While scanning for headlines, I discovered this: Caltrans Settles Environment Lawsuit, Cancels High Desert Freeway Project
https://la.streetsblog.org/2019/10/02/caltrans-settles-environment-lawsuit-cancels-high-desert-freeway-project/
A recent court settlement spells the end for the planned High Desert Corridor Freeway. Bryn Lindblad, deputy director of Climate Resolve — one of the plaintiffs — calls the settlement "a victory for smart planning [and against] climate change." Climate Resolve estimates that the freeway would have resulted in four million additional miles being driven every day. Those tailpipes would have contributed major greenhouse gas emissions, exacerbating the planet's climate emergency.
The $8 billion, 63-mile High Desert Corridor freeway would have spanned two counties connecting the north L.A. County cities of Palmdale and Lancaster with San Bernardino County cities of Victorville, Apple Valley, and Adelanto. The route would have gone through a patchwork of privately-owned undeveloped wild lands populated by Joshua Trees.
...
I'm not surprised at this. I was very excited for this project yet at the same time I figured this would happen. California is all but ensuring it's furthering of becoming a shithole state.
I'm as much a lefty as the next guy, but I really don't understand why so-called "environmentalists" think that killing a proposed freeway is better for the environment than what will eventually happen to CA 138 when it's stop-and-go thru numerous traffic lights...
Based from what I've read it seems this project by technicality is shelved and not canceled.
Shelved may as well be cancelled in California.
I'm also pretty liberal and still feel this project had a lot of merit and should have been built in some capacity. I'd have preferred if most of it had been built like Co Rd 215 around Las Vegas, freeway where it would be immediately needed (east and west ends) and expressway with expansion for freeway built in elsewhere. Interchanges in the middle could be added when needed or when possible. The county could then zone appropriately to make a suburban environment with an integrated transportation network rather than the jumbled mess that will now happen.
This also would have created a great alternative exurban bypass of LA from Bakersfield to the Coachella Valley. Traffic generated probably would have induced two other projects, a CA 14 bypass of Mojave and (less likely) a CA 58/CA 99 connector around Bakersfield. On the plus side, it would have reduced the need to four-lane US 395 to Kramer Junction.
There were other benefits besides a new highway. I'd be very surprised if there was still money for the proposed rail line connecting Palmdale and Victorville.
"climate change" :no: :-D
More excuses from RE/T groups to obstruct any and every road construction project.
It's California though, so this should be expected.
Really the freeway bypasses Palmdale, Apple Valley and Victorville could have been spun off on a smaller scale project. CA 18 west of Adalento doesn't really have much traffic and kind of made me question the merit of the overall project. Now if we were talking a freeway replacement of CA 138 between Palmdale and Cajon Pass that would have some true merit as a true Los Angeles Bypass
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 03, 2019, 08:56:29 PM
"climate change" :no: :-D
More excuses from RE/T groups to obstruct any and every road construction project.
It's California though, so this should be expected.
Climate change is real and we certainly need to take action on it, but the way it's being used to promote other ideologies like New Urbanism is a problem. If they want to solve the auto emissions problem, investing in hydrogen fuel cell cars would be a great way to go. That eliminates emissions from driving, without the drawbacks that electric cars have. But, of course, we'll never do it, because enough of the people who want to address climate change are also New Urbanists who dream of ending car ownership in favor of self-driving Ubers.
"Climate emergency"...ROTFLMAO! Nanotech already resulted in the invention of a catalyst which turns CO2 into ethanol. We can easily regulate this planet's CO2 level. The next thing to do is to match the appropriate level of removing CO2 to the Sun's output. A Maunder Minimum event is predicted for 2030 by the way, so even if we are slow on the uptake for implementing this new nanotech tool. the lessened output of the Sun gives us some breathing space.
https://www.ornl.gov/news/nano-spike-catalysts-convert-carbon-dioxide-directly-ethanol
Rick
IMO I do not see the point of buying a (fully) electric car unless the electricity that I use to fuel it comes from a renewable source. Otherwise, as explained by the image, it defeats the point.(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20191004/f4cd2f7082f705d3756004bac9402fb6.jpg)
SM-G965U
Quote from: Mark 68I'm as much a lefty as the next guy, but I really don't understand why so-called "environmentalists" think that killing a proposed freeway is better for the environment than what will eventually happen to CA 138 when it's stop-and-go thru numerous traffic lights...
Exactly.
What I find really suspicious is this PR statement:
"a victory for smart planning [and against] climate change." Climate Resolve estimates that the freeway would have resulted in four million additional miles being driven every day. Those tailpipes would have contributed major greenhouse gas emissions, exacerbating the planet's climate emergency."
Are these clowns actually trying to claim that by blocking development of this regional bypasss they're somehow going to reduce the
population in the area? It takes people to drive so and such many charted miles. By them saying they're going to reduce 4 million miles per day of driving from vehicles it sounds like they're claiming fewer vehicles will be on the region's roads when that clearly may not be the case at all. Southern California has a giant population and one that is still growing to some degree despite the hatefully obscene living costs out there. Everyone drives out there. Everyone! So if the hordes of motorists can't move from point A to point B efficiently and have to lose lots of time idling at stop lights that only equals a whole lot more car exhaust belching into the atmosphere. That's the stuff that accelerates climate change! Freaking help the drivers get home faster with better roads!
