I noticed that CA-126 gained a freeway "stub" from I-5. I remember driving that stretch in 2011, and at the time, there was no freeway stub from I-5 at all, so that's new to me. One of the futuristic maps over in the fictional highways forum shows CA-126 eventually being a 3di of I-10 (I-810, if I remember correctly). I realize this isn't the fictional thread, but I am genuinely curious...
Do you think that's a possibility at all? Would it be doable to create a freeway bypass of Fillmore and expand the current St. Paula freeway to interstate standards, and realistically convert 126 into a 3di? Even if 126 isn't converted to a 3di, can you see a full freeway between I-5 and 101?
I'd doubt it given the limited terrain it would take to create a bypass of downtown Filmore. I doubt people would look favorably upon ripping up a downtown area like the days of old with freeway building.
Originally (1963) the configuration of the 5/126 interchange was a trumpet, with a partial diamond interchange with "The Old Road" north of the original US 99/SSR 126 intersection. Since until about 1994 there was a CA 126 freeway extension planned to connect I-5 with CA 14 (the Via Princessa ramps on the CA 14 freeway in the east side of Santa Clarita are the remnants of that plan), the original trumpet was to be replaced by a directional interchange. When the freeway was cancelled, the interchange was reconfigured to a parclo and instead of an eastward freeway extension a conventional divided street was deployed to serve the local industrial park.
The concept of a full freeway along CA 126 was tied into the notion of an east-west corridor between US 101 along the Ventura County coastline and the high-desert region centered around Palmdale, consisting of CA 126 and CA 14; once out in the desert, the CA 122 alignment toward CA 58 near Hinkley was to serve as the penultimate extension of a corridor that would extend from Ventura to I-15 and/or I-40 near Barstow (the intrastate California Freeway & Expressway System was nothing if not extensive in its original 1959-65 iterations). Of course, the expansion of the L.A. suburbs into the corridor region effectively rendered such a bypass corridor moot. And since Caltrans 5-laned most of CA 126 in the late 1990's (and recently modified it with roundabouts), it's unlikely that the relatively recent facility would be bypassed by a freeway anytime soon (AFAIK there are no adopted freeway routes anywhere along 126 east of the existing freeway terminus east of Santa Paula). The former freeway stub west of I-5 today simply segues into the 5-lane surface alignment.
Quote from: sparker on April 26, 2018, 04:45:51 AMThe former freeway stub west of I-5 today simply segues into the 5-lane surface alignment.
Former freeway stub? It's still there - the area where 126 goes west of I-5 and crosses Commerce Center Drive. That's now a diamond/cloverloaf intercharge. That wasn't there in 2011. It also has an "End Freeway" sign right around where the WB ramp merges with 126... so it's a freeway stub, still, I'd say?
Also, I looked at the map, and it looks like there CAN be a bypass of Fillmore. Look at the rendering (black line) I've drawn here: https://imgur.com/a/QoyCxec. Thoughts? That could be a full freeway, and the rest of 126 could then easily be converted to a freeway, with all the at-grade intersections removed and changed to limited access.
I can definitely tell that CA 126 has/had aspirations of being more than it is now. Also, note that short freeway stub off of CA 14 on the east side of Santa Clarita.
In that same light, I would include CA 138 eastward from I-5 (short freeway stub) and CA 118 (Reagan/Simi Valley Freeway) west of CA 23 in this discussion.
Mike
Quote from: sparker on April 26, 2018, 04:45:51 AM
And since Caltrans 5-laned most of CA 126 in the late 1990's (and recently modified it with roundabouts)
That isn't happening, thank God.
https://www.vcstar.com/story/news/local/communities/fillmore/2017/07/20/caltrans-halts-project-build-four-roundabouts-highway-126-safety-measure/493072001/ (https://www.vcstar.com/story/news/local/communities/fillmore/2017/07/20/caltrans-halts-project-build-four-roundabouts-highway-126-safety-measure/493072001/)
Quote from: pderocco on April 27, 2018, 12:17:04 AM
Quote from: sparker on April 26, 2018, 04:45:51 AM
And since Caltrans 5-laned most of CA 126 in the late 1990's (and recently modified it with roundabouts)
That isn't happening, thank God.
