quote from: DTComposer on February 28, 2018, 05:58:18 PM
IF it were to get an Interstate number, I'd consider I-515 since it would likely someday connect I-5 and I-15. I know I-515 exists in Las Vegas, but I think they're far enough apart (there's I-580 in both Northern California and in Reno/Carson City).
Also, there is an I-215 in Las Vegas and I-215 in California's Inland Empire region. There is no major source of confusion between these that I am aware of (being separated by about 200 miles helps).
Quote from: mrsman on March 04, 2018, 07:58:16 AM
Quote from: theroadwayone on March 03, 2018, 11:26:59 PM
The shortest distance between 3dis of the same number is 23 miles--between the I-291s in Springfield, MA and Hartford, CT.
That seems very confusing IMO. I think 23 miles is too short to have two separate highways of the same number. But I don't see the problem for I-515, since 1) you are well into Las Vegas before you reach the 15/515 interchange and 2) I-515 will eventually be replaced with I-11, probably befoer teh high desert highway is completed.
BTW: It is not yet determined that I-11 will completely replace I-515 through Las Vegas.
Having grown up in western MA, it really wasn't confusing to have two I-291s so close together. The state boundary might as well have been the Berlin Wall. :D
Quote from: sparker on February 20, 2018, 04:33:40 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on February 20, 2018, 01:30:43 AM
I recall reading an article on TRN some years back about possibly building the highway as a toll road. It'll be interesting to see how that develops.
AFAIK, it was always intended to be an ORT facility between Palmdale and US 395; the PPP nature of its proposed development virtually dictates that status. Whether there will be a transponder link with the existing toll facilities further south in Orange and possibly San Diego counties -- or the toll-lane segments in and around L.A. county -- hasn't been publicized as of yet; I'd stay tuned to see if that transpires.
FWIK there has to be; it's the law.
Quote from: mrsman on March 04, 2018, 07:58:16 AM
The shortest distance between 3dis of the same number is 23 miles--between the I-291s in Springfield, MA and Hartford, CT.
The I-265's in Kentucky and Indiana are maybe 5 miles apart, at least until the designation changes on IN-265 and KY-841 is changed to I-265 and the two segments are connected.
Quote from: theroadwayone on May 03, 2018, 01:54:03 AM
Quote from: sparker on February 20, 2018, 04:33:40 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on February 20, 2018, 01:30:43 AM
I recall reading an article on TRN some years back about possibly building the highway as a toll road. It'll be interesting to see how that develops.
AFAIK, it was always intended to be an ORT facility between Palmdale and US 395; the PPP nature of its proposed development virtually dictates that status. Whether there will be a transponder link with the existing toll facilities further south in Orange and possibly San Diego counties -- or the toll-lane segments in and around L.A. county -- hasn't been publicized as of yet; I'd stay tuned to see if that transpires.
FWIK there has to be; it's the law.
California law states that ALL toll facilities utilizing electronic tolling must use a standardized system, currently called FasTrak.
Quote from: myosh_tino on May 03, 2018, 01:44:24 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on May 03, 2018, 01:54:03 AM
Quote from: sparker on February 20, 2018, 04:33:40 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on February 20, 2018, 01:30:43 AM
I recall reading an article on TRN some years back about possibly building the highway as a toll road. It'll be interesting to see how that develops.
AFAIK, it was always intended to be an ORT facility between Palmdale and US 395; the PPP nature of its proposed development virtually dictates that status. Whether there will be a transponder link with the existing toll facilities further south in Orange and possibly San Diego counties -- or the toll-lane segments in and around L.A. county -- hasn't been publicized as of yet; I'd stay tuned to see if that transpires.
FWIK there has to be; it's the law.
California law states that ALL toll facilities utilizing electronic tolling must use a standardized system, currently called FasTrak.
In addition to that, they're also trying to make it interoperable with tolling systems in the south and west by 2024.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 12, 2018, 01:40:51 AM
That LA Times article characterizes freeways as being old fashioned and that interest is mainly in mass transit. We're always going to need roads. I think what's going on with this mass transit vs freeways thing is a contest over where public money is being spent. It's politics. They're still promoting the fantasy of getting everyone to move into dense inner city neighborhoods and just rely on mass transit. Not everyone wants to do that for their own specific reasons. And the issue of affordability cannot be stressed high enough. Housing costs and living costs in general have grown ridiculous inside of America's largest cities, including LA. Yet the "experts" are wondering why communities on the wrong side of the San Gabriel Mountains are growing so much. I think a lot of those experts are just out of touch.
Thank you Bob5280 for the excellent post. Recently met a retired union plumber in a Tucson KOA campground. He had just sold his parent's home, in Long Beach, where he had lived while finishing his years on the job. Said his parents had bought it in 1972 for 45K and that he had just sold it for 825K. Am glad for him, that he cashed out, but what working people can afford that, even union plumbers?? Asian investors, perhaps?? Simply obscene, over three quarters of a mill for a run of the mill home?? No wonder people are locating farther out, and driving more!!
Quote from: DJStephens on May 27, 2018, 12:11:20 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 12, 2018, 01:40:51 AM
That LA Times article characterizes freeways as being old fashioned and that interest is mainly in mass transit. We're always going to need roads. I think what's going on with this mass transit vs freeways thing is a contest over where public money is being spent. It's politics. They're still promoting the fantasy of getting everyone to move into dense inner city neighborhoods and just rely on mass transit. Not everyone wants to do that for their own specific reasons. And the issue of affordability cannot be stressed high enough. Housing costs and living costs in general have grown ridiculous inside of America's largest cities, including LA. Yet the "experts" are wondering why communities on the wrong side of the San Gabriel Mountains are growing so much. I think a lot of those experts are just out of touch.
Thank you Bob5280 for the excellent post. Recently met a retired union plumber in a Tucson KOA campground. He had just sold his parent's home, in Long Beach, where he had lived while finishing his years on the job. Said his parents had bought it in 1972 for 45K and that he had just sold it for 825K. Am glad for him, that he cashed out, but what working people can afford that, even union plumbers?? Asian investors, perhaps?? Simply obscene, over three quarters of a mill for a run of the mill home?? No wonder people are locating farther out, and driving more!!
825K is relatively cheap for Long Beach; the house must have been in the northern part of town up near CA 91. My ex-wife (#1) inherited a house in nearby Seal Beach from her grandfather -- it's right on Ocean Avenue across from the beach and about 2000sf in two floors, built in the 1930's. She's been living there since the early '80's with husband #3; according to our daughter, the place is appraised at $2.25M. They both retired a year or two back and are thinking of selling it and moving to Tucson, where they can get a pretty sizeable new residence for less than a third of what their house will bring. True, she lucked out with the inheritance, but that situation is one that has been occurring repeatedly in the last couple of decades due to skyrocketing land and residence prices in coastal California. If they actually decide to sell and relocate, they'll certainly find someone (probably in tech or finance) to purchase the place and pay asking price if not more. When it comes to real estate, money just doesn't talk -- it yells!
BUMP. Only because I didn't see this a few months earlier.
$825,000 is "relatively cheap?" Are they paying fry cooks at McDonalds locations in Long Beach $200 per hour to support those kinds of housing prices? How can any city maintain a work force in all of its necessary classes even the LOWER incomes classes if only absurdly rich people can afford to live there?
At times I feel like the United States is in the same position where the Roman Empire was in its final stages before that whole damned circus tent collapsed. The simple financial mathematics of what is taking place in America's biggest, most popular cities is just plain unsustainable. I'm happy for people who can cash out on a property they bought for not much money and collect a windfall from it. Nevertheless, for our society to continue surviving people of all classes must be able to afford to survive, if not thrive. And all those rich people at the top? They can't live up there without a whole hell of a lot of little people building up the house of cards upon which they sit.
We are barely a decade past the last mezzo-scale crisis (and fraud) that infected and collapsed much of America's real estate market. And now we're making many of the same mistakes all over again, even at a bigger scale. The last time around we witnessed a new practice called "reverse red-lining." Previously a "red-lined" neighborhood on a map was a zone where real estate agents avoided. If a customer lived there (often a non-white prospective home buyer) the lender denied their home loan application. In the giant orgy of fraud that happened last decade the vulture sales people went looking for minority buyers as the bottom level of suckers for the housing pyramid scheme they were running.
10 years later: most of the laws that were passed to prevent this shit from happening again have been over-turned. But now the young adults have a new weapon at their disposal: not shitting families into existence in the first place. Single people can room-up together in apartments, couch surf and manage all sorts of unconventional living arrangements to save lots of money. Young adults will maintain a lot of freedom and living flexibility by being careful about opening their legs. But if they're not breeding a huge new tide of future Americans into existence how is that going to maintain that big-ass real estate business racket? At some point, not now, but some time years or a decade or two from now there will be a glut of homes across the country that just can't be sold without taking a serious loss.
In our last housing industry crisis our nation's birth rate of American born women was hovering near replacement rate level: 2.1 births per female. Now it's down to 1.7 and gaining down-ward momentum. Young families are already being hatefully gouged on the cost of health care, child day care and all sorts of other costs involved with parenthood. Family sized housing is rapidly being priced into the very exclusive, rich people-only luxury zone. Combine this with young adults burdened with record setting levels of student loan debt -a good amount of which is higher interest debt they'll be paying near or past retirement age. Our policy-makers are going on and on about issues like abortion. But I really have to say the extreme cost of housing in many locations, plus all those other extreme costs are one hell of a compelling birth control pill. Very loud and clear message to young people these days: don't you dare have any kids unless you are filthy rich. You'll be struggling badly otherwise.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 19, 2019, 10:49:05 PM
BUMP. Only because I didn't see this a few months earlier.
$825,000 is "relatively cheap?" Are they paying fry cooks at McDonalds locations in Long Beach $200 per hour to support those kinds of housing prices? How can any city maintain a work force in all of its necessary classes even the LOWER incomes classes if only absurdly rich people can afford to live there?
At times I feel like the United States is in the same position where the Roman Empire was in its final stages before that whole damned circus tent collapsed. The simple financial mathematics of what is taking place in America's biggest, most popular cities is just plain unsustainable. I'm happy for people who can cash out on a property they bought for not much money and collect a windfall from it. Nevertheless, for our society to continue surviving people of all classes must be able to afford to survive, if not thrive. And all those rich people at the top? They can't live up there without a whole hell of a lot of little people building up the house of cards upon which they sit.
We are barely a decade past the last mezzo-scale crisis (and fraud) that infected and collapsed much of America's real estate market. And now we're making many of the same mistakes all over again, even at a bigger scale. The last time around we witnessed a new practice called "reverse red-lining." Previously a "red-lined" neighborhood on a map was a zone where real estate agents avoided. If a customer lived there (often a non-white prospective home buyer) the lender denied their home loan application. In the giant orgy of fraud that happened last decade the vulture sales people went looking for minority buyers as the bottom level of suckers for the housing pyramid scheme they were running.