Quote from: nexus73 on October 03, 2019, 09:39:27 PM
"Climate emergency"...ROTFLMAO! Nanotech already resulted in the invention of a catalyst which turns CO2 into ethanol. We can easily regulate this planet's CO2 level. The next thing to do is to match the appropriate level of removing CO2 to the Sun's output. A Maunder Minimum event is predicted for 2030 by the way, so even if we are slow on the uptake for implementing this new nanotech tool. the lessened output of the Sun gives us some breathing space.
https://www.ornl.gov/news/nano-spike-catalysts-convert-carbon-dioxide-directly-ethanol
Rick
I had not heard of this before. I do try to follow carbon-sequestering technologies. This happened in 2016. That's three years ago. Except for articles written soon afterwards, it was hard to find
any articles about this even a year later. I couldn't find any from this year. One lab's enthusiasm is not a reason to believe we could effectively use this the near future. "Cold fusion is less than 20 years away" has been true since the 70's.
If you can find evidence showing progress on this and not just reference the original article, I'll be more optimistic. Right now, I'll just consider this a promising avenue of research and not expect it to help with our carbon crisis any time soon. Predictions of a Maunder Minimum repeat is controversial and is based on models not widely accepted in the community.
I think nano-spike catalysts converting CO2 is a tech worth exploring and it's certainly possible the sun could start a sunspot minimum cycle starting next decade. I also think there are good chances neither will happen and we should not rely on either as a contributor to solving our current climate crisis until we have better evidence.
Quote from: cahwyguy on October 03, 2019, 03:50:54 PM
The $8 billion, 63-mile High Desert Corridor freeway would have spanned two counties connecting the north L.A. County cities of Palmdale and Lancaster with San Bernardino County cities of Victorville, Apple Valley, and Adelanto. The route would have gone through a patchwork of privately-owned undeveloped wild lands populated by Joshua Trees.
8 billion dollars for a rural freeway? Are they paving it with gold??
Quote from: Beltway on October 04, 2019, 06:05:55 AM
Quote from: cahwyguy on October 03, 2019, 03:50:54 PM
The $8 billion, 63-mile High Desert Corridor freeway would have spanned two counties connecting the north L.A. County cities of Palmdale and Lancaster with San Bernardino County cities of Victorville, Apple Valley, and Adelanto. The route would have gone through a patchwork of privately-owned undeveloped wild lands populated by Joshua Trees.
8 billion dollars for a rural freeway? Are they paving it with gold??
It was proposed as a 8-10 lane freeway with a bike path, solar panels, and high-speed rail, not just a "rural freeway" .
It's funny, the RE/T groups appeared in the article to have little issues with every other component, but no freeway because that'll harm the environment :-o
Quote from: skluth on October 04, 2019, 01:50:20 AM
Quote from: nexus73 on October 03, 2019, 09:39:27 PM
"Climate emergency"...ROTFLMAO! Nanotech already resulted in the invention of a catalyst which turns CO2 into ethanol. We can easily regulate this planet's CO2 level. The next thing to do is to match the appropriate level of removing CO2 to the Sun's output. A Maunder Minimum event is predicted for 2030 by the way, so even if we are slow on the uptake for implementing this new nanotech tool. the lessened output of the Sun gives us some breathing space.
https://www.ornl.gov/news/nano-spike-catalysts-convert-carbon-dioxide-directly-ethanol
Rick
I had not heard of this before. I do try to follow carbon-sequestering technologies. This happened in 2016. That's three years ago. Except for articles written soon afterwards, it was hard to find any articles about this even a year later. I couldn't find any from this year. One lab's enthusiasm is not a reason to believe we could effectively use this the near future. "Cold fusion is less than 20 years away" has been true since the 70's.
If you can find evidence showing progress on this and not just reference the original article, I'll be more optimistic. Right now, I'll just consider this a promising avenue of research and not expect it to help with our carbon crisis any time soon. Predictions of a Maunder Minimum repeat is controversial and is based on models not widely accepted in the community.
I think nano-spike catalysts converting CO2 is a tech worth exploring and it's certainly possible the sun could start a sunspot minimum cycle starting next decade. I also think there are good chances neither will happen and we should not rely on either as a contributor to solving our current climate crisis until we have better evidence.
Do your own research with a search engine. The technology exists. Matter of fact it gets referenced in an energy company commercial I see on TV. Why deny REAL science to advance a political agenda?
Rick
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 04, 2019, 06:12:02 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 04, 2019, 06:05:55 AM
Quote from: cahwyguy on October 03, 2019, 03:50:54 PM
The $8 billion, 63-mile High Desert Corridor freeway would have spanned two counties connecting the north L.A. County cities of Palmdale and Lancaster with San Bernardino County cities of Victorville, Apple Valley, and Adelanto. The route would have gone through a patchwork of privately-owned undeveloped wild lands populated by Joshua Trees.
8 billion dollars for a rural freeway? Are they paving it with gold??
It was proposed as a 8-10 lane freeway with a bike path, solar panels, and high-speed rail, not just a "rural freeway" .
It's funny, the RE/T groups appeared in the article to have little issues with every other component, but no freeway because that'll harm the environment :-o
People out here are clinging to hopes for high speed rail out here despite it being more and more likely it isn't going to make it. The California High Speed Rail has already been scaled back to the part in San Joaquin Valley that was already under construction with no clear plan on the rest of the line.
Well, it already has plenty of freeways to go around, but this latest cancellation (along with those of I-710 and CA 241) is further proof that CA is content with being stuck in the 1950s as far as planning goes.
Not familiar with the project, but I glanced at the map and it seemed like a highway to nowhere.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 03, 2019, 11:32:18 PM
Are these clowns actually trying to claim that by blocking development of this regional bypasss they're somehow going to reduce the population in the area? It takes people to drive so and such many charted miles. By them saying they're going to reduce 4 million miles per day of driving from vehicles it sounds like they're claiming fewer vehicles will be on the region's roads when that clearly may not be the case at all. Southern California has a giant population and one that is still growing to some degree despite the hatefully obscene living costs out there. Everyone drives out there. Everyone! So if the hordes of motorists can't move from point A to point B efficiently and have to lose lots of time idling at stop lights that only equals a whole lot more car exhaust belching into the atmosphere. That's the stuff that accelerates climate change! Freaking help the drivers get home faster with better roads!
