:clap: Whew! That's finally done. Nearly five months of updates to incorporate. What was I thinking?
But seriously: This update incorporates all the headlines since June, reviewing all of Max's excellent travelogues, all of Sparker's and Chris' and Mark's and everyone else's posts on this forum, as well as reviewing all of the updates from the legislature, and going through the August and October CTC minutes. There's also a lot more maps, including the map changes suggested by Chris all the way back in June. I don't forget. Read the summary of changes. I'm sure you'll find something worth discussing.
I really do urge people to at least take a look at the legislative changes. There's some real interesting stuff there. Ditto for the CTC agenda, which most folks don't bother to go through. If you've never dug through there, you can find them at the CTC website (http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/transprog/ctcliaison.htm). In particular, it looks like the Route 79 realignment may finally happen, as well as the Capitol Southeast Corridor (which includes part of CR E2). Don't know what those are? You know where to find the answer :-D
You can find it either on the changes page on the site (https://www.cahighways.org/changes.html) or the post on my blog (https://cahighways.org/wordpress/?p=14865).
As always... read, set, discuss.
Something that caught my eye was SB-1328. Being someone who drives for recreation frequently as I do something like SB-1328 isn't a likely a good sign. Granted, I know the text only discusses an advisory committee but it seems like the whole idea targets drivers who either are on the road a lot or don't use mass transit. Aside from recreation is mass transit isn't an option for me commuting..and my "commutes" tend to be on the longer side. It feels like the whole idea of "usage fee" is mainly oriented for large city and suburban living.
I've written on my blog before about a sense of "urban privilege", where there seems to be a prioritization of urban highways and transit over rural roads, which I think has led to some of the political divide. So there could be a sense of that in the usage fee. But I see it more as a way of capturing the loss of gas tax income (both sales and excise tax) due to hybrids and plug-ins. It might be acceptable if it was one or the other, but not both. [I say this as someone on the other end: I'm urban, and most of my commuting is in a vanpool.]
I hadn't seen it posted yet in this round of updates, but the I-280 removal plan north of Cesar Chavez Street that had been proposed by the late Mayor Ed Lee in SF was nixed several months ago:
https://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/New-simpler-plan-for-SF-s-downtown-rail-12855669.php
https://www.potreroview.net/interstate-280-to-stay-intact-with-no-mission-bay-caltrain-station/
^^^^^^^^^
Glad to hear about the CA 79 realignment in the Hemet/San Jacinto area; that situation, which has resulted in signage confusion and discontinuity, has been particularly egregious for the last 15 years or so.
Unfortunately, one of the other outstanding D8 issues -- widening I-15 between Corona and CA 60 -- has yet to see the light of day. Such a project has been sorely needed for at least a decade; except for the Santa Ana River bridge, there's plenty of median room for both general-purpose and HOV/express lanes. 3 lanes in each direction, which hasn't changed since the 1992 opening of the freeway, has served as a chokepoint for as long as I can remember -- but it seems to be perpetually overlooked; the latest STIP iteration appears to continue that oversight.
Double check on I-15. I seem to recall some stuff on I-15 improvements that were either in the most recently adopted SHOPP, or were amended into the SHOPP in the last few months. If it was there, I think I edited it into my I-15 page.
^^^^^^^^^
Looks like it's going to be 2 toll lanes/direction between CA 91 and CA 60 occupying the former empty space in the I-15 median. For better or worse, that seems to be the direction Caltrans and their MPO partners are going these days. But since they've extended the existing Temescal Canyon toll lanes up to CA 91 already, this new effort north of there could be considered just an further extension of that corridor.