10 years later: most of the laws that were passed to prevent this shit from happening again have been over-turned. But now the young adults have a new weapon at their disposal: not shitting families into existence in the first place. Single people can room-up together in apartments, couch surf and manage all sorts of unconventional living arrangements to save lots of money. Young adults will maintain a lot of freedom and living flexibility by being careful about opening their legs. But if they're not breeding a huge new tide of future Americans into existence how is that going to maintain that big-ass real estate business racket? At some point, not now, but some time years or a decade or two from now there will be a glut of homes across the country that just can't be sold without taking a serious loss.
In our last housing industry crisis our nation's birth rate of American born women was hovering near replacement rate level: 2.1 births per female. Now it's down to 1.7 and gaining down-ward momentum. Young families are already being hatefully gouged on the cost of health care, child day care and all sorts of other costs involved with parenthood. Family sized housing is rapidly being priced into the very exclusive, rich people-only luxury zone. Combine this with young adults burdened with record setting levels of student loan debt -a good amount of which is higher interest debt they'll be paying near or past retirement age. Our policy-makers are going on and on about issues like abortion. But I really have to say the extreme cost of housing in many locations, plus all those other extreme costs are one hell of a compelling birth control pill. Very loud and clear message to young people these days: don't you dare have any kids unless you are filthy rich. You'll be struggling badly otherwise.
"The Rule Of Ten". When I compare basic staples of living between the summer of 1973 (HS graduation) to the present, so many items are about 10 times what the cost in the past was. So what were the wages like when I was young? In Oregon, the state minimum was $1.25 an hour. Those who qualified for the Federal minimum were paid $1.65. Between the costs and the wages, a person working fulltime minimum state wage could make it on their own although most certainly not in the lap of luxury.
So seeing how one could scrape by then and not make it today shows the minimum wage has not kept up with what it was worth in mid-1973. If it did, then $12.50 to $16.50 would be needed.
How about the people who got $5 an hour in those times? They could own a house with ease! Want a new or newer car? Ya' sure, you betcha! Solid middle class indeed. How many workers out there make $50 an hour today?
The story of the clam being boiled alive one degree at a time comes to mind....
Rick
It totally blows my mind when I hear people losing their tempers over big cities like San Francisco or New York City raising their minimum wages to $15 per hour. It's obvious the people throwing a fit are ignoring the economic realities of those cities. I think $15 per hour is a starvation wage for New York City. At that level take home pay after taxes is under $2000 per month. Rent alone across the 5 boroughs would eat nearly all that worker's pay unless he was lucky enough to already be in a rent-controlled apartment. Those kinds of living spaces have been vanishing fast. All the other living costs don't go away either. It costs a lot of money just to ride the subway or bus. In that living situation things like health care coverage are luxuries far out of reach.
All the people expecting service industry workers to do their jobs for next to nothing also expect plenty of fast food joints, convenience stores, coffee shops and all sorts of stuff nearby on every street corner. The people staffing those businesses have to be able to survive. The selfish hypocrisy is really unbelievable.
I really get a kick out of the argument, "these aren't career jobs." Fine! If every McDonald's location should be staffed by high school kids living at home with Mom and Dad let's make sure to close all those kinds of businesses during school hours and only open them after the kids have finished their home work. People stepping out of the office on their lunch break during the day to grab a burger or a Starbucks™ coffee are getting served by grown-ass adults. None of those adults expect those crappy jobs to be a career. But at that moment in their lives they're having to work there and try to survive on wages made there (and from any additional shit jobs they have).
Here in San Jose $15/hour -- which translates to about $495/week take-home -- would just cover the rent of a studio or small 1-bedroom apartment in a less-gentrified area of town -- but with no funds left for food or other items requisite for living!!!!!. And the city-mandated minimum won't even hit that level for a couple of years! It's not just home ownership that is driving workers here east to the San Joaquin Valley, it's basic costs of living; while steadily increasing, rents in Tracy and Stockton are hovering around $900-1.2K/month for a reasonable 2-bedroom newer apartment -- but, of course, with the increased cost in dollars and time regarding the commute. A recent article in the San Jose Mercury-News (known colloquially around here as the Murky News) talked about the "hyper-metro" expansion that is bringing outlying areas such as Placer County and Merced into the Bay Area socioeconomic orbit -- driven, of course, by housing (owned and rental) expenses, which in the longstanding "close-in" residential areas (Brentwood, Discovery Bay, and, these days, even the western sections of Tracy along I-205) are starting to approach the outlying Bay Area (Antioch, Fairfield) in terms of monetary outlay and certainly in commute times. Simply put -- the "unaffordable" area is expanding outward to overtake the housing locales that have in recent history served as "affordable" alternatives if one were to subsitute commute time for the convenience of living close to one's job. And down in Southern California, where there is considerably more ocean-side living than up here (much of the coast, particularly in San Mateo and northern Santa Cruz counties -- not to mention pretty much everything north of the Golden Gate -- remains too "rugged" for massive housing deployment), pretty much any available housing areas, old or new, within 5-10 miles of the coast will have an extra element of cost attached simply for desirability -- hence my previous depiction of $825K for a 1950's 1500sf tract house in north-central Long Beach as being situated at the lower end of local cost structure. And the L.A./O.C./Ventura County area has at least as miserable commutes as up here; what passes for "affordability" is out in the desert (Palmdale/Lancaster in L.A. County and the Victorville/Apple Valley/Hesperia/Adelanto region for the Inland Empire), entailing schlepping over Cajon Pass on I-15, which is now a commuter ordeal.
I can't recall the last time I visited any of the In-N-Outs in the San Jose area and came across anyone over 21 working there (this entails at least 3 different outlets); since my patronage has been generally after normative school hours, it's probable that older staff (maybe even collegiate) occupy those positions earlier in the day. Folks seeking something over minimum wage have seemingly moved to other areas of the service world -- possibly retail stores or somewhere in the distribution chain, where one typically encounters employees of all ages. The kids in the fast-food business are still likely to be living at home with parents, while the residences of the older service-sector folks would be indeterminate absent some pretty extensive surveys. But it's likely that they, along with other lower-level jobs even in the tech industry, are experiencing the same pressures regarding housing -- and general cost of living -- that are driving folks further and further east for some modicum of affordability!
When living conditions get bad enough (too dangerous or too costly) residents will leave if they can afford to escape. The deplorable thing is "worldly" cosmopolitan cities like New York and San Francisco have homeless populations that are growing rapidly. What's really shocking is a bunch of these homeless people are working day jobs and trying to crash at homeless shelters or other arrangements they can find at night. Lots of young people working service sector jobs are living from one friend's couch to the next. It can be pretty difficult to move up from that cycle of living.
This absurd economic situation really tarnishes that whole "New Urbanist" Utopian ideal the proponents of mass transit keep trying to sell, all while they try their best to block any new freeway or toll road projects. Unaffordable housing in the inner city is the prime motivator for people to move out to the suburbs or distant exurbs.
What gives me even more concern nation-wide is living costs in seemingly low-cost zones, like my town for instance, are getting pretty high. Minimum wage here is still $7.25 per hour. A halfway decent one bedroom or efficiency apartment can run at least $600-$800 month. We don't have lots of high paying jobs around here. All the costs involved with parenting are ridiculous. Putting one child in day care can cost $800 per month. If a single mother working low wage jobs has no relatives around who can watch her kids during the day she'll be in an impossible situation financially. Government assistance programs go only so far.
^^^^^^^^
The problem with the utopian ideals expressed by the new urbanist activists (who, if embedded within planning departments at the city/county/MPO level, attempt to manifest) is that they have collectively identified the driving public as public enemy #1; no methodology is considered unless it contains a component that makes driving in their area of influence as difficult and even onerous as possible. This tends to discard solutions that are doable and fair in favor of those that are punitive -- which invariably leads to political backlash that has the effect of kicking the can of urban/metro problems down the road. Urbanist approaches are, first and foremost, a methodology; conflating them into an ideology is a fools' errand. Unless one's head is stuck way up in the clouds (or another location that smells considerably worse!), attempting to mold a new human species based upon one's derived ideals rather than simply negotiate with the populace as encountered (i.e., playing the hand dealt to you) to arrive at a consensual solution is, in plain terms, a "bridge too far"; the feasible is ignored while the ideal either runs into a brick wall or is whittled away notion by notion until nothing workable remains (the late '60's/early '70's redux!). It's similar to abortion opponents who also oppose contraception simply because they want to erect/maintain "speed bumps" in the path of sexual activity -- their generally unstated end game. They want to stop certain folks from fucking; in a similar vein the more adamant urbanists want to stop most folks from driving. The idea that vehicles could within our lifetimes be carbon-emission free isn't enough for some of them; they want a populace inured to the bounded rationality of restricted mobility. On a side note, it must be nice to be able to look at one's self in a mirror and think "....if everyone were like me, the world would be a better place!" Fortunately, most of us aren't that delusional -- just human!
Watch Seatlle, where a city on an isthmus cannot spread out and watch Portland OR, where state land use laws put boundaries on development. The highways and freeways of these cities are hopelessly congested at this time. Put enough pain into the equation and eventually someone is going to try a solution. How long before one that works comes along? I sure hope the answer is "Soon!". It will be interesting to find out what the solution turned out to be, assuming one was found.
Rick
Quote from: nexus73 on February 20, 2019, 07:47:14 PM
Watch Seatlle, where a city on an isthmus cannot spread out and watch Portland OR, where state land use laws put boundaries on development. The highways and freeways of these cities are hopelessly congested at this time. Put enough pain into the equation and eventually someone is going to try a solution. How long before one that works comes along? I sure hope the answer is "Soon!". It will be interesting to find out what the solution turned out to be, assuming one was found.
Rick
What's unique about Portland and its politics is the fact that Metro's jurisdiction ends in the middle of the Columbia River; while they can (and certainly do) piss & moan about things across the river in WA, for the time being there's little they can do about it. So Clark County has become something of a "safety valve" for greater PDX; developers have the choice of attempting to locate their activities well south of the metro region (let's say Woodburn and points south -- closer to Salem than Portland!) or simply reposition those activities northward. Ranch houses on substantial lots? -- easy peezy in Woodland or Battle Ground. And while it's not like the Wild West -- there
are rules and regs, getting housing built isn't an uphill battle like across the river. And there are advantages -- residents can simply schlep over the river and purchase "big-ticket" items
sans sales tax (a residual "free rider" effect), while taking advantage of the slightly lower property taxes in WA. Not that housing is any cheaper in WA -- just a greater variety, particularly in regards to new housing stock, is generally available. Now -- whether this situation will persist in the long haul is uncertain; there are political and fiscal pressures, some attached to potential new/upgrades regarding river crossings, that eventually may provoke Vancouver and/or Clark County into alliances with Metro involving some concessions to many of the latter's policies. That whole situation was intriguing when I was living up there in the mid-90's; it remains so today.