https://www.vcstar.com/story/news/local/communities/fillmore/2017/07/20/caltrans-halts-project-build-four-roundabouts-highway-126-safety-measure/493072001/ (https://www.vcstar.com/story/news/local/communities/fillmore/2017/07/20/caltrans-halts-project-build-four-roundabouts-highway-126-safety-measure/493072001/)
My info re the roundabouts dated from late 2016; but I'm certainly glad to hear that the roundabouts, which apparently included one in Fillmore at the CA 23 junction, have been cancelled. There's simply too much truck traffic on 126; roundabouts would have been a safety hazard. Nevertheless, that change of plans doesn't portend anything regarding any future freeway upgrades; doing so would require re-adoption of new alignment for such a facility -- and the development along that corridor likely makes that less and less likely over time. Originally Piru, Fillmore, and Santa Paula were primarily service towns for the citrus-growing industry (the "lemon capital" of CA) but in recent years have grown into "bedroom communities", with commuters accessing homes in the Santa Clara River valley from both directions on CA 126.
Guess we're stuck with what is there now for the foreseeable future; however, building a viable bypass of those towns would be an option to look into, no matter how little land that would be available for such a project. Anything to make the current CA 126 less of a blood alley, I'd go for it.
Quote from: Henry on April 27, 2018, 09:38:06 AM
Guess we're stuck with what is there now for the foreseeable future; however, building a viable bypass of those towns would be an option to look into, no matter how little land that would be available for such a project. Anything to make the current CA 126 less of a blood alley, I'd go for it.
Pretty much any surface-bound state route in the valleys and the deserts north of L.A. fits the "blood alley" description simply because of the overall population growth -- and the quest for affordable housing -- that has inundated that area. The outer reaches of CA 118 (west of Moorpark), CA 126, and CA 138 are particularly problematic, since they not only serve as interregional connectors but have been pressed into service as commute corridors as well. And with the standard CA commute expanding to most of the daylight hours (at least!), these routes have become "mixers" of commercial and commuter traffic; except for evening and overnight hours, there's rarely a period where the combination of traffic flow and speed doesn't have the potential for disaster. However, the same development that has been the cause of the problems has impeded any automotive-based solution by essentially blocking the path of efficient limited-access corridors. Topographically, CA 138 poses less of a problem in this regard -- but its future as a freeway was squashed several decades ago -- although a replacement corridor (please see the
High Desert Corridor thread for details) is planned north of the present alignment. But the outer 118 reaches and all of 126 east of Santa Paula aren't on anyone's radar for improvement save some "spot" corrections -- so it looks like Ventura County will have to endure the status quo for the time being. At least the "traffic calming solves everything" crowd didn't get their way re roundabouts on the heavily-trucked 126 -- the sole saving grace of the whole regional situation.
So I ended up driving this route and have been as I've really been enjoying Lake Piru.
My initial thoughts are this definitely needs to be a complete freeway from the 101 to I-5. Some immediate improvements should be a free flowing interchange at I-5 some flyovers for NB I-5 to WB CA-126 and another flyover for EB CA-126 to NB I-5 with a parclo for the other movements and potentially a connection to the old road if warranted. But I'm unsure if that last part as I don't know the traffic demands there.
Then all of CA-126 should be relatively easy to upgrade to a freeway from I-5 to Fillmore. Lots of housing construction in Fillmore. Though the environmentalist would throw a fit, a new bypass could be brought south over the Santa Clarita river. The rest is pretty easy and the freeway should be widened to 3 lanes each way.
Now for the real fun. CA 23 should be a four lane tunnel underneath the hill from Bardsdale to the other side. There's always a steady flow of traffic on that widening and curved road and a tunnel would also allow for busses something I don't see on that stretch of CA-23.
A quick glance if any proposed projects in this area shows nothing let alone the massive ones I've proposed. I was very surprised at the amount of traffic in this area.