I think they're hoping that by not having the freeway, the resulting congestion will force people to live in the city and get around by bike/transit. Never mind that cars emit more when accelerating from a stop than when driving at a constant speed, or that places tend to be developed whether there's a freeway or not.
Quote from: AlexandriaVANot familiar with the project, but I glanced at the map and it seemed like a highway to nowhere.
I think upgrading CA-58 into an extension of I-40 to Bakersfield should be a bigger priority.
However, the High Desert Freeway would not be a "road to nowhere." Several hundred thousand people live just North of the San Gabriel Mountains. Lancaster has over 150,000 residents. Palmdale's city limits population is over 150,000. Over 100,000 are in Victorville. There are 90,000 in Hesperia. All these cities North of the mountains have been growing very rapidly, probably due to people trying to find more affordable housing. There is certainly more than enough population in that region to justify a new East-West freeway corridor. An $8 billion corridor with high speed rail and bike paths is asking too much though.
It's too bad Caltrans didn't think ahead and pull a Texas-style move by building an upgrade-able 2-lane or 4-lane regional highway before all the population blew up around the possible path. Not only do they have the local population in need of a decent East-West super highway, but the larger Southern California region needs an outer bypass of the greater LA area. Such a thing would cut down on greenhouse gases by reducing the amount of time long distance traffic is jammed in city traffic.
QuoteI think they're hoping that by not having the freeway, the resulting congestion will force people to live in the city and get around by bike/transit.
People are moving North of the San Gabriel Mountains by the thousands every year because they can't afford to live in the city center. This is one of the things that really burns me up about New Urbanist types. They make hardly any effort at all to factor personal incomes and housing affordability into their dreamy schemes.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 04, 2019, 02:13:06 PM
I think upgrading CA-58 into an extension of I-40 to Bakersfield should be a bigger priority.
It's kinda mind-blowing that California hasn't pushed for that, given the importance of that corridor. If this was NC, it would have "Future I-40" signs plastered all over it.
Quote from: nexus73 on October 04, 2019, 08:29:49 AM
Quote from: skluth on October 04, 2019, 01:50:20 AM
Quote from: nexus73 on October 03, 2019, 09:39:27 PM
"Climate emergency"...ROTFLMAO! Nanotech already resulted in the invention of a catalyst which turns CO2 into ethanol. We can easily regulate this planet's CO2 level. The next thing to do is to match the appropriate level of removing CO2 to the Sun's output. A Maunder Minimum event is predicted for 2030 by the way, so even if we are slow on the uptake for implementing this new nanotech tool. the lessened output of the Sun gives us some breathing space.
https://www.ornl.gov/news/nano-spike-catalysts-convert-carbon-dioxide-directly-ethanol
Rick
I had not heard of this before. I do try to follow carbon-sequestering technologies. This happened in 2016. That's three years ago. Except for articles written soon afterwards, it was hard to find any articles about this even a year later. I couldn't find any from this year. One lab's enthusiasm is not a reason to believe we could effectively use this the near future. "Cold fusion is less than 20 years away" has been true since the 70's.
If you can find evidence showing progress on this and not just reference the original article, I'll be more optimistic. Right now, I'll just consider this a promising avenue of research and not expect it to help with our carbon crisis any time soon. Predictions of a Maunder Minimum repeat is controversial and is based on models not widely accepted in the community.
I think nano-spike catalysts converting CO2 is a tech worth exploring and it's certainly possible the sun could start a sunspot minimum cycle starting next decade. I also think there are good chances neither will happen and we should not rely on either as a contributor to solving our current climate crisis until we have better evidence.
Do your own research with a search engine. The technology exists. Matter of fact it gets referenced in an energy company commercial I see on TV. Why deny REAL science to advance a political agenda?
Rick
I did a search. I even stated I did a search and found nothing other than articles describing what happened in this one lab test and the latest was from 2017. I did another search this morning with the same result. The burden of proof for someone making a claim is to support that claim, not for others to prove you wrong or to do their own research. If I make a claim that there are unicorns that fart rainbows, then it is up to me to prove it exists and not for you to prove me wrong.
I'm guessing you did your own search and also found nothing so you tried to make me do your work for you rather than bother to actually back your claim. There is no evidence that this technology has advanced one iota since the original lab test. You've made a claim based on a single, three-year old lab result and some overly optimistic statements from those researchers, scientists who have a self-interest in promoting their research. You said you've seen it in a commercial, yet provided no evidence of that commercial. That you are unable to back your claim means this is likely still a far-future technology that may never be useful despite the researchers ambitious statements. You can either prove it or drop your claim. The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim, not with the one who doesn't believe it.
Either that, or there are unicorns that fart rainbows. Prove me wrong.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 04, 2019, 02:13:06 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVANot familiar with the project, but I glanced at the map and it seemed like a highway to nowhere.
I think upgrading CA-58 into an extension of I-40 to Bakersfield should be a bigger priority.
However, the High Desert Freeway would not be a "road to nowhere." Several hundred thousand people live just North of the San Gabriel Mountains. Lancaster has over 150,000 residents. Palmdale's city limits population is over 150,000. Over 100,000 are in Victorville. There are 90,000 in Hesperia. All these cities North of the mountains have been growing very rapidly, probably due to people trying to find more affordable housing. There is certainly more than enough population in that region to justify a new East-West freeway corridor. An $8 billion corridor with high speed rail and bike paths is asking too much though.