Quote from: sparkerThe problem with the utopian ideals expressed by the new urbanist activists (who, if embedded within planning departments at the city/county/MPO level, attempt to manifest) is that they have collectively identified the driving public as public enemy #1; no methodology is considered unless it contains a component that makes driving in their area of influence as difficult and even onerous as possible. This tends to discard solutions that are doable and fair in favor of those that are punitive -- which invariably leads to political backlash that has the effect of kicking the can of urban/metro problems down the road. Urbanist approaches are, first and foremost, a methodology; conflating them into an ideology is a fools' errand. Unless one's head is stuck way up in the clouds (or another location that smells considerably worse!), attempting to mold a new human species based upon one's derived ideals rather than simply negotiate with the populace as encountered (i.e., playing the hand dealt to you) to arrive at a consensual solution is, in plain terms, a "bridge too far"; the feasible is ignored while the ideal either runs into a brick wall or is whittled away notion by notion until nothing workable remains (the late '60's/early '70's redux!). It's similar to abortion opponents who also oppose contraception simply because they want to erect/maintain "speed bumps" in the path of sexual activity -- their generally unstated end game. They want to stop certain folks from fucking; in a similar vein the more adamant urbanists want to stop most folks from driving. The idea that vehicles could within our lifetimes be carbon-emission free isn't enough for some of them; they want a populace inured to the bounded rationality of restricted mobility. On a side note, it must be nice to be able to look at one's self in a mirror and think "....if everyone were like me, the world would be a better place!" Fortunately, most of us aren't that delusional -- just human!
Putting it more simply: too many people in positions of power and influence are
out of touch. They're either not aware or concerned with adverse effects their policies will have on people who aren't members of their very select peer group. They bulldoze their choices through anyway.
It's pretty common for Americans to have very skewed perspectives on various socio-economic issues. We think we know what's best for different groups of people who aren't us even though we often lack the honest ability to really see things from the perspective of people in those other groups. We just invent some BS rationale to ram-rod our wants into law if we have the power to do it.
Quote from: sparker on February 20, 2019, 08:37:02 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on February 20, 2019, 07:47:14 PM
Watch Seatlle, where a city on an isthmus cannot spread out and watch Portland OR, where state land use laws put boundaries on development. The highways and freeways of these cities are hopelessly congested at this time. Put enough pain into the equation and eventually someone is going to try a solution. How long before one that works comes along? I sure hope the answer is "Soon!". It will be interesting to find out what the solution turned out to be, assuming one was found.
Rick
What's unique about Portland and its politics is the fact that Metro's jurisdiction ends in the middle of the Columbia River; while they can (and certainly do) piss & moan about things across the river in WA, for the time being there's little they can do about it. So Clark County has become something of a "safety valve" for greater PDX; developers have the choice of attempting to locate their activities well south of the metro region (let's say Woodburn and points south -- closer to Salem than Portland!) or simply reposition those activities northward. Ranch houses on substantial lots? -- easy peezy in Woodland or Battle Ground. And while it's not like the Wild West -- there are rules and regs, getting housing built isn't an uphill battle like across the river. And there are advantages -- residents can simply schlep over the river and purchase "big-ticket" items sans sales tax (a residual "free rider" effect), while taking advantage of the slightly lower property taxes in WA. Not that housing is any cheaper in WA -- just a greater variety, particularly in regards to new housing stock, is generally available. Now -- whether this situation will persist in the long haul is uncertain; there are political and fiscal pressures, some attached to potential new/upgrades regarding river crossings, that eventually may provoke Vancouver and/or Clark County into alliances with Metro involving some concessions to many of the latter's policies. That whole situation was intriguing when I was living up there in the mid-90's; it remains so today.
Even with Vancouver acting as a relief valve, there is still way too much congestion in PDX. Something needs to be done. What will be done? There is where the story needs to go.
Rick
I can't help but think this road diet, new urbanism, and bike obsession thing is a fad. I think the American public is being sold on a lie that dense areas are more sustainable and cheaper as well as freeways won't work because induced demand which is just nonsense. I hope, and think we'll start seeing some push back against these things soon. I expect the future to have more balance and give people more choices, but I don't foresee this urban oriented transit fantasy land. Suburbs will always rule and seem to be becoming more popular over the world. They are superior in nearly every way offering a much better quality of life than urban areas can.
Dense urban areas with mixed use development can work, but only if people of ALL social classes can afford living there. Simple as that. The New Urbanist neighborhood needs to have room for everyone from the douche bag millionaire down to the lowly minimum wage fry cook. The big question is how do you set up the housing market and other mechanisms of big city living to be class-inclusive like that?
If the New Urbanist neighborhood's housing is priced so only people with six figure incomes and up can afford to live there they'll run off all their lower wage workers to live in the suburbs or even move to other parts of the country. And that ruins that whole New Urbanist goal of fighting sprawl, fighting new freeways, etc. When it comes to jobs like waiting tables or working in a fast food kitchen there's plenty of those jobs out in the suburbs and other lower cost places. Over the long term that will threaten high cost cities like New York and San Francisco with labor shortages in service sector jobs.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 21, 2019, 04:35:01 AM
I can't help but think this road diet, new urbanism, and bike obsession thing is a fad. I think the American public is being sold on a lie that dense areas are more sustainable and cheaper as well as freeways won't work because induced demand which is just nonsense. I hope, and think we'll start seeing some push back against these things soon. I expect the future to have more balance and give people more choices, but I don't foresee this urban oriented transit fantasy land. Suburbs will always rule and seem to be becoming more popular over the world. They are superior in nearly every way offering a much better quality of life than urban areas can.
The problem in allowing sprawl in the Willamette Valley is that this valley is the most fecund valley on the West Coast. Unlike the San Joaquin Velley, it does not need massive amounts of irrigating. Annual rainfall is about 35". Soil is rich. This valley is the reason our nation wound up with the Oregon Trail.
Take the urban footprint of SoCal. Place it in Oregon. You would cover the entire Willamette Valley with plenty more land covered in the mountains. Losing prime agricultural land is a bigger loss than losing arid desert land.
Oregon will need to find a way to handle concentrated populations if our state is going to be engaged in large scale agriculture. SoCal will need to find a way to move a whole lot of people through the massive amount of land which has been urbanized. These are two different challenges. Political will. Market forces. Water availability. Terrain. Energy supplies. It is like we are playing a Sim game at slow speed with slow reaction time and there is a field of icebergs to be navigated through. What solutions? When do they come? I will not be alive to see these problems solved but someone will....I hope! What the solutions are for each situation is something I wish I could know. Who wants to read half a book and lose it before knowing how the story ended?
Rick
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 21, 2019, 04:35:01 AM
Suburbs will always rule and seem to be becoming more popular over the world. They are superior in nearly every way offering a much better quality of life than urban areas can.
And yet, we're not the happiest nation on the planet - not even close.
My point is the problem - with
both sides of this argument - is that each side thinks they know what is best for everyone. As someone who has spent his life fairly equally between high-density central cities and suburban tracts, my quality of life has consistently been higher in the cities. Easier commute, easier access to services and entertainment, more engagement with my neighbors and neighborhood. But that's
my story only, and I don't pretend that it works that way for everyone.
There is no one great answer, and what works for one city/region will not work for another.
A suburb will do well as long as it has plenty of upper middle class and upper class residents adding to the tax base. The schools, infrastructure and services like police, fire and garbage removal all cost a lot of money to maintain.
Many small towns are struggling badly because they don't have the tax base to cover all the basics of public services and infrastructure. So much of the living cost inflation happening in big cities is filtering down to smaller cities and towns. It's costing more to repair streets or hire policemen. The problem is compounded by young people in small towns leaving when they get out of high school and not returning. Rising costs and a shrinking tax base is a terrible equation for a small town's future.
There is plenty of pros and cons to living in the city versus the suburbs. There were plenty of things I did like about living in New York City, such as close access to all kinds of stores and entertainment outlets. I was a big movie fan and got spoiled to watching movies projected from 70mm film prints in huge 1000 seat theaters. That's not available in the suburbs and small towns. But the city is really crowded. Standing elbow to elbow on a subway platform that smells like dried pee is not fun. NYC is also very noisy; there's only a few places in the 5 boroughs where you can get any peace and quiet (such as some spots on Staten Island).
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 21, 2019, 01:45:12 PM
A suburb will do well as long as it has plenty of upper middle class and upper class residents adding to the tax base. The schools, infrastructure and services like police, fire and garbage removal all cost a lot of money to maintain.
Many small towns are struggling badly because they don't have the tax base to cover all the basics of public services and infrastructure. So much of the living cost inflation happening in big cities is filtering down to smaller cities and towns. It's costing more to repair streets or hire policemen. The problem is compounded by young people in small towns leaving when they get out of high school and not returning. Rising costs and a shrinking tax base is a terrible equation for a small town's future.
There is plenty of pros and cons to living in the city versus the suburbs. There were plenty of things I did like about living in New York City, such as close access to all kinds of stores and entertainment outlets. I was a big movie fan and got spoiled to watching movies projected from 70mm film prints in huge 1000 seat theaters. That's not available in the suburbs and small towns. But the city is really crowded. Standing elbow to elbow on a subway platform that smells like dried pee is not fun. NYC is also very noisy; there's only a few places in the 5 boroughs where you can get any peace and quiet (such as some spots on Staten Island).
Your paragraph on smaller cities and towns certainly applies to my home area of Coos Bay-North Bend. I have seen this area in boom times, in totally collapsed times and now I see changing times that are for the better but they were in ways I never would have predicted half a century ago. Imagine a town going from the timber and fishing industry to one known for world class golf course complexes and high end housing for well off retirees. That is what happened to Bandon OR. Go inland on 42S, the former US 101 to Coquille. There is your classic small town which became dog-eared but somehow there is just enough good stuff to keep the old heart beating. The times they are a'changing and doing so in very different fashions for each of the seven incorporated cities in Coos County. It has been interesting to see how each story played out.
Rick
I do believe the classic suburbs as we know it will change a bit and become more dense with large suburban malls shifting siteplans and more structured parking. Freeway design should be different with more lanes and perhaps more carriage ways to separate traffic. More tunnels and/or park caps should be in order.
Developing most of the high desert into a low density sprawled community with large freeways every 5 miles and large 6-8 arterials with more freeways built and existing ones widened to get people into LA and the Valley coupled with HSR at least to the Valley or Pasadena would solve the California housing crisis. The infrastructure simply doesn't exist to allow for this to happen at the moment.
Quote from: Plutonic PandaI do believe the classic suburbs as we know it will change a bit and become more dense with large suburban malls shifting siteplans and more structured parking. Freeway design should be different with more lanes and perhaps more carriage ways to separate traffic. More tunnels and/or park caps should be in order.
Aside from improving freeways, I think much more improvement is needed on the surface street level. A busy arterial really needs limits on how many streets intersect with it and limit the number of driveways making direct contact with the arterial. Too many intersections and driveways leads to way too many traffic flow conflicts and even traffic jams. Parts of Houston are notorious for having surface street back-ups and gridlock that ends up even leading to jams on nearby freeways.
New housing and retail developments are getting better at limiting the number of vehicle access points onto the main thoroughfares. A new residential neighborhood might have its own self contained street grid with only a couple or so access points in and out of the neighborhood rather than letting every street spill out onto the main arterial or allow homes to have driveways connecting directly with the main arterial.
It's easier to properly design the street layout for a new housing or retail development. What can be done to alter existing old fashioned street grids and busy city streets already infested with drive-ways?