With CA 23 the issue there is that Moorpark is the very western edge of urban sprawl out of Los Angeles. The population has jumped from about 4,000 to about 36,000 since 1980. CA 23 is pretty much the fastest way to get to I-5 northbound from the area. Given the geography of Grimes Canyon I can't see an upgrade being popular given the price tag coupled with environmental red tape.
^^^ there seems to be quite a bit of residential development going on in Fillmore. When was the last time you went through there? As I've said I've been traveling quite a bit through here lately and traffic is almost always backed up on 126 through there. You wouldn't consider Fillmore to be part of the suburban LA sprawl?
I'd think a tunnel bypass for the CA-23 would please the environmentalist taking traffic off of the mountain helping the environment up there. The existing road can than become a scenic route reducing the traffic immensely. The issue, IMO, would be cost. Knowing California here it'd be close to a billion if not more because of the insane infrastructure costs here.
Edit: it seems like a four lane tunnel about a mile long could possibly be done for under a billion? The 8 lane 710 tunnel was nearly 7-8 miles long and it was estimated at 10 billion IIRC.
There will never be a CA-23 tunnel. Far too much controversy and red take associated with it.
Quote from: Quillz on October 02, 2021, 06:07:11 PM
There will never be a CA-23 tunnel. Far too much controversy and red take associated with it.
I would think this would be one of the least controversial projects that could happen but what do I know lol
Has something like that ever been proposed?
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 02, 2021, 06:09:13 PM
Quote from: Quillz on October 02, 2021, 06:07:11 PM
There will never be a CA-23 tunnel. Far too much controversy and red take associated with it.
I would think this would be one of the least controversial projects that could happen but what do I know lol
Has something like that ever been proposed?
Tunnels are extremely controversial, especially in California. I would also argue there isn't a pressing need for one. CA-23 over the Santa Susanna Mountains isn't the best route but it works. A tunnel is expensive, would further disrupt the environment, and what need is it solving? Something like the Tom Lantos Tunnels on CA-1 made sense because you had a specific stretch prone to landslides and other types of erosion. The alignment of CA-23 in question is reasonably stable and there are other nearby methods of getting from Fillmore to Moorpark (Balcom Canyon Road comes to mind).
That's not to say the idea is bad or lacks merit. But it's one of those pipe dreams that might work in theory, but seems very unlikely in practice.
That particular segment of road just always has a steady flow of traffic when I go over it and I figured there could be some sort of demand for one but I also know there are greater pressing needs for California. I should stick with my CA 2 tunnel to Palmdale LOL.
If it has a steady flow of traffic, then it will continue to have a steady flow of traffic whether there is a tunnel or not. It seems going over the mountains or having a tunnel will not mitigate the traffic. There was a recent improvement to Balcom Canyon Road (signal light at the CA-118 junction) which makes that alternative more appealing to myself and others. I utilize that to bypass Moorpark entirely.
Quote from: Quillz on October 03, 2021, 12:51:36 AM
If it has a steady flow of traffic, then it will continue to have a steady flow of traffic whether there is a tunnel or not. It seems going over the mountains or having a tunnel will not mitigate the traffic. There was a recent improvement to Balcom Canyon Road (signal light at the CA-118 junction) which makes that alternative more appealing to myself and others. I utilize that to bypass Moorpark entirely.
Right but the tunnel would move that traffic more efficiently and could also include bike and pedestrian improvements as well. I'm not going to die on this hill because I know there are more pressing needs but this should be looked at someday.
Quote from: Quillz on October 03, 2021, 12:14:04 AM
Tunnels are extremely controversial, especially in California.
I've never heard this before. Why would tunnels be controversial? They're expensive, but beyond that the building of a tunnel shouldn't be controversial.
Some controversial tunnels that come to mind are the tunnels for the cancelled CAHSR project and the proposed I-710 tunnel, the latter of which was extremely controversial and the proposal was dropped 1-2 years ago and Caltrans decided to sell homes at below market rates at South Pasadena to long-time rent tenants due to the "Roberti Bill."
Check out the thread at this forum: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9365
Quote from: skluth on October 03, 2021, 01:36:27 PM
Quote from: Quillz on October 03, 2021, 12:14:04 AM
Tunnels are extremely controversial, especially in California.