It's too bad Caltrans didn't think ahead and pull a Texas-style move by building an upgrade-able 2-lane or 4-lane regional highway before all the population blew up around the possible path. Not only do they have the local population in need of a decent East-West super highway, but the larger Southern California region needs an outer bypass of the greater LA area. Such a thing would cut down on greenhouse gases by reducing the amount of time long distance traffic is jammed in city traffic.
QuoteI think they're hoping that by not having the freeway, the resulting congestion will force people to live in the city and get around by bike/transit.
People are moving North of the San Gabriel Mountains by the thousands every year because they can't afford to live in the city center. This is one of the things that really burns me up about New Urbanist types. They make hardly any effort at all to factor personal incomes and housing affordability into their dreamy schemes.
The growth has been so fast and widespread that your population estimates have been surpassed. Per Wikipedia, 2018 estimates had Palmdale at 157k, Lancaster at 159k (urban area population at 514k as of 2013), and Victorville at 122k, Hesperia at 95k, Apple Valley at nearly 74k and Adelanto at 34k. The Victor Valley combined population is estimated at around 390k.
That's 900k plus that would have been served by this freeway. Not to mention untold amounts of travelers who would use this to bypass the LA Basin. Air quality would improve south of the mountains, and while it will probably increase in the Antelope & Victor Valleys, it will certainly do so if/when all the east-west arteries like 18 & 138 get clogged with cars stopping at traffic lights every mile or so.
This is where people from the other side of the mountains are moving. This is where the land to build new housing is located. That's not going to change (barring some major catastrophe). Forcing more people into the Basin is not sound policy. There is no more room in the Basin. You can build up, sure, but there is a limit before it's not seismically feasible.
Right now, probably the quickest route from points north on I-15 to points south on CA 14 through the Victor and Antelope Valleys (basically the shortest distance from Vegas to LA) runs on CA 18, CA 138 & Pearblossom Hwy. By my count, there are currently 26 traffic lights on this route.
Who knows how many in 20-30 years...
Quote from: Mark68 on October 04, 2019, 04:18:11 PM
That's not going to change (barring some major catastrophe)
Quote from: Mark68 on October 04, 2019, 04:18:11 PM
Who knows how many in 20-30 years...
Water is going to run out soon.
Quote from: Mark68 on October 04, 2019, 04:18:11 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 04, 2019, 02:13:06 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVANot familiar with the project, but I glanced at the map and it seemed like a highway to nowhere.
I think upgrading CA-58 into an extension of I-40 to Bakersfield should be a bigger priority.
However, the High Desert Freeway would not be a "road to nowhere." Several hundred thousand people live just North of the San Gabriel Mountains. Lancaster has over 150,000 residents. Palmdale's city limits population is over 150,000. Over 100,000 are in Victorville. There are 90,000 in Hesperia. All these cities North of the mountains have been growing very rapidly, probably due to people trying to find more affordable housing. There is certainly more than enough population in that region to justify a new East-West freeway corridor. An $8 billion corridor with high speed rail and bike paths is asking too much though.
It's too bad Caltrans didn't think ahead and pull a Texas-style move by building an upgrade-able 2-lane or 4-lane regional highway before all the population blew up around the possible path. Not only do they have the local population in need of a decent East-West super highway, but the larger Southern California region needs an outer bypass of the greater LA area. Such a thing would cut down on greenhouse gases by reducing the amount of time long distance traffic is jammed in city traffic.
QuoteI think they're hoping that by not having the freeway, the resulting congestion will force people to live in the city and get around by bike/transit.
People are moving North of the San Gabriel Mountains by the thousands every year because they can't afford to live in the city center. This is one of the things that really burns me up about New Urbanist types. They make hardly any effort at all to factor personal incomes and housing affordability into their dreamy schemes.
The growth has been so fast and widespread that your population estimates have been surpassed. Per Wikipedia, 2018 estimates had Palmdale at 157k, Lancaster at 159k (urban area population at 514k as of 2013), and Victorville at 122k, Hesperia at 95k, Apple Valley at nearly 74k and Adelanto at 34k. The Victor Valley combined population is estimated at around 390k.
That's 900k plus that would have been served by this freeway. Not to mention untold amounts of travelers who would use this to bypass the LA Basin. Air quality would improve south of the mountains, and while it will probably increase in the Antelope & Victor Valleys, it will certainly do so if/when all the east-west arteries like 18 & 138 get clogged with cars stopping at traffic lights every mile or so.
This is where people from the other side of the mountains are moving. This is where the land to build new housing is located. That's not going to change (barring some major catastrophe). Forcing more people into the Basin is not sound policy. There is no more room in the Basin. You can build up, sure, but there is a limit before it's not seismically feasible.
Right now, probably the quickest route from points north on I-15 to points south on CA 14 through the Victor and Antelope Valleys (basically the shortest distance from Vegas to LA) runs on CA 18, CA 138 & Pearblossom Hwy. By my count, there are currently 26 traffic lights on this route.
Who knows how many in 20-30 years...
That goes back to what I was saying earlier, it isn't really much of a bypass route of Los Angeles. I suppose if you were heading to/from I-40 it would act as a bypass of the Inland Empire but not really Los Angeles. CA 18 west of Adalento doesn't really have much traffic whereas people are already beginning to clog up CA 138 between CA 14 and CA 138. I don't doubt the corridor will start to fill eventually but having a "true" bypass of Los Angeles is still something that hasn't been proposed. Really a better argument (at least I think) could be made for having CA 138 and CA 18 as expressways, this High Speed Rail stuff ought to be shelved until more traction on what is going to happen to the main line comes to light.
Quote from: LM117 on October 04, 2019, 02:57:13 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 04, 2019, 02:13:06 PM
I think upgrading CA-58 into an extension of I-40 to Bakersfield should be a bigger priority.