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 21, 2019, 07:43:55 PM
Quote from: Plutonic PandaI do believe the classic suburbs as we know it will change a bit and become more dense with large suburban malls shifting siteplans and more structured parking. Freeway design should be different with more lanes and perhaps more carriage ways to separate traffic. More tunnels and/or park caps should be in order.
Aside from improving freeways, I think much more improvement is needed on the surface street level. A busy arterial really needs limits on how many streets intersect with it and limit the number of driveways making direct contact with the arterial. Too many intersections and driveways leads to way too many traffic flow conflicts and even traffic jams. Parts of Houston are notorious for having surface street back-ups and gridlock that ends up even leading to jams on nearby freeways.
New housing and retail developments are getting better at limiting the number of vehicle access points onto the main thoroughfares. A new residential neighborhood might have its own self contained street grid with only a couple or so access points in and out of the neighborhood rather than letting every street spill out onto the main arterial or allow homes to have driveways connecting directly with the main arterial.
It's easier to properly design the street layout for a new housing or retail development. What can be done to alter existing old fashioned street grids and busy city streets already infested with drive-ways?
OKC is horrible with this! Especially placing curb cuts right at intersections.
A while back my GF an I were out in the Manteca/Lathrop area looking at new housing; I noticed that a number of the tracts -- particularly those nearest to the Delta -- were laid out with arterials -- some 2-lane, some 4-lane divided
with frontage roads on either side, from which perpendicular single ended streets -- relatively long -- extended to a similar frontage road on the next arterial. In the particular tract that was showing model homes that day the arterials alternated 2-lane, 4-lane, and another 2-lane; the last batch of houses terminated on a street that paralleled a delta levee. The arterials were accessed from the frontage roads by connectors about every 5 blocks; these intersected the frontage roads between the streets containing the housing so no connector would become a functional thoroughfare. Obviously, the rectangular format was retained to maximize land use (the lots were quite narrow but deep, with functional front & back yards), but this method of arterials+frontage roads seemed, at least to my sensibilities, to be a reasonable way to provide both access and a level of isolation from through traffic. And no, we didn't make a purchase; neither of us particularly cared for the layout of the single-level homes. Looks like we'll be sticking around San Jose for at least the next couple of years.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 21, 2019, 07:43:55 PM
It's easier to properly design the street layout for a new housing or retail development. What can be done to alter existing old fashioned street grids and busy city streets already infested with drive-ways?
Probably not a hell of a lot save a comprehensive razing and reconstruction -- but any entity proposing such will invariably encounter enough opposition to render a major project infeasible. The residents and business owners in these older areas will have to reach some sort of tipping point -- a rash of accidents, customers avoiding an area because of issues surrounding the safety of both pedestrians and drivers -- or any other circumstances deemed detrimental to the conduct of life in that particular neighborhood. Then some substantial "modifications" to the physical layout -- likely involving longer-term regional disruption -- might be on the table. But barring those events, it's likely that only incremental steps -- "road diets", conversion of alleyways to functional commercial loading areas (to lessen trucks blocking arterial lanes while loading/unloading), and maybe the occasional roundabout (I can already hear the groans from some quarters) deployment -- will be taken. But in either scenario, it would probably be best to take measures to avoid such actions being characterized as
gentrification, which is a phenomenon, except in private developmental quarters, that is becoming a widely despised situation.
Quote from: sparker on February 21, 2019, 08:54:32 PM
A while back my GF an I were out in the Manteca/Lathrop area looking at new housing; I noticed that a number of the tracts -- particularly those nearest to the Delta -- were laid out with arterials -- some 2-lane, some 4-lane divided with frontage roads on either side, from which perpendicular single ended streets -- relatively long -- extended to a similar frontage road on the next arterial. In the particular tract that was showing model homes that day the arterials alternated 2-lane, 4-lane, and another 2-lane; the last batch of houses terminated on a street that paralleled a delta levee. The arterials were accessed from the frontage roads by connectors about every 5 blocks; these intersected the frontage roads between the streets containing the housing so no connector would become a functional thoroughfare. Obviously, the rectangular format was retained to maximize land use (the lots were quite narrow but deep, with functional front & back yards), but this method of arterials+frontage roads seemed, at least to my sensibilities, to be a reasonable way to provide both access and a level of isolation from through traffic. And no, we didn't make a purchase; neither of us particularly cared for the layout of the single-level homes. Looks like we'll be sticking around San Jose for at least the next couple of years.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 21, 2019, 07:43:55 PM
It's easier to properly design the street layout for a new housing or retail development. What can be done to alter existing old fashioned street grids and busy city streets already infested with drive-ways?
Probably not a hell of a lot save a comprehensive razing and reconstruction -- but any entity proposing such will invariably encounter enough opposition to render a major project infeasible. The residents and business owners in these older areas will have to reach some sort of tipping point -- a rash of accidents, customers avoiding an area because of issues surrounding the safety of both pedestrians and drivers -- or any other circumstances deemed detrimental to the conduct of life in that particular neighborhood. Then some substantial "modifications" to the physical layout -- likely involving longer-term regional disruption -- might be on the table. But barring those events, it's likely that only incremental steps -- "road diets", conversion of alleyways to functional commercial loading areas (to lessen trucks blocking arterial lanes while loading/unloading), and maybe the occasional roundabout (I can already hear the groans from some quarters) deployment -- will be taken. But in either scenario, it would probably be best to take measures to avoid such actions being characterized as gentrification, which is a phenomenon, except in private developmental quarters, that is becoming a widely despised situation.
Yes! The mainline with frontage roads is a design I call superboulevard. Maybe other people do as well. My first time to see one was in the Nineties. Hammond LA was the location. It struck me as an impressive design for an urban area. The one you describe, where superboulevards combine with a network of streets and frontage roads, sounds like just the ticket for letting traffic flow.
Rick
Quote from: nexus73 on February 21, 2019, 10:17:56 PM
Quote from: sparker on February 21, 2019, 08:54:32 PM
A while back my GF an I were out in the Manteca/Lathrop area looking at new housing; I noticed that a number of the tracts -- particularly those nearest to the Delta -- were laid out with arterials -- some 2-lane, some 4-lane divided with frontage roads on either side, from which perpendicular single ended streets -- relatively long -- extended to a similar frontage road on the next arterial. In the particular tract that was showing model homes that day the arterials alternated 2-lane, 4-lane, and another 2-lane; the last batch of houses terminated on a street that paralleled a delta levee. The arterials were accessed from the frontage roads by connectors about every 5 blocks; these intersected the frontage roads between the streets containing the housing so no connector would become a functional thoroughfare. Obviously, the rectangular format was retained to maximize land use (the lots were quite narrow but deep, with functional front & back yards), but this method of arterials+frontage roads seemed, at least to my sensibilities, to be a reasonable way to provide both access and a level of isolation from through traffic. And no, we didn't make a purchase; neither of us particularly cared for the layout of the single-level homes. Looks like we'll be sticking around San Jose for at least the next couple of years.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 21, 2019, 07:43:55 PM
It's easier to properly design the street layout for a new housing or retail development. What can be done to alter existing old fashioned street grids and busy city streets already infested with drive-ways?
Probably not a hell of a lot save a comprehensive razing and reconstruction -- but any entity proposing such will invariably encounter enough opposition to render a major project infeasible. The residents and business owners in these older areas will have to reach some sort of tipping point -- a rash of accidents, customers avoiding an area because of issues surrounding the safety of both pedestrians and drivers -- or any other circumstances deemed detrimental to the conduct of life in that particular neighborhood. Then some substantial "modifications" to the physical layout -- likely involving longer-term regional disruption -- might be on the table. But barring those events, it's likely that only incremental steps -- "road diets", conversion of alleyways to functional commercial loading areas (to lessen trucks blocking arterial lanes while loading/unloading), and maybe the occasional roundabout (I can already hear the groans from some quarters) deployment -- will be taken. But in either scenario, it would probably be best to take measures to avoid such actions being characterized as gentrification, which is a phenomenon, except in private developmental quarters, that is becoming a widely despised situation.
Yes! The mainline with frontage roads is a design I call superboulevard. Maybe other people do as well. My first time to see one was in the Nineties. Hammond LA was the location. It struck me as an impressive design for an urban area. The one you describe, where superboulevards combine with a network of streets and frontage roads, sounds like just the ticket for letting traffic flow.
Rick
Curious to see how this looks. Is there any link to a google map to see?
Quote from: mrsman on February 21, 2019, 10:48:45 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on February 21, 2019, 10:17:56 PM
Quote from: sparker on February 21, 2019, 08:54:32 PM
A while back my GF an I were out in the Manteca/Lathrop area looking at new housing; I noticed that a number of the tracts -- particularly those nearest to the Delta -- were laid out with arterials -- some 2-lane, some 4-lane divided with frontage roads on either side, from which perpendicular single ended streets -- relatively long -- extended to a similar frontage road on the next arterial. In the particular tract that was showing model homes that day the arterials alternated 2-lane, 4-lane, and another 2-lane; the last batch of houses terminated on a street that paralleled a delta levee. The arterials were accessed from the frontage roads by connectors about every 5 blocks; these intersected the frontage roads between the streets containing the housing so no connector would become a functional thoroughfare. Obviously, the rectangular format was retained to maximize land use (the lots were quite narrow but deep, with functional front & back yards), but this method of arterials+frontage roads seemed, at least to my sensibilities, to be a reasonable way to provide both access and a level of isolation from through traffic. And no, we didn't make a purchase; neither of us particularly cared for the layout of the single-level homes. Looks like we'll be sticking around San Jose for at least the next couple of years.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 21, 2019, 07:43:55 PM
It's easier to properly design the street layout for a new housing or retail development. What can be done to alter existing old fashioned street grids and busy city streets already infested with drive-ways?
Probably not a hell of a lot save a comprehensive razing and reconstruction -- but any entity proposing such will invariably encounter enough opposition to render a major project infeasible. The residents and business owners in these older areas will have to reach some sort of tipping point -- a rash of accidents, customers avoiding an area because of issues surrounding the safety of both pedestrians and drivers -- or any other circumstances deemed detrimental to the conduct of life in that particular neighborhood. Then some substantial "modifications" to the physical layout -- likely involving longer-term regional disruption -- might be on the table. But barring those events, it's likely that only incremental steps -- "road diets", conversion of alleyways to functional commercial loading areas (to lessen trucks blocking arterial lanes while loading/unloading), and maybe the occasional roundabout (I can already hear the groans from some quarters) deployment -- will be taken. But in either scenario, it would probably be best to take measures to avoid such actions being characterized as gentrification, which is a phenomenon, except in private developmental quarters, that is becoming a widely despised situation.
Yes! The mainline with frontage roads is a design I call superboulevard. Maybe other people do as well. My first time to see one was in the Nineties. Hammond LA was the location. It struck me as an impressive design for an urban area. The one you describe, where superboulevards combine with a network of streets and frontage roads, sounds like just the ticket for letting traffic flow.
Rick
Curious to see how this looks. Is there any link to a google map to see?
I have no link, just the memory! If you want to search, try US 51 Hammond Louisiana. Look for the section between US 190 and the south interchange on I-55.