I've never heard this before. Why would tunnels be controversial? They're expensive, but beyond that the building of a tunnel shouldn't be controversial.
Usually any notion of seismic activity has been enough to stop any proposed highway tunnel dead in it's track. Amusingly the Wawona Tunnel is still the longest such structure in California despite it opening 1933. Admittedly the Caldecott Tunnels have way more volume and the Tom Lantos Tunnels aren't far off the length of Wawona.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 03, 2021, 02:19:52 PM
Quote from: skluth on October 03, 2021, 01:36:27 PM
Quote from: Quillz on October 03, 2021, 12:14:04 AM
Tunnels are extremely controversial, especially in California.
I've never heard this before. Why would tunnels be controversial? They're expensive, but beyond that the building of a tunnel shouldn't be controversial.
Usually any notion of seismic activity has been enough to stop any proposed highway tunnel dead in it's track. Amusingly the Wawona Tunnel is still the longest such structure in California despite it opening 1933. Admittedly the Caldecott Tunnels have way more volume and the Tom Lantos Tunnels aren't far off the length of Wawona.
That's unfortunate because tunnels are actually very safe to be in during an earthquake even as crazy as that may sound.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 03, 2021, 02:36:39 PM
That's unfortunate because tunnels are actually very safe to be in during an earthquake even as crazy as that may sound.
Be careful of blanket statements. The safety of tunnels (which is also distinct from the
perceived safety) depends on many factors, including the type of soil and rock, the presence of gas and oil pockets (which was a concern for tunneling in the Wilshire District), and the particular types of faults in the area (under the Angeles National Forest, one crosses the San Andreas). Major faults are of greater concern. For long tunnels, there's also the issue of ventilation, and having ventilation shafts and emergency access.
Quote from: cahwyguy on October 03, 2021, 03:12:56 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 03, 2021, 02:36:39 PM
That's unfortunate because tunnels are actually very safe to be in during an earthquake even as crazy as that may sound.
Be careful of blanket statements. The safety of tunnels (which is also distinct from the perceived safety) depends on many factors, including the type of soil and rock, the presence of gas and oil pockets (which was a concern for tunneling in the Wilshire District), and the particular types of faults in the area (under the Angeles National Forest, one crosses the San Andreas). Major faults are of greater concern. For long tunnels, there's also the issue of ventilation, and having ventilation shafts and emergency access.
That's a good point I got my information from this article
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2467967417300053
But as I'm sure you know in today's world especially in modern countries there are numerous safety features required for tunnel construction even ones that are fairly short. Now I don't know the difference in the type of rockbed between here and Japan and I'm sure there is a difference but Japan is a relatively seismically active country and has a pretty nice network of tunnels for both roads and trains.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 02, 2021, 06:09:13 PM
Quote from: Quillz on October 02, 2021, 06:07:11 PM
There will never be a CA-23 tunnel. Far too much controversy and red take associated with it.
I would think this would be one of the least controversial projects that could happen but what do I know lol
Has something like that ever been proposed?
Unless it was done with a freeway connection to the existing CA 118 / CA 23 freeways (and perhaps even then), I am quite sure that the residents of Moorpark would be against it. They are already complaining about the amount of traffic, especially truck traffic, through town. Fillmore would probably feel the same if it dumped traffic onto the existing roads.
I could see extending the CA 126 freeway as far as Fillmore (although as someone pointed out, there really isn't any place to put the freeway except the river). I think it's been proposed, but never seriously considered -- most proposals for CA 126 involve trying to slow traffic down on that section. Beyond that I don't think there's the benefit at this point to be worth the construction, although it might be farther down the line.
At the very least they need to make it freeway quality outside Fillmore and build free flowing ramps at the I-5 junction.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 03, 2021, 07:26:13 PM
At the very least they need to make it freeway quality outside Fillmore and build free flowing ramps at the I-5 junction.
Actually, the ramps at the I-5 junction are pretty free flowing, at least WB. Between there and Fillmore, it flows at freeway speeds. But conversion to "freeway" is a problem, in that there are numerous farms and roads that require access, and there is the cost of right of way and frontage roads. Both sides of Fillmore are major farming areas.