It's kinda mind-blowing that California hasn't pushed for that, given the importance of that corridor. If this was NC, it would have "Future I-40" signs plastered all over it.
This is viewed more as a priority mostly due to the fact that CA-58 is already built out as a 4-lane expressway (once Kramer Junction is completed). It's already adaquete, and minor improvements just to slap a blue shield on it isn't a priority compared to this corridor which would bypass a 2-lane road that passes thru towns. CA-58 already got the "bypass" treatment.
Quote from: skluth on October 04, 2019, 04:03:01 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on October 04, 2019, 08:29:49 AM
Quote from: skluth on October 04, 2019, 01:50:20 AM
Quote from: nexus73 on October 03, 2019, 09:39:27 PM
"Climate emergency"...ROTFLMAO! Nanotech already resulted in the invention of a catalyst which turns CO2 into ethanol. We can easily regulate this planet's CO2 level. The next thing to do is to match the appropriate level of removing CO2 to the Sun's output. A Maunder Minimum event is predicted for 2030 by the way, so even if we are slow on the uptake for implementing this new nanotech tool. the lessened output of the Sun gives us some breathing space.
https://www.ornl.gov/news/nano-spike-catalysts-convert-carbon-dioxide-directly-ethanol
Rick
I had not heard of this before. I do try to follow carbon-sequestering technologies. This happened in 2016. That's three years ago. Except for articles written soon afterwards, it was hard to find any articles about this even a year later. I couldn't find any from this year. One lab's enthusiasm is not a reason to believe we could effectively use this the near future. "Cold fusion is less than 20 years away" has been true since the 70's.
If you can find evidence showing progress on this and not just reference the original article, I'll be more optimistic. Right now, I'll just consider this a promising avenue of research and not expect it to help with our carbon crisis any time soon. Predictions of a Maunder Minimum repeat is controversial and is based on models not widely accepted in the community.
I think nano-spike catalysts converting CO2 is a tech worth exploring and it's certainly possible the sun could start a sunspot minimum cycle starting next decade. I also think there are good chances neither will happen and we should not rely on either as a contributor to solving our current climate crisis until we have better evidence.
Do your own research with a search engine. The technology exists. Matter of fact it gets referenced in an energy company commercial I see on TV. Why deny REAL science to advance a political agenda?
Rick
I did a search. I even stated I did a search and found nothing other than articles describing what happened in this one lab test and the latest was from 2017. I did another search this morning with the same result. The burden of proof for someone making a claim is to support that claim, not for others to prove you wrong or to do their own research. If I make a claim that there are unicorns that fart rainbows, then it is up to me to prove it exists and not for you to prove me wrong.
I'm guessing you did your own search and also found nothing so you tried to make me do your work for you rather than bother to actually back your claim. There is no evidence that this technology has advanced one iota since the original lab test. You've made a claim based on a single, three-year old lab result and some overly optimistic statements from those researchers, scientists who have a self-interest in promoting their research. You said you've seen it in a commercial, yet provided no evidence of that commercial. That you are unable to back your claim means this is likely still a far-future technology that may never be useful despite the researchers ambitious statements. You can either prove it or drop your claim. The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim, not with the one who doesn't believe it.
Either that, or there are unicorns that fart rainbows. Prove me wrong.
Go talk to the source if you cannot find any more info. I give leads, not handouts. You did not even know about this tech before I mentioned it.
Prove yourself smart.
Rick
Speaking of shelved desert highways routes, seems like almost everyone has forgotten about the unbuilt CA 122:
https://www.cahighways.org/121-128.html#122
Now that projected path would actually be a true bypass for Los Angeles-Las Vegas traffic by way of Palmdale and Barstow. You can dig even deeper with shelved plans for CA 118, CA 249, CA 48 and CA 196...all can be seen on the 1964 State Highway Map below:
http://www.davidrumsey.com/ll/thumbnailView.html?startUrl=%2F%2Fwww.davidrumsey.com%2Fluna%2Fservlet%2Fas%2Fsearch%3Fos%3D0%26lc%3DRUMSEY~8~1%26q%3DCALTRANs%201964%26sort%3DPub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No%26bs%3D10#?c=0&m=0&s=0&cv=0&r=0&xywh=6479%2C9793%2C762%2C1350
Also, amusingly the planned route of CA 18 west of Victorville appears to be the earliest iteration of what morphed into the High Desert Corridor. Palmdale Road already existed and the State essentially just took it over rather than build a new facility.
Quote from: Mark68 on October 03, 2019, 06:56:45 PM
I'm as much a lefty as the next guy, but I really don't understand why so-called "environmentalists" think that killing a proposed freeway is better for the environment than what will eventually happen to CA 138 when it's stop-and-go thru numerous traffic lights...
Well, what will eventually happen is that it becomes a pain in the ass to travel between Palmdale and Victorville during large periods of the day... and in response, people will avoid doing so if they can. People who live in one won't take jobs that require they commute to the other, and so forth.
This results in fewer vehicle miles traveled, which in spite of the increased congestion means less emissions overall. At least for as long as the energy to propel these vehicles is ultimately sourced from fossil fuels. Once it isn't, then there ceases to be an emissions benefit to constraining the ability of people to travel by car.