Rick
What the hell does this all have to do with the High Desert Highway?
^^^^^^^^
The thread took a sideways turn when relative housing costs of various areas in SoCal -- relevant because of the location of the High Desert corridor through what is turning out to be some of the more affordable areas to place housing -- and by extension the raison d'etre for the corridor's planning efforts and design criteria. It moved to Long Beach, then to Seattle & Portland, and started coming home by talking about more affordable housing within Bay Area exurbs. We're getting back to the High Desert a few hundred miles per post!
Seriously, with the truncation of the plans for the CA HSR, which puts the Palmdale section of that rail route way off in the distant future -- if the project ever gets back on track (bad pun) -- a major High Desert corridor component likely went with it. The original concept was to run some form of HSR, be it a branch of the now-shrunk N-S corridor or an extension of the long-discussed (there's another dedicated thread in Mass Transit concerning this) Victorville-Vegas HSR (likely either a PPP or fully private project). Likely to have been placed in the median of the toll roadway facility, it looks like if & when the road is built, it'll leave room -- or even be graded -- for future grade-separated rail, but will be initially built as just a toll road, since at present there's little demand for a conventional commute-rail line between the L.A. County desert exurbs flanking CA 14 (Palmdale, Lancaster) and those about 45 miles east (Adelanto, Victorville, Hesperia) along I-15 and US 395. The road itself will likely find use as a "shunt" between the two N-S freeways -- including use as a "shortcut" from the western reaches of greater L.A. (including Ventura County) and the main road to Las Vegas -- avoiding the chokepoints in the San Gabriel Valley and Inland Empire. Presently that task is relegated to a series of conventional highways (CA 138 and CA 18), much of which remains 2 lane.
And that roadway-only aspect of the corridor may well precede a funding shortfall for the High Desert project due to the connection to the HSR project; lacking the revenue potential from HSR-related income, the corridor's prospects are now tied to whatever prospective income can be derived from tolls (probably strictly OTR). And that may not be enough to advance this project to the near term when juxtaposed with other regional needs. It might just take some concrete action regarding the Vegas HSR project -- and the potential desire of its financial backers to include the additional 45 miles of track to access L.A. County (and the Metrolink connection at Palmdale) to get the High Desert corridor past the planning stage to actual construction.
The United States just doesn't have what it takes to build a legitimate, true high speed rail network. Hell, we barely have the capability to even manage building a new highway. There is no nation-wide collective vision to get projects like that done anymore. It's absolutely clear that if the Interstate highway network didn't already exist and we set about to being building it today, it would be a white elephant just like that unfinished stub of a rail line in the Central Valley.
While I think high speed rail is pretty neat (I loved watching the
Bullet Train rocket through the countryside when I was a kid living in Japan), I see absolutely no appeal at all in a scattering of a few "short line" HSR routes in isolated parts of our nation. I see no appeal in these different routes using different kinds of trains and possibly different rail gauges too. The Shinkansen is
the high speed rail network for Japan. There's no other competing networks. China now has, by far, the world's largest high speed rail network. By the year 2020 they'll have 18,000 miles of HSR routes in operation.
I think the only way high speed rail would have any appeal in the United States is if the routes covered some long distances, even cross country, to actually compete with flying or taking a long road trip. Too many of the proposed routes (nearly all of which remain in perpetual limbo) are just short regional routes geared for long distance commuters. It's like they're all trying to imitate the metro-liner route from DC to Boston
-which is not a real high speed route. No one is planning HSR routes like New York to Miami or Chicago to Los Angeles.
Even if some politician or other person of influence managed to actually make high speed rail a real priority for the national agenda there is no way the United States can get shit like this done without absolutely H-bombing the budget. Example: over $70 billion just to build one freaking route from the outskirts of Los Angeles to the outskirts of San Francisco? By that measure a cross country HSR route would tip the scales at close to $1 trillion. So there's no reason to even bother. We can barely get a few miles of slow speed light rail line built without it turning into a shameful cost-overrun boondoggle.
That gets back to the High Desert Highway. The thing will end up being necessary to build. With or without a high speed rail line nearby. Zero people in positions of power and influence are doing anything about soaring living costs within Los Angeles and other big cities. All the price gouging will push more middle income people over the mountains into exurbs Palmdale, Lancaster and Victorville (if the gouging doesn't push more of those people out of the state). None of the "elites" seem aware of the problem of big city living costs. Can't let that get in the way of the New Urbanist vision. I guess they think everyone has millions of dollars just laying around.
I saw one news story earlier today where Barbara Corcoran from
Shark Tank was griping about Amazon's pull-out from Long Island City. In her gripes she made zero mention about people who actually live there struggling to survive. No mention about the effects of gentrification and New York's exploding homeless problem and growing ranks of working homeless. She personally was looking to make a bunch of money on real estate deals for all these 25,000 new Amazon employees -very few of which would be existing residents. No. Those people would move in and kick out a bunch of existing
poorer people. All while Amazon is gifted $3 billion from the taxpayers.
I guess one thing I kind of hope happens is that maybe less desirable places like Palmdale on the other side of the mountains hits a sweet spot of affordability, stability and job growth while the real estate bubble in Los Angeles pops. It would make the "good" and "bad" sides of the San Gabriel Mountains switch perspectives.
Quote from: sparkerThe original concept was to run some form of HSR, be it a branch of the now-shrunk N-S corridor or an extension of the long-discussed (there's another dedicated thread in Mass Transit concerning this) Victorville-Vegas HSR (likely either a PPP or fully private project). Likely to have been placed in the median of the toll roadway facility, it looks like if & when the road is built, it'll leave room -- or even be graded -- for future grade-separated rail, but will be initially built as just a toll road, (snipped)
It's possible to build a standard commuter rail line within the median of a new freeway or toll road. It's impossible to add high speed rail in the median of a super highway, especially if the super highway is built first
and built to the usual standards. Grade and curve standards are just too difficult for a super highway to maintain. The only way it is possible to have a HSR line in the median of a freeway or toll road is if the HSR line is built first and enough ROW is reserved alongside the HSR route to add a freeway or tollroad.
To go off that, and for what it's worth, my geography professor last fall made near-constant remarks about how America's behind in stuff like high-speed rail, and not with the metric system, among other things. I'm amazed I even passed that class at all.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 22, 2019, 10:46:48 PM
It's possible to build a standard commuter rail line within the median of a new freeway or toll road. It's impossible to add high speed rail in the median of a super highway, especially if the super highway is built first and built to the usual standards. Grade and curve standards are just too difficult for a super highway to maintain. The only way it is possible to have a HSR line in the median of a freeway or toll road is if the HSR line is built first and enough ROW is reserved alongside the HSR route to add a freeway or tollroad.
The virtually flat topography -- and lack of structural facilities within the potential corridor location parameters -- render it possible to design the physical aspects of this corridor with a virtual "blank slate". Since the requirements re gradient, curvature, and width for HSR are now a known entity (courtesy of the planning/construction of the remaining segment from Bakersfield to Merced), there is no reason why a corridor meeting those standards couldn't be graded to spec -- and then the roadways flanking that corridor could be fully constructed -- with the rail component built when (and if) state funds become available again and/or a private party steps in with funding for the rail portion.
Even though the area where the High Desert Highway would be built seems desolate or sparsely populated quite a bit of private property, homes, businesses, etc are in the path. Those types of obstacles are the main reason why so many new highways are built so damn crooked. Even a lot of older Interstates on seemingly pancake-flat land, such as I-70 in Kansas, were forced to make lots of up and down dips to save money on grading costs. That specific road has plenty of bends in it where the alignment had to be adjusted to avoid land that couldn't be acquired for a more direct route. In this particular case any successful hold-outs blocking ROW acquisition could literally derail the whole endeavor. A 200mph HSR route can't be built all bend-o-matic style like I-69 in Southern Indiana.
Aside from possible court battles on ROW acquisition, I also wonder if a business as usual type of inertia would force a new freeway aspiring to hold a future high speed rail line to get built to the same old usual standards. The much higher standards for grading and curves would likely raise the road construction cost dramatically.
Quote from: mrsman on February 21, 2019, 10:48:45 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on February 21, 2019, 10:17:56 PM
Quote from: sparker on February 21, 2019, 08:54:32 PM
A while back my GF an I were out in the Manteca/Lathrop area looking at new housing; I noticed that a number of the tracts -- particularly those nearest to the Delta -- were laid out with arterials -- some 2-lane, some 4-lane divided with frontage roads on either side, from which perpendicular single ended streets -- relatively long -- extended to a similar frontage road on the next arterial. In the particular tract that was showing model homes that day the arterials alternated 2-lane, 4-lane, and another 2-lane; the last batch of houses terminated on a street that paralleled a delta levee. The arterials were accessed from the frontage roads by connectors about every 5 blocks; these intersected the frontage roads between the streets containing the housing so no connector would become a functional thoroughfare. Obviously, the rectangular format was retained to maximize land use (the lots were quite narrow but deep, with functional front & back yards), but this method of arterials+frontage roads seemed, at least to my sensibilities, to be a reasonable way to provide both access and a level of isolation from through traffic. And no, we didn't make a purchase; neither of us particularly cared for the layout of the single-level homes. Looks like we'll be sticking around San Jose for at least the next couple of years.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 21, 2019, 07:43:55 PM
It's easier to properly design the street layout for a new housing or retail development. What can be done to alter existing old fashioned street grids and busy city streets already infested with drive-ways?
Probably not a hell of a lot save a comprehensive razing and reconstruction -- but any entity proposing such will invariably encounter enough opposition to render a major project infeasible. The residents and business owners in these older areas will have to reach some sort of tipping point -- a rash of accidents, customers avoiding an area because of issues surrounding the safety of both pedestrians and drivers -- or any other circumstances deemed detrimental to the conduct of life in that particular neighborhood. Then some substantial "modifications" to the physical layout -- likely involving longer-term regional disruption -- might be on the table. But barring those events, it's likely that only incremental steps -- "road diets", conversion of alleyways to functional commercial loading areas (to lessen trucks blocking arterial lanes while loading/unloading), and maybe the occasional roundabout (I can already hear the groans from some quarters) deployment -- will be taken. But in either scenario, it would probably be best to take measures to avoid such actions being characterized as gentrification, which is a phenomenon, except in private developmental quarters, that is becoming a widely despised situation.
Yes! The mainline with frontage roads is a design I call superboulevard. Maybe other people do as well. My first time to see one was in the Nineties. Hammond LA was the location. It struck me as an impressive design for an urban area. The one you describe, where superboulevards combine with a network of streets and frontage roads, sounds like just the ticket for letting traffic flow.
Rick
Curious to see how this looks. Is there any link to a google map to see?
I'm not quite sure what is meant by this either. Here's a couple possibilities:
Sunset Blvd, San Francisco (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.736941,-122.4949434,836m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en)
Virginia Beach Blvd, Norfolk, VA (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.8557167,-76.1905559,283m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en)
I think what is being discussed is much like the old Verona Road outside the Beltline in Madison, WI, but I don't have any imagery of that. In any case, I'm not sure if it's ever a good solution. The Madison one wasn't because it got way too busy to handle traffic in that configuration. However, if you mean the boulevards that become Texas freeways like this part of the Anderson Loop around San Antonio (https://www.google.com/maps/@29.448153,-98.7116021,16.89z?hl=en) I can understand your point. (Sorry I couldn't find a good image for this because most of the old roads are now Texas freeways with frontage roads.)