Quote from: cahwyguy on October 03, 2021, 09:21:28 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 03, 2021, 07:26:13 PM
At the very least they need to make it freeway quality outside Fillmore and build free flowing ramps at the I-5 junction.
Actually, the ramps at the I-5 junction are pretty free flowing, at least WB. Between there and Fillmore, it flows at freeway speeds. But conversion to "freeway" is a problem, in that there are numerous farms and roads that require access, and there is the cost of right of way and frontage roads. Both sides of Fillmore are major farming areas.
SB I-5 to WB-126 isn't free flowing:
Dropped pin
https://goo.gl/maps/msEAKTHNzPq3dVgu7
And yeah technically the other movement is free-flowing as it includes tight loop ramp but I would prefer that be converted to a flyover.
While yes it does flows freeway speeds it still needs to be made into a freeway for safety reasons.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 03, 2021, 09:27:59 PM
Quote from: cahwyguy on October 03, 2021, 09:21:28 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 03, 2021, 07:26:13 PM
At the very least they need to make it freeway quality outside Fillmore and build free flowing ramps at the I-5 junction.
Actually, the ramps at the I-5 junction are pretty free flowing, at least WB. Between there and Fillmore, it flows at freeway speeds. But conversion to "freeway" is a problem, in that there are numerous farms and roads that require access, and there is the cost of right of way and frontage roads. Both sides of Fillmore are major farming areas.
SB I-5 to WB-126 isn't free flowing:
Dropped pin
https://goo.gl/maps/msEAKTHNzPq3dVgu7 (https://goo.gl/maps/msEAKTHNzPq3dVgu7)
And yeah technically the other movement is free-flowing as it includes tight loop ramp but I would prefer that be converted to a flyover.
While yes it does flows freeway speeds it still needs to be made into a freeway for safety reasons.
It was more free flowing before they extended Newhall Ranch Road to the East. As for a flyover ramp, I think that would need traffic justification that may not be there at the present time.They don't have to make a full limited access freeway to improve safety. They can widen the roadway (which I seem to recall is in the plans), and add separation barriers (also in the plans). They can limit left turns and -- a Caltrans favorite -- replace left turns with roundabouts, which would also serve to calm the speed of the traffic. I know that's probably not a solution you would like, but it is the direction that Caltrans is going (for such a solution also increases the usability of the road for bicycles).
^^^^ I think there was a glitch because I can't see your reply
I think my point was that (a) it was more free flowing before they extended it east, and I don't think the traffic justifies, at this time, the cost of a flyover. That may change.
As for conversion to freeway, they don't need to make it limited access to make it safer, especially with the cost of frontage road ROW and the need for farm access. Take a look at my page, www.cahighways.org/ROUTE026.html . I think there are plans to widen it, put in median barriers and more rumble strips. They can limit left turns to specific intersections, and (a Caltrans favorite) add roundabouts, which also adds to the traffic calming and lowers speed in the corridor. You may not like it, but that's more likely what District 7 would do.
A roundabout in downtown Fillmore? I mean I wouldn't be opposed to that given the likelihood that the stretch through town ever been upgraded to a freeway probably won't ever happen given the right of way constraints.
Rarely do I say this but I don't think it's the amount of lanes that is the problem just the fact that it is not a freeway. I mean it's about as low density as it gets in regards to the areas going through outside of Fillmore. Reroute some roads add some service roads and some interchanges it's not like California is hurting on money. I don't see why district 7 would have an issue doing this here and I'm willing to bet there would be a little to no opposition to it but maybe I'm wrong. A bypass around Fillmore is a different scenario though. But yeah I don't really see this as a project it's going to be on district 7's radar as they have more pressing issues.
If we're adding lanes anywhere I'd rather that be on CA 118. That road needs to be at least four lanes in each direction.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 03, 2021, 11:03:24 PMReroute some roads add some service roads and some interchanges it's not like California is hurting on money.