The drawback, of course, is that the economy and general quality of life in the area will suffer from the lack of transportation capacity.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 04, 2019, 06:17:39 PM
Speaking of shelved desert highways routes, seems like almost everyone has forgotten about the unbuilt CA 122:
https://www.cahighways.org/121-128.html#122
Now that projected path would actually be a true bypass for Los Angeles-Las Vegas traffic by way of Palmdale and Barstow. You can dig even deeper with shelved plans for CA 118, CA 249, CA 48 and CA 196...all can be seen on the 1964 State Highway Map below:
http://www.davidrumsey.com/ll/thumbnailView.html?startUrl=%2F%2Fwww.davidrumsey.com%2Fluna%2Fservlet%2Fas%2Fsearch%3Fos%3D0%26lc%3DRUMSEY~8~1%26q%3DCALTRANs%201964%26sort%3DPub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No%26bs%3D10#?c=0&m=0&s=0&cv=0&r=0&xywh=6479%2C9793%2C762%2C1350
Also, amusingly the planned route of CA 18 west of Victorville appears to be the earliest iteration of what morphed into the High Desert Corridor. Palmdale Road already existed and the State essentially just took it over rather than build a new facility.
Given how much the High Desert will fill in, then add the population of Kern County into the mix also getting larger, one has to wonder how many layers of bypass will be built over the next 50 years. In a way, one can see how a grid of freeways will eventually fill in the High Desert, turning the whole shebang into an extended metropolitan area, meaning that we would need yet another bypass...LOL!
Rick
That particular project has been cancelled; the projected construction start date out in the 2060's rendered it a bit useless in dealing with today's regional growth levels and patterns. The best thing Caltrans and the local MPO's can do given the removal of the freeway portion of the corridor is to (a) do what some above posters have suggested and complete CA 58 as an Interstate-grade freeway (hey, the basic structure is in place), with a freeway extension/connection from the end of the CA 14/Antelope Valley freeway to CA 58 near Mojave, and (b) start planning for a freeway along CA 138 and/or CA 18 to replace the deleted corridor. This should be implemented in SIU-type sections rather than publicized as a major regional project as the HDC was -- keep it under the national radar as much as possible. Tout the 138/18 freeway as a safety measure; initial construction as 2+2 (expandable) rather than the 8-10 lane facility projected for the HDC. (c) Shift planning and ROW funding to (a), (b) -- as well as a freeway upgrade for US 395.
Yeah, eventually the RE/T groups will sniff it out -- but their BANANA instincts will work against them if countered by groups from the High Desert asking for safety/mobility upgrades. If the RE/T's response to that is to either denigrate mobility in general or growth in their region as "sprawl" (which will inevitably be brought up), economic data indicating that this is one of the last reasonably affordable housing zones in SoCal should be shoved in their collective faces -- painting them as either unsympathetic to -- or unconcerned with -- those affected by economic reality, or possibly elitists whose preferences, if actually implemented, would result in a combination of gentrification as well as an actual expansion of the housing shortfall/crisis due to that phenomenon. They've conflated a methodology (urbanism) into an ideology that tends to disregard economic constrictions and realities in favor of a one-size-fits-all approach, which is, in effect, to create more New Yorks (in terms of density and structure) and conversely make life as onerous as possible for those unwilling --or unable -- to comply with their preferences. And they've managed to get enough of their number embedded (or, some may say, wormed) into the planning establishment to, in some cases, steer their favored measures into the queue while undermining anything outside their comfort zone -- essentially governance by the inculcated. But they can cobble up all the "settlements" and pyrrhic victories they want -- folks will continue to seek out affordable residences; and if those are on the north side of the San Gabriel and San Bernardino ranges, that's where the growth will occur -- with or without RE/T groups' sanction.
Many so-called New Urbanists fall into the category of "Limousine Liberal." It's kind of funny when they get accused of being elitist or even racist. It's not hard to make that kind of argument against them since so many are woefully out of touch. New York City overall is a very liberal city in terms of politics, yet the level of gentrification that has taken place over the past 20 years almost smacks of "ethnic cleansing."
Eventually all the price gouging on living costs, the orgy of speculative investing in housing and even illegal schemes to convert affordable, rent-controlled apartment buildings into luxury condos ends up driving away all kinds of young adults, even young white adults. Every city depends heavily on a "working class." There are countless numbers of low paying service industry jobs that have to be filled by someone with a pulse. They may not be career jobs at all, but anyone working them has to be able to survive while employed in that particular job level.
Both New York and Los Angeles are major landing pads for legal immigrants. That's one factor that may sustain or even continue to grow their populations. There is a growing number of American-born residents who grew up in those cities, but are choosing to re-locate to other parts of the nation after reaching adulthood. They can have a life in a more affordable state like Texas. Or they can be stuck living with their parents until they're in their 30's.
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 04, 2019, 06:12:02 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 04, 2019, 06:05:55 AM
8 billion dollars for a rural freeway? Are they paving it with gold??
It was proposed as a 8-10 lane freeway with a bike path, solar panels, and high-speed rail, not just a "rural freeway" .
Seriously or joking? Given where it is that far north of L.A. , I figured it was 4 lanes.
Quote from: BeltwaySeriously or joking? Given where it is that far north of L.A. , I figured it was 4 lanes.
Given the latest population numbers in the cities North of the San Gabriel Mountain, an East-West freeway between Lancaster and Victorville is worth at least 3 lanes in both directions. Within each city metro a 4-4 arrangement is justified.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 05, 2019, 02:53:59 AM
Quote from: BeltwaySeriously or joking? Given where it is that far north of L.A. , I figured it was 4 lanes.
Given the latest population numbers in the cities North of the San Gabriel Mountain, an East-West freeway between Lancaster and Victorville is worth at least 3 lanes in both directions. Within each city metro a 4-4 arrangement is justified.
In reality, the traffic flow on CA 138 & CA 18 combined between Palmdale & Victorville -- even during commute periods -- would be sufficiently served by 4 overall lanes; perhaps 6 for the first few miles east of CA 14 and between I-15 and US 395. The area
is growing, but that growth is steady rather than rapid. Also -- there's only scant actual commuter traffic between the Antelope and Victor valleys; most commuter activity heads south to, respectively, Santa Clarita and the San Fernando Valley (via CA 14) and the Inland Empire (via I-15). There's some interregional truck traffic on CA 138, but not approaching the levels seen on the combination of US 395 and CA 58. 2 + 2 would suffice for at least the next couple of decades.