I-40 near Amarillo, TX has frontage roads (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.1892102,-101.9814452,3a,75y,238.56h,90t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1szq6dOekP1Gvs4RJ4iDgNVw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3Dzq6dOekP1Gvs4RJ4iDgNVw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dsearch.TACTILE.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D238.56142%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100?hl=en) with 2 lanes in both directions, and the freeway exits lead to the frontage road itself.
Having driven on Sunset Blvd, I wouldn't call the side street frontage roads - there are stop signs on every intersection that parallel Sunset Blvd itself, so it's not practical for traveling through the Sunset District. The I-40 Frontage Road matches that description better I think.
Superboulevard: Multiple lanes in each direction. On one or both sides, frontage roads. Intersections spaced wide apart with them controlled by stoplights which are hopefully synchronized. 45 MPH speed limit was what Hammond had with one frontage road on the west side of US 51.
Rick
It'd sure be nice to see tolled underpasses on Sunset BLVD(SF) in certain areas.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 26, 2019, 01:31:58 AM
It'd sure be nice to see tolled underpasses on Sunset BLVD(SF) in certain areas.
Sunset was always considered a "superarterial"; the roads flanking it are streets corresponding to the standard Sunset District grid pattern rather than actual "frontage" facilities; the purpose of the road was simply to connect the city park facilities -- GG park on the north and Lake Merced, the city zoo, and the city-owned golf facilities on the south -- while keeping traffic between those places out of residential streets. Apparently the Division of Highways eyed it back in the late '50's as a way to get I-280 through the city without the expense or hassle of property acquisition (despite the prospect of a very convoluted connection to the present I-280 alignment south of the city) -- but, of course, the "freeway revolt" of the mid-60's rendered such plans moot.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 25, 2019, 03:54:44 PM
Even though the area where the High Desert Highway would be built seems desolate or sparsely populated quite a bit of private property, homes, businesses, etc are in the path. Those types of obstacles are the main reason why so many new highways are built so damn crooked. Even a lot of older Interstates on seemingly pancake-flat land, such as I-70 in Kansas, were forced to make lots of up and down dips to save money on grading costs. That specific road has plenty of bends in it where the alignment had to be adjusted to avoid land that couldn't be acquired for a more direct route. In this particular case any successful hold-outs blocking ROW acquisition could literally derail the whole endeavor. A 200mph HSR route can't be built all bend-o-matic style like I-69 in Southern Indiana.
Aside from possible court battles on ROW acquisition, I also wonder if a business as usual type of inertia would force a new freeway aspiring to hold a future high speed rail line to get built to the same old usual standards. The much higher standards for grading and curves would likely raise the road construction cost dramatically.
I was wondering about that myself regarding the High Desert corridor; back in 2012, before I pulled up stakes and moved north, I actually drove along the proposed alignment from Adelanto west to Palmdale to see what the corridor might encounter along its path. The answer was -- except for the first couple of miles west of US 395 and the last few miles in Palmdale -- pretty much nothing. It could easily avoid Lake Los Angeles, the only concentration of housing in between the more urbanized areas to the east and west -- in fact, it would have to swerve well off the projected trajectory to create any problems there. I counted about 15-20 structures that may have to be razed in the 40 miles covered; most of those were outbuildings rather than actual residences. Also, any curvature for topological reasons would be exceptionally mild and well within HSR parameters; this applies to vertical gradient as well. The path was chosen well -- it snakes between central Palmdale and the old Lockheed "skunk works" at its western end -- through a swath of open and unimproved land acting as a "buffer".
Bottom line -- it's "doable" as a potential HSR corridor, even if only initially graded for such; there's enough available ROW, width-wise, to construct a toll road and leave room in the median for
any rail technology available today.
Quote from: sparker on February 26, 2019, 04:09:01 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 26, 2019, 01:31:58 AM
It'd sure be nice to see tolled underpasses on Sunset BLVD(SF) in certain areas.
Sunset was always considered a "superarterial"; the roads flanking it are streets corresponding to the standard Sunset District grid pattern rather than actual "frontage" facilities; the purpose of the road was simply to connect the city park facilities -- GG park on the north and Lake Merced, the city zoo, and the city-owned golf facilities on the south -- while keeping traffic between those places out of residential streets. Apparently the Division of Highways eyed it back in the late '50's as a way to get I-280 through the city without the expense or hassle of property acquisition (despite the prospect of a very convoluted connection to the present I-280 alignment south of the city) -- but, of course, the "freeway revolt" of the mid-60's rendered such plans moot.
Do you have any maps or info on those plans to route 280 along Sunset? That's always intrigued me because of the existing half-cloverleaf with Sloat (and the half-diamond with Lincoln way) and the general layout of Sunset being interesting for fictional-highway exercises in my head. I feel like as much as trying to connect to the existing Junipero Serra Freeway stub that is Route 1 would have been a little challenging, this also predates the Parkmerced development doesn't it? So the area around Font Boulevard would have been a lot less developed back then. If anything, the same thing that ailed the I-80 extension and the Serra north extension into SF remained as always: how poorly any proposed interchange and freeway construction within Golden Gate Park was received.
Quote from: TheStranger on February 26, 2019, 04:28:36 AM
Quote from: sparker on February 26, 2019, 04:09:01 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 26, 2019, 01:31:58 AM
It'd sure be nice to see tolled underpasses on Sunset BLVD(SF) in certain areas.
Sunset was always considered a "superarterial"; the roads flanking it are streets corresponding to the standard Sunset District grid pattern rather than actual "frontage" facilities; the purpose of the road was simply to connect the city park facilities -- GG park on the north and Lake Merced, the city zoo, and the city-owned golf facilities on the south -- while keeping traffic between those places out of residential streets. Apparently the Division of Highways eyed it back in the late '50's as a way to get I-280 through the city without the expense or hassle of property acquisition (despite the prospect of a very convoluted connection to the present I-280 alignment south of the city) -- but, of course, the "freeway revolt" of the mid-60's rendered such plans moot.
Do you have any maps or info on those plans to route 280 along Sunset? That's always intrigued me because of the existing half-cloverleaf with Sloat (and the half-diamond with Lincoln way) and the general layout of Sunset being interesting for fictional-highway exercises in my head. I feel like as much as trying to connect to the existing Junipero Serra Freeway stub that is Route 1 would have been a little challenging, this also predates the Parkmerced development doesn't it? So the area around Font Boulevard would have been a lot less developed back then. If anything, the same thing that ailed the I-80 extension and the Serra north extension into SF remained as always: how poorly any proposed interchange and freeway construction within Golden Gate Park was received.
I certainly wouldn't stake my life on this, but from what I read from SF news sources -- while doing research on something else back in the mid-70's at the S.F. main library -- was that, IIRC, connection plans would have involved cut-and-cover construction up Junipero Serra to Sloat, then west along that artery (a state highway west of 19th Avenue) to Sunset; besides the issue of ventilation, this would have required a couple of relatively sharp curves, particularly at Serra, where it would have to pass under the trolley line. Never saw any proposals for the similar "lateral" alignment within GG Park or anything beyond that except that anything north of the park would have been an "upgrade" of Park Presidio, for much the same reasons as those involving Sunset Blvd. (avoidance of private property taking). But in the end, the idea of disturbing the park at all for a freeway was the real final nail in the coffin of S.F. freeway expansion.
To me, the whole process is an exposition of the mindset of the pre-Caltrans Division of Highways planners -- that by avoiding taking of private property by keeping the alignment on publicly owned lands as much as possible, the whole concept would have been rendered doable in their estimation. Apparently some in the Division thought the issue of urban freeways revolved more around disapproval of the use of eminent domain for private property taking than any broader sociopolitical or socioeconomic issues -- they likely thought of themselves simply as engineers just trying to do a job rather than invaders of urban space. But although they were disabused of that self-image as far as S.F. went, the D4 planners simply picked up their funding, got it transferred 45 miles south, and applied it to I-280 and I-680 through the central part of San Jose. That's something that might have been done 50+ years ago, but would certainly at least raise objections if not massive opposition these days.
BTW, the Park Merced development occurred about the same time as Park LaBrea in Los Angeles (same developers) -- in the mid-50's, right about the time of the Interstate inception. It would have been in the way of any direct connection between the J. Serra portion of I-280 south of the city line and any Sunset Blvd.-based alignment well before such was considered.
Quote from: Plutonic PandaIt'd sure be nice to see tolled underpasses on Sunset BLVD(SF) in certain areas.
Is there anywhere in the US where someone driving on a surface street is going to run into a toll gate on a mere urban surface street? The concept sounds like it could have very nasty, unintended consequences: namely unexpected traffic snarls and grid-lock. Any motorist not totally familiar with that neighborhood may panic and literally park in the middle of the street when suddenly faced with a toll gate blocking his way. I don't put it past any motorist from literally trying to do a 180° turn in the middle of the street to go back the other direction
if he's on a 2-way street.
We're used to super highways having toll gates across the main lanes and at the
limited access entrances and exits. They're closed facilities and plenty of drivers shun-pike those facilities. Toll tag readers on surface streets is a whole different ball game. It wouldn't be nearly as neat or easy to post signs warning drivers of the tolls ahead. There's zero doubt any act to erect toll gates on regular streets would be met with very angry reactions from local voters.
New York is looking at putting up $11 tolls for anyone to drive into Lower Manhattan. But that island already has several of its access points (especially everything from New Jersey) costing tolls. The only free acess into Manhattan is from Long Island and the Bronx. Plus, as much as costs to just park in Manhattan that discourages lots of personal vehicle use. It's just too bad the MTA's subway system is badly dilapidated and that it costs a ka-jillion damned dollars to fix even the tiniest bit of the system. I'm glad I do not live there anymore.
Quote from: sparkerI was wondering about that myself regarding the High Desert corridor; back in 2012, before I pulled up stakes and moved north, I actually drove along the proposed alignment from Adelanto west to Palmdale to see what the corridor might encounter along its path. The answer was -- except for the first couple of miles west of US 395 and the last few miles in Palmdale -- pretty much nothing. It could easily avoid Lake Los Angeles, the only concentration of housing in between the more urbanized areas to the east and west -- in fact, it would have to swerve well off the projected trajectory to create any problems there. I counted about 15-20 structures that may have to be razed in the 40 miles covered; most of those were outbuildings rather than actual residences. Also, any curvature for topological reasons would be exceptionally mild and well within HSR parameters; this applies to vertical gradient as well. The path was chosen well -- it snakes between central Palmdale and the old Lockheed "skunk works" at its western end -- through a swath of open and unimproved land acting as a "buffer".
Bottom line -- it's "doable" as a potential HSR corridor, even if only initially graded for such; there's enough available ROW, width-wise, to construct a toll road and leave room in the median for any rail technology available today.