Yes Senate Bill 1 has done a great deal of funding to help improve the
maintainence of California highways, but the usage of these funds is limited in terms of building new lanes. I did some research on this a few years back, IIRC SB1 funds can only be used to build HOV or bike lanes and not for entirely new general-purpose lanes or new freeways/expressways. In other for the latter to happen, projects have to be funded by the STIP which is specifically designed to improve the state's highway network.
^^^^ yeah I remember reading about that as well. Thanks for the clarification I wasn't sure what funds could be used to add general purpose lanes. I also seem to recall bills being proposed or potentially passed to allow for some SB1 funds to be used for purposes they weren't supposed to be used for in the original wording such as the bullet train I can't remember exactly what the case was.
East Ventura, Santa Paula, and Fillmore are growing rapidly right now due to the abundance of people working in Santa Clarita now and the relative affordability in these places. I'm neutral on a full freeway connection because, although it makes complete sense geographically, traffic normally flows well in both directions even at peak times. Furthermore, there are way too many 2-lane farm roads that end at a T-intersection with the 126. Is it really worth it to create complete freeway exits at all of these roads?
I feel that CA-126 is stuck on this issue. The least they could do is at least correct the exit number at Commerce Center Dr.
^^^^ there is no way every one of those roads would get its own interchange. Some might just bridge over the highway or connect to other roads. But I what's for sure is that when you're driving you can listen to this and it'll all be okay:
Quote from: RZF on October 05, 2021, 12:32:21 AM
I feel that CA-126 is stuck on this issue. The least they could do is at least correct the exit number at Commerce Center Dr.
Did they accidentally think that they should use a sequential exit number?
Quote from: RZF on October 05, 2021, 12:32:21 AM
East Ventura, Santa Paula, and Fillmore are growing rapidly right now due to the abundance of people working in Santa Clarita now and the relative affordability in these places. I'm neutral on a full freeway connection because, although it makes complete sense geographically, traffic normally flows well in both directions even at peak times. Furthermore, there are way too many 2-lane farm roads that end at a T-intersection with the 126. Is it really worth it to create complete freeway exits at all of these roads?
I feel that CA-126 is stuck on this issue. The least they could do is at least correct the exit number at Commerce Center Dr.
I've only ever seen traffic on the 126 going eastbound in the afternoons at the 23 junction in Fillmore. Yes, a lot of people in the Santa Clara River Valley work in Santa Clarita, but I don't think a full freeway is warranted east of Santa Paula. Besides, the speed limit is already 60 east of Piru.
The only way to make a 126 freeway would be to build a slightly elevated causeway down the middle of the Santa Clara River, so that the river could still function on those rare occasions when it is called upon to carry water. I can't see that happening.
Also, re: the I-5 "stub": They didn't build a freeway over Commerce Center Dr as a preview of a future freeway to Santa Paula, they built it because the lines of trucks trying to turn left from Commerce Center Dr onto 126 to get to I-5 were legendary.
I also remember when there were ramps connecting The Old Road to 126. Right around the time some poor schmuck decided to develop a shopping center on the Old Road just south of 126 and I-5, CalTrans eliminated those ramps, making it hard to get to from the freeway. To this day, the shopping center remains almost deserted.
Oh, and I just noticed that the main road through the new development behind Six Flags is called, according to Google, N Commerce Center Dr. I think that "N" has to be a typo.
Maybe it's short for "No." :sombrero:
The 1984 EIS (https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=ien.35556030113617&view=1up&seq=44&skin=2021) for the 4 lane widening of SR 126 had this to say about the freeway proposal:
"The route for a freeway in this area was adopted in 1958. after planning studies, the project was terminated because of financial and technical problems. A 1973 estimate for the construction of a freeway through the Santa Clara River Valley was $130,000,000. Extensive flood protection would have been required through this narrow river valley. Because the financing for this project could not be foreseen within a 20-year period, and the need for a freeway did not develop, the 1958 freeway adoption was rescinded in 1974."
In 1968 (https://scvhistory.com/scvhistory/sg19680812armycorps.htm), the Army Corps of Engineers wanted to channelize much of the Santa Clara River in the Santa Clarita Valley. That would've made it a lot easier to build the freeway, but it would've also led to the drying up of wells in the SCV.