Quote from: Beltway on October 04, 2019, 10:54:52 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 04, 2019, 06:12:02 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 04, 2019, 06:05:55 AM
8 billion dollars for a rural freeway? Are they paving it with gold??
It was proposed as a 8-10 lane freeway with a bike path, solar panels, and high-speed rail, not just a "rural freeway" .
Seriously or joking? Given where it is that far north of L.A. , I figured it was 4 lanes.
Could reasonably be constructed as a 4, maybe 6-lane freeway for a lot cheaper, maybe just a couple of billion. I was just simply stating what the $8 billion plan was.
And quite frankly, since everybody is so concerned about outer growth, make access points limited to major junctions so it serves effectively as an outer bypass, not interchanges at every other road. That would only induce development. This is evident when looking at pretty much any bypass of a major metro.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 04, 2019, 02:13:06 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVANot familiar with the project, but I glanced at the map and it seemed like a highway to nowhere.
I think upgrading CA-58 into an extension of I-40 to Bakersfield should be a bigger priority.
This is true; however, they're almost finished with that anyway, so I think they could have spared come resources for this.
The climate change discussion has gone on long enough. Please refocus discussion here on the High Desert Freeway project. Those wanting to further debate the merits of climate change can take it to the "Off Topic" board. –Roadfro
Frankly, unless the freeway is going all the way west to I-5 (so connecting I-5, CA-14, and I-15), this freeway is not really high on priority at this time.
Quote from: SeriesE on October 07, 2019, 08:47:06 PM
Frankly, unless the freeway is going all the way west to I-5 (so connecting I-5, CA-14, and I-15), this freeway is not really high on priority at this time.
That's the part of CA 138 (west of CA 14) that really doesn't need the upgrade. I'd argue N2 is a better route to I-5 from Palmdale provided one takes Three Points Road instead of sticking to N2 on Pine Canyon/Old Ridge Route to reach CA 138. CA 138 was envisioned at one point as being realigned the corridor of N2 whereas the current route of west of CA 14 would become CA 48. Even Lancaster Road/Avenue I (Old CA 138) is more direct to I-5 over present 138. The busiest I ever saw 138 between 14 and 5 was when the latter was shut down due to a peroxide spill. Either way the traffic was light and mostly jumping on from Three Points Road.
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 05, 2019, 08:46:27 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 04, 2019, 10:54:52 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 04, 2019, 06:12:02 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 04, 2019, 06:05:55 AM
8 billion dollars for a rural freeway? Are they paving it with gold??
It was proposed as a 8-10 lane freeway with a bike path, solar panels, and high-speed rail, not just a "rural freeway" .
Seriously or joking? Given where it is that far north of L.A. , I figured it was 4 lanes.
Could reasonably be constructed as a 4, maybe 6-lane freeway for a lot cheaper, maybe just a couple of billion. I was just simply stating what the $8 billion plan was.
And quite frankly, since everybody is so concerned about outer growth, make access points limited to major junctions so it serves effectively as an outer bypass, not interchanges at every other road. That would only induce development. This is evident when looking at pretty much any bypass of a major metro.
The dearth of interim interchanges was one of the salient features of the HDC; preliminary plans showed a couple of interchanges within Palmdale, one at Lake Los Angeles, and then nothing until the outskirts of Adelanto. The project was designed as a long-distance corridor rather than a means for local housing/commercial expansion -- a fact that was apparently lost on the parties who brought the lawsuit. But then again, some of the more pointed of these groups denigrate automobile ownership and usage in general -- hence the BANANA approach -- if a private car can use it, they don't want to see it! But if an enhanced facility is constructed more or less along CA 138 and/or 18, it'll likely be of a more conventional format -- one with decidedly more access points than the HDC would have provided. Essentially those groups have achieved what could be termed a "pyrrhic victory" -- one that just might come back to bite 'em in the ass in the long run.
^^^^ we'll see. I am not trying to bring the climate debate back but I will say California is going full on the left wing nutso scale and part of the is insanely overreaching climate change mitigation policies. They canceled the 710 tunnel, indefinitely scaled back the south 710 expansion, San Diego is trying to back out of long planned freeway projects the voters put into place, and now the HDC freeway is canceled. Something tells me there is more to come.
Quote from: SeriesE on October 07, 2019, 08:47:06 PM
Frankly, unless the freeway is going all the way west to I-5 (so connecting I-5, CA-14, and I-15), this freeway is not really high on priority at this time.
If the goal is for those going to the Central Valley and points beyond, a freeway connecting the CA 14 and CA 58 bypassing Mojave along with a short freeway around Bakersfield to I-5 would work just as well. CA 138 might save a few minutes. I don't know if the Grapevine or Tehachapi Pass is more likely to have snow and ice problems.
Quote from: skluth on October 08, 2019, 09:25:37 PM
Quote from: SeriesE on October 07, 2019, 08:47:06 PM
Frankly, unless the freeway is going all the way west to I-5 (so connecting I-5, CA-14, and I-15), this freeway is not really high on priority at this time.
If the goal is for those going to the Central Valley and points beyond, a freeway connecting the CA 14 and CA 58 bypassing Mojave along with a short freeway around Bakersfield to I-5 would work just as well. CA 138 might save a few minutes. I don't know if the Grapevine or Tehachapi Pass is more likely to have snow and ice problems.
The biggest issue with 138 west of 14 is that it multiplexes through Lancaster and takes a direct westerly approach to I-5, if a Freeway was aligned northwest it would save substantial distance. My personal observation is that Tejon Pass gets way more snow than Tehachapi Pass. Bear Mountain and the Mojave Desert seem to have a slight mitigation to the effects of a deep snow. Even Walker Pass seems to get less snow than Tejon Pass.