There are indeed gaps of what appear to be undeveloped desert land between Adelanto, Lake Los Angeles and Palmdale. But once the route gets into the vicinity of those towns there are tracts of homes and agricultural property. The Palmdale and Lancaster areas are growing together. I think it will be a miracle if they can build this new freeway along Palmdale Blvd and Ave Q to CA-14 (what looks like the preferred alternative). There is a lot of property along that path. Outside of Palmdale the Antelope Center neighborhood stands as another obstacle. I think it's still very do-able to thread a new freeway through that area. But a freeway carrying cars can bend a whole lot more easily than a high speed rail line. The train's top speeds would have to be greatly limited if there are any serious bends in its route.
^^^ Toll gated are ancient technology! No way I would suggest that. I'm suggesting tag readers. It's the same thing if someone enters a toll road. It can either use a transponder or utilize plate pay. I don't see why anyone would be opposed to it. It would give people a faster option to move throughout the city. I never paid attention if there is bus service along this corridor but if there is bus service would be improved as well.
^^^^^^^^
Once into the Palmdale area, any prospects for HSR would depend upon precisely whose HSR service was to be deployed along the High Desert corridor. If it were an extension of the Vegas line, it would be terminating in Palmdale in any case, so it would have had to start slowing down some 5-10 miles east of CA 14 -- or, more likely, the plotted location of the now-indefinitely-delayed N-S statewide HSR project, at which point it would have to depart the roadway corridor's ROW. Alternately, if it were to turn onto that corridor toward L.A. (sharing trackage with the state's HSR), it would need to slow down for that segment, which was to be the slower-speed portion of the route essentially an onsite upgrade of the Metrolink facility (the Burbank-Palmdale tunnel concept notwithstanding; with the rollback of the main corridor, that's definitely in limbo for the time being). In any case, the service would need to slow to more or less conventional speeds approaching Palmdale, so having to negotiate a bit more curvature than can be handled at 200+ mph wouldn't be a significant issue.
^^^^ I would like to just see conventional train service return to Vegas at this point with some track upgrades to allow for at least 110 MPH in areas where possible.
Quote from: sparker on February 26, 2019, 05:24:42 AM
But although they were disabused of that self-image as far as S.F. went, the D4 planners simply picked up their funding, got it transferred 45 miles south, and applied it to I-280 and I-680 through the central part of San Jose. That's something that might have been done 50+ years ago, but would certainly at least raise objections if not massive opposition these days.
That actually makes it in some ways more amazing that Route 87 was built out entirely in the post-freeway revolt era, right on the edge of Downtown San Jose next to the Guadalupe River.
I do remember on Eric Fischer's Flickr page a 1950s planning map showing a freeway on the 280/Junipero Serra corridor in the south bay, but instead of going to downtown SJ as is the case now, following today's 85 south to the current southern 85/101 junction.
The Century Freeway/I-105 is pretty well known for a lot of the eminent domain required to get it built; was that also true for other post-1960s projects like the 210 extension and the newer freeways in San Diego like 52/54/56?
Quote from: Plutonic PandaToll gated are ancient technology! No way I would suggest that. I'm suggesting tag readers. It's the same thing if someone enters a toll road. It can either use a transponder or utilize plate pay. I don't see why anyone would be opposed to it. It would give people a faster option to move throughout the city. I never paid attention if there is bus service along this corridor but if there is bus service would be improved as well.
I used "toll gate" as a general term. I did mention toll tags (implying RFID tech) in my previous post. Why would anyone be opposed to it? Probably for some of the same reasons why lots of people hate toll roads. With erecting toll tag and license plate readers on existing streets people will feel like they're being charged to drive on something their taxes have already paid for to build and maintain. A class warfare element is likely to broil up in it. People rich enough to shrug off the cost of the tolls will keep driving while everyone else who is squeezed will be forced to take mass transit. Taking mass transit is NOT the rosy experience all the New Urbanists sell it as being.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 26, 2019, 03:03:48 PM
Quote from: Plutonic PandaToll gated are ancient technology! No way I would suggest that. I'm suggesting tag readers. It's the same thing if someone enters a toll road. It can either use a transponder or utilize plate pay. I don't see why anyone would be opposed to it. It would give people a faster option to move throughout the city. I never paid attention if there is bus service along this corridor but if there is bus service would be improved as well.
I used "toll gate" as a general term. I did mention toll tags (implying RFID tech) in my previous post. Why would anyone be opposed to it? Probably for some of the same reasons why lots of people hate toll roads. With erecting toll tag and license plate readers on existing streets people will feel like they're being charged to drive on something their taxes have already paid for to build and maintain. A class warfare element is likely to broil up in it. People rich enough to shrug off the cost of the tolls will keep driving while everyone else who is squeezed will be forced to take mass transit. Taking mass transit is NOT the rosy experience all the New Urbanists sell it as being.
The mass transit thing would just be a tool in the shed to help garner support and there would still be a free option but it would take longer. If it were up to me, I'd have the over/underpasses free, but I don't think it would work.
Quote from: TheStranger on February 26, 2019, 01:11:49 PM
That actually makes it in some ways more amazing that Route 87 was built out entirely in the post-freeway revolt era, right on the edge of Downtown San Jose next to the Guadalupe River.
87 was a special case; from the '60's forward to recent years, the city of San Jose by and large was looking to enhance their downtown area and wanted to provide access to the greatest number of inbound folks regardless of mode of transport. There was an downtown easement provided for the freeway; north from there it had always been assumed that the alignment would subsume the Guadalupe Parkway that had been developed in the '60's. The alignment to the south had been adopted in the early '60's as well; the 87/280 interchange near downtown was fully built (with stub-ends in both directions) as part of the original I-280 construction in the late '60's and early '70's. Up until the late '80's the city government wanted it, Caltrans wanted to get cracking on it back then, and the downtown businesses definitely wanted 87 built and supplying potential customers. But the transit/LR push in the late '80's that culminated in the first phase of VTA LR being built up and down First Street signaled a major policy shift within the city; if it were not for the alteration of CA 87 plans south of downtown -- along with several miles of CA 85 to the southeast -- placing the LR line in the freeway median, the whole thing might well not have been fully built. The northern part was "sold" to city planners as the only way to expedite traffic to and from the airport to downtown. In the meantime, the Guadalupe River, adjacent to the northern half of the CA 87 corridor, was declared a riparian reserve -- so the north half of CA 87 required a redesign to preserve river space, which flanks the ROW along its west side. Also, the management of Mineta Airport argued against an 87/880 interchange, which sat at the corner of the airport only a quarter-mile away from one of the main runways; any flyovers were considered to pose potential interference issues with airport operations. Although this omission meant a lack of a direct downtown SJ-to-Oakland connection, the interchange was erased from the freeway's plans. But although some planners wished to omit the freeway south of I-280 and simply run the LR line down the ROW, it was the design of the whole thing that combined LR terminals with the various overpasses and undercrossings along the freeway that saved the project; dropping the freeway would have entailed a complete LR redesign -- and a corresponding delay of several years. Still, most of the downtown businessmen, the chamber of commerce, and D4 itself maintained an unflagging resolve to get CA 87 built despite increasing opposition from some quarters.
Quote from: sparker on February 26, 2019, 04:37:48 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on February 26, 2019, 01:11:49 PM
That actually makes it in some ways more amazing that Route 87 was built out entirely in the post-freeway revolt era, right on the edge of Downtown San Jose next to the Guadalupe River.
87 was a special case; from the '60's forward to recent years, the city of San Jose by and large was looking to enhance their downtown area and wanted to provide access to the greatest number of inbound folks regardless of mode of transport. There was an downtown easement provided for the freeway; north from there it had always been assumed that the alignment would subsume the Guadalupe Parkway that had been developed in the '60's. The alignment to the south had been adopted in the early '60's as well; the 87/280 interchange near downtown was fully built (with stub-ends in both directions) as part of the original I-280 construction in the late '60's and early '70's. Up until the late '80's the city government wanted it, Caltrans wanted to get cracking on it back then, and the downtown businesses definitely wanted 87 built and supplying potential customers. But the transit/LR push in the late '80's that culminated in the first phase of VTA LR being built up and down First Street signaled a major policy shift within the city; if it were not for the alteration of CA 87 plans south of downtown -- along with several miles of CA 85 to the southeast -- placing the LR line in the freeway median, the whole thing might well not have been fully built. The northern part was "sold" to city planners as the only way to expedite traffic to and from the airport to downtown. In the meantime, the Guadalupe River, adjacent to the northern half of the CA 87 corridor, was declared a riparian reserve -- so the north half of CA 87 required a redesign to preserve river space, which flanks the ROW along its west side. Also, the management of Mineta Airport argued against an 87/880 interchange, which sat at the corner of the airport only a quarter-mile away from one of the main runways; any flyovers were considered to pose potential interference issues with airport operations. Although this omission meant a lack of a direct downtown SJ-to-Oakland connection, the interchange was erased from the freeway's plans. But although some planners wished to omit the freeway south of I-280 and simply run the LR line down the ROW, it was the design of the whole thing that combined LR terminals with the various overpasses and undercrossings along the freeway that saved the project; dropping the freeway would have entailed a complete LR redesign -- and a corresponding delay of several years. Still, most of the downtown businessmen, the chamber of commerce, and D4 itself maintained an unflagging resolve to get CA 87 built despite increasing opposition from some quarters.
Thanks for the writeup!
This kinda begs 2 questions:
1. Was 87 between 101 and 237 ever seriously considered? (The part north of 237 and into the bay of course being eliminated in the 1970s) There are times I wonder if a connector from 880 to 87 in that area north of 101 would have been a good substitute for building a direct 87/880 interchange, but with land values and development I don't think that is realistic.
2. Are 85 and 87 the last two major new-alignment freeway/expressway projects so far in District 4? I'm not even sure what the status of the (relatively short) Route 84 realignment project in Fremont is at this point (and Route 84 on Bayfront Expressway in Menlo Park was more of a signage deal, taking it off Willow Road/Route 114 to the already built but originally unsigned expressway).
^^^^^^^^^
A northward 87 extension to the CA 237 freeway may have been considered in the '80's or '90's (I wasn't living in the area after 1987 so I likely missed anything in the local press to that effect -- and haven't heard of any official interest), but the shift of priorities to LR -- specifically the E-W VTA line down Tasman that effectively bisects the area between US 101 and 237 -- coupled with the vast increase of property values in that area courtesy of Oracle, Cisco, and other major tech players occupying huge tracts of land -- have effectively shut down any further consideration of such an extension. About the only place left to place such a facility would be right down the Guadalupe River; and that portion of the waterway is a designated riparian and waterfowl refuge -- so it's out of the picture. And to respond to the possibility of shunting 87 back to 880 -- if anything, that section is more densely developed than the original NW trajectory of the 87 freeway (one of my audio-business colleagues has an office on Charcot a couple of blocks west of 880 -- and it's like a forest there). Unless laid directly over Trimble Road and/or Montague Expressway, there's not a chance in hell that such a pathway would ever see the light of day.
Regarding any future D4 projects: except for improvements underway at Cordelia Junction (12/80/680) and any potential extensions of CA 4 in the Brentwood area (which include the long-considered CA 239 from CA 4 down to the 580/205 split), it's likely improvements will be either "spot" in nature (interchange revamp here, widening there, etc.) or related to recovering from the latest & greatest disaster (like the washout of CA 37 east of Novato). Except for those areas mentioned above, don't expect any significant additions to the freeway network in this area.
P.S. -- although the ROW for the Fremont 84 realignment remains intact (meaning unsold/undeveloped), I haven't heard of any plans to revive the project -- even though much of existing surface CA 84 in Fremont is slated for relinquishment.
^^^^^^^^^^^
Another reason why San Jose wasn't hit by the freeway revolts c 1970 was the demographic character of the city. The freeway revolts were usually in majority non-white cities where suburbanites wanted the convenience of getting downtown on freeways. The people were rarely fully compensated for their home losses. In 1970, San Jose was over 75% white non-Hispanic and "only" about 450,000 people total. Most of the revolts were in African-American neighborhoods, usually poor. San Jose even today is less than 5% African-American. There was no freeway revolt because most of these people wanted the freeway. They may not have been happy about losing their property, but by the time CA 87 was being completed the compensation was more fair than during the 1960s when the freeway revolts began.
Food for thought: this was the price for the Century Freeway (I-105) in LA.
Quote"It has been estimated that 9,000 families, including 21,000 individuals, will be displaced by the freeway. A significant percentage are non-white and an even larger number have relatively low incomes. Approximately 3,900 single-family dwellings and 3,000 multiple-unit dwellings, including some 118 units of public housing, will be acquired and demolished for the freeway right-of-way." (Ecology Law Quarterly, September 1972, Litigating the Freeway Revolt: Keith v. Volpe by Kathleen Armstrong)
Compensation became much more fair after the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-646, Uniform Act), which covered all Federal agencies involved in right-of-way acquisition. I would guess not too many properties were needed for San Jose's freeways. It's this compensation which makes building any highway through a dense urban fabric so expensive. It probably would be cheaper just to tunnel a new highway through a metro area these days.
Quote from: skluth on February 27, 2019, 02:32:26 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^
Another reason why San Jose wasn't hit by the freeway revolts c 1970 was the demographic character of the city. The freeway revolts were usually in majority non-white cities where suburbanites wanted the convenience of getting downtown on freeways. The people were rarely fully compensated for their home losses. In 1970, San Jose was over 75% white non-Hispanic and "only" about 450,000 people total. Most of the revolts were in African-American neighborhoods, usually poor. San Jose even today is less than 5% African-American. There was no freeway revolt because most of these people wanted the freeway. They may not have been happy about losing their property, but by the time CA 87 was being completed the compensation was more fair than during the 1960s when the freeway revolts began.
While I have learned over the last year or so that the construction of the San Francisco segment of the Bayshore Freeway spurred on anti-road sentiment in the city (as it split Bayview from Bernal Heights, also doing the same for the Mission and Potrero Hill neighborhoods), I recall that the proposed Western Freeway (I-80 extension from the 1989-2005 west extent of the Central Freeway to Golden Gate Park) created the most vocal opposition.
Quote from: skluth on February 27, 2019, 02:32:26 PM
Compensation became much more fair after the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-646, Uniform Act), which covered all Federal agencies involved in right-of-way acquisition. I would guess not too many properties were needed for San Jose's freeways. It's this compensation which makes building any highway through a dense urban fabric so expensive. It probably would be cheaper just to tunnel a new highway through a metro area these days.
IIRC Route 85 south of I-280 had its right of way preserved even after the 1976 CalTrans cuts occurred. About the only major change from what was proposed back then was when the county's plan to convert the local expressways (Lawrence, San Tomas, et al.) to full freeways ended up not happening.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 26, 2019, 11:31:26 AM
There are indeed gaps of what appear to be undeveloped desert land between Adelanto, Lake Los Angeles and Palmdale. But once the route gets into the vicinity of those towns there are tracts of homes and agricultural property. The Palmdale and Lancaster areas are growing together. I think it will be a miracle if they can build this new freeway along Palmdale Blvd and Ave Q to CA-14 (what looks like the preferred alternative). There is a lot of property along that path. Outside of Palmdale the Antelope Center neighborhood stands as another obstacle. I think it's still very do-able to thread a new freeway through that area. But a freeway carrying cars can bend a whole lot more easily than a high speed rail line. The train's top speeds would have to be greatly limited if there are any serious bends in its route.
The drawings I've seen show it along P-8, a mile north of Palmdale Blvd. Check out some of the PDFs here: http://www.dot.ca.gov/d7/projects/HDC/ (http://www.dot.ca.gov/d7/projects/HDC/). Looks feasible to me.
^^^^^^^^
The project scoping diagram, particularly the one showing where interchanges would be located, is intriguing inasmuch as it shows some interesting ancillary components to the basic E-W corridor, including a potential interchange with a US 395 bypass freeway considerably west of the present highway alignment -- since most plans I've seen (very far off in the future) for a US 395 freeway in the area show it essentially adjacent to the present highway rather than outflung some 4-5 miles to the west -- ostensibly to circumvent Adelanto housing development; the reserved tracts adjacent to US 395 in the already developed area could thus be repurposed for commercial usage. A couple of other items stand out: a potential Palmdale-bypassing freeway or expressway connector south from the HDC ROW more or less along East 130th Street in L.A. County; my guess is that this would be a CA 138 rerouting away from the present surface route to serve as a Palmdale bypass. And finally -- and this is something that got a lot of press back around 2011-12 when the corridor concept was garnering local attention -- the freeway segment is extending east from I-15 to at least the Dale Evans Parkway -- the original 2010-11 plans called for the freeway segment to segue into an expressway with surface intersections immediately east of I-15 with at-grade crossings thereafter. But it looks like at least 2 interchanges are planned, the last being the aforementioned Dale Evans Parkway -- which is the location of Wal Mart's major SoCal distribution center (the rather massive facility can be seen on the HDC overhead view, about a mile north of the HDC's CA 18 extension alignment around the north side of Apple Valley). Looks like the folks from Bentonville put in their two (or 2 billion) cents' worth and got an interchange rather than a simple intersection. I attended a "town hall" meeting in Hesperia in late 2011 when Caltrans representatives from D7 & D8 held a public forum about HDC plans; pretty much all the locals favored the Apple Valley bypass -- but some were adamant that it should have been planned as a full freeway from the start. The engineers demurred, citing traffic volumes along CA 18 in Apple Valley and how those didn't warrant a full freeway -- and that a controlled-access expressway would be sufficient. But it sure looks like some Arkansas interlopers were able to at least partially change their minds over a period of a few years! I for one am keeping my eye on this project -- and not just because one of the Adelanto-area options looks like it runs next door to a close friend's home in northwest Victorville!
I'm wondering if artists' renderings of some of the interchanges and potential other facilities along the corridor have been drawn as of yet; it'd be nice to get some visual notion of what's planned for the project.
Just noticed, on the Caltrans interactive map, that the long-gestating CA 122 is actually "signed" according to Google Maps. (It's not, but it's interesting to see it there.)
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on April 01, 2019, 11:14:41 PM
Just noticed, on the Caltrans interactive map, that the long-gestating CA 122 is actually "signed" according to Google Maps. (It's not, but it's interesting to see it there.)
This was discussed a few weeks back; someone googled up a CA 122 shield on Pearblossom Highway between CA 14 and CA 138. The fact that the projected (but never formally adopted) path of CA 122 follows much of that road apparently underlies someone's wishful thinking -- but as Caltrans is busy shedding surface roads -- particularly within D7 -- the chances of them actually adopting the existing roadway are miniscule.
Quote from: sparker on April 02, 2019, 02:19:45 AM
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on April 01, 2019, 11:14:41 PM
Just noticed, on the Caltrans interactive map, that the long-gestating CA 122 is actually "signed" according to Google Maps. (It's not, but it's interesting to see it there.)
This was discussed a few weeks back; someone googled up a CA 122 shield on Pearblossom Highway between CA 14 and CA 138. The fact that the projected (but never formally adopted) path of CA 122 follows much of that road apparently underlies someone's wishful thinking -- but as Caltrans is busy shedding surface roads -- particularly within D7 -- the chances of them actually adopting the existing roadway are miniscule.
I'm up that way a lot, and I don't remember seeing any such shield there, but I'll keep an eye out. Usually I'm going northbound from CA 14 to CA 138 so maybe it's in the other direction. The post you mention doesn't seem to be coming up in the search results unless I'm doing it wrong.
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on April 02, 2019, 11:50:22 PM
Quote from: sparker on April 02, 2019, 02:19:45 AM
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on April 01, 2019, 11:14:41 PM
Just noticed, on the Caltrans interactive map, that the long-gestating CA 122 is actually "signed" according to Google Maps. (It's not, but it's interesting to see it there.)
This was discussed a few weeks back; someone googled up a CA 122 shield on Pearblossom Highway between CA 14 and CA 138. The fact that the projected (but never formally adopted) path of CA 122 follows much of that road apparently underlies someone's wishful thinking -- but as Caltrans is busy shedding surface roads -- particularly within D7 -- the chances of them actually adopting the existing roadway are miniscule.
I'm up that way a lot, and I don't remember seeing any such shield there, but I'll keep an eye out. Usually I'm going northbound from CA 14 to CA 138 so maybe it's in the other direction. The post you mention doesn't seem to be coming up in the search results unless I'm doing it wrong.
Its simply a map error by Google. CA 122 shows up on this map image of Palmdale:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Palmdale,+CA/@34.5808254,-118.2284672,11z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x80c25784ec70ddb5:0x6a6c792dad12e03a!8m2!3d34.5794343!4d-118.1164613?hl=en
Conversely CA 179 shows up near Vacaville which like CA 122 was never actually built:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Vacaville,+CA/@38.3630307,-122.0347425,12z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x808517cf9f7df407:0xe4aac8df639b631c!8m2!3d38.3565773!4d-121.9877444?hl=en
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 03, 2019, 12:39:03 AM
Its simply a map error by Google. CA 122 shows up on this map image of Palmdale:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Palmdale,+CA/@34.5808254,-118.2284672,11z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x80c25784ec70ddb5:0x6a6c792dad12e03a!8m2!3d34.5794343!4d-118.1164613?hl=en
Conversely CA 179 shows up near Vacaville which like CA 122 was never actually built:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Vacaville,+CA/@38.3630307,-122.0347425,12z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x808517cf9f7df407:0xe4aac8df639b631c!8m2!3d38.3565773!4d-121.9877444?hl=en
Two Google map errors of the same variety -- guess that happens more often than one would hope due to open-source input. Obviously, someone with access to an official Caltrans map -- which shows these routes as a series of dots -- is simply projecting his or her wishes into the process. Actually, a completed CA 122 would be pretty valuable as a "shortcut" from the western reaches of L.A. metro to both I-15 and I-40 -- but for now, the HDC looks like it'll take regional precedence over any action regarding 122 -- which, if it hasn't even undergone adoption proceedings after 60 years of existence is unlikely to be any more than a line on the map for the foreseeable future.