^^^^^^^^^^
The recurring snow situation on I-5 over Tejon seems to be a relatively recent phenomenon; I recall heading up old US 99 as a kid almost yearly for Christmas with our Sacramento relatives, and only encountering light snow on the ground once or twice in about an about 12-year period, most of it around the summit and Frazier Park interchange (which was an intersection back then). I started noticing snow in the late '90's -- and once, circa 2005, had to detour via Mojave for a business trip to Bakersfield because I-5 was shut down. And the reports of similar closures have dotted the news regularly since then. Rather than rekindling the climate-change arguments in this forum, I'll just posit that weather patterns -- particularly at higher elevations -- appear to have changed dramatically in the past 20+ years. Go figure!
But the fact that traffic heading west on CA 138 intended to descend into the San Joaquin Valley must first surmount Tejon Summit may have been part of the rationale for jettisoning the original "Metropolitan Bypass" along 138 -- CA 58, only 30-40 miles north, is historically less prone to weather-related closures -- and is a 4-lane divided facility for the entire mountain crossing; on balance a consistently better option.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 03, 2019, 07:38:21 PM
Based from what I've read it seems this project by technicality is shelved and not canceled.
No way the freeway is not built but it will come at a much bigger cost later on. Hopefully they are smart enough to preserve the ROW, otherwise real pain later on. Those houses between the 14 and 15 freeways are coming no matter what. A 4-lane conventional highway between the two freeways won't cut it.
Big hurt to the High Desert areas. Given the current state of politics, I'm sure that those currently in charge of Occupied California couldn't care less.
Quote from: cahwyguy on October 03, 2019, 03:50:54 PM
While scanning for headlines, I discovered this: Caltrans Settles Environment Lawsuit, Cancels High Desert Freeway Project
https://la.streetsblog.org/2019/10/02/caltrans-settles-environment-lawsuit-cancels-high-desert-freeway-project/
A recent court settlement spells the end for the planned High Desert Corridor Freeway. Bryn Lindblad, deputy director of Climate Resolve – one of the plaintiffs – calls the settlement “a victory for smart planning [and against] climate change.” Climate Resolve estimates that the freeway would have resulted in four million additional miles being driven every day. Those tailpipes would have contributed major greenhouse gas emissions, exacerbating the planet’s climate emergency.
The $8 billion, 63-mile High Desert Corridor freeway would have spanned two counties connecting the north L.A. County cities of Palmdale and Lancaster with San Bernardino County cities of Victorville, Apple Valley, and Adelanto. The route would have gone through a patchwork of privately-owned undeveloped wild lands populated by Joshua Trees.
...
This is disappointing. Roads do not cause any environments. Roads do not hurt any environments. Roads Are Roads. Roads get people and things places that they need to be. If Roads really are evil, they are a necessary evil. Improving Roads makes them safer, and much less harmful also. If this Road is not allowed to be built at the forbidden location, where can it be built? It will have to go some place, or people will spend much more time on other Roads. Fortunately CA-58 is being improved.
I don't understand this. Roads definitely have an environmental impact. They are necessary, but environmental impacts do need to be considered. Heck, it's required by federal and state law.
Quote from: Rothman on December 17, 2019, 11:17:40 AM
I don't understand this. Roads definitely have an environmental impact. They are necessary, but environmental impacts do need to be considered. Heck, it's required by federal and state law.
And it's that one-two punch of environmental laws which often shelves infrastructure projects. With California the environmental laws are arguably stronger than anywhere else in the rest of the country and in some instances even more so than the Federal counterparts. It probably doesn't help that California has a long history of public works projects before the Mid-20th Century that has a substantial negative environmental impact. Hell had the Division of Highways backed down during the 1960s when groups started aggressively objecting to potential projects in the mainstream they might still be here.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 04, 2019, 10:41:00 PM
Many so-called New Urbanists fall into the category of "Limousine Liberal." It's kind of funny when they get accused of being elitist or even racist. It's not hard to make that kind of argument against them since so many are woefully out of touch. New York City overall is a very liberal city in terms of politics, yet the level of gentrification that has taken place over the past 20 years almost smacks of "ethnic cleansing."
Eventually all the price gouging on living costs, the orgy of speculative investing in housing and even illegal schemes to convert affordable, rent-controlled apartment buildings into luxury condos ends up driving away all kinds of young adults, even young white adults. Every city depends heavily on a "working class." There are countless numbers of low paying service industry jobs that have to be filled by someone with a pulse. They may not be career jobs at all, but anyone working them has to be able to survive while employed in that particular job level.
Both New York and Los Angeles are major landing pads for legal immigrants. That's one factor that may sustain or even continue to grow their populations. There is a growing number of American-born residents who grew up in those cities, but are choosing to re-locate to other parts of the nation after reaching adulthood. They can have a life in a more affordable state like Texas. Or they can be stuck living with their parents until they're in their 30's.
Spot on. I think in many ways gentrification has been 1000 times worse than white flight was in the 1950's and 1960's, because of the almost sinister quality to it. It is all corporate, big money, almost exclusively white, at the expense of minority communities. Starbucks are better than a mom and pop shop, right?
I read an article a day or two ago on a business web site which described how most American cities are now functionally insolvent, thanks in large part to many of the incentives they use to attract new businesses and industry. The article was kind of an attack on American suburban sprawl, noting low little revenue per acre is generated compared to a property in a dense urban center.
Many towns and suburbs are vying to create all kinds of new, accelerated growth but it often isn't productive growth that can pay for itself. The communities inviting the growth somehow have to pay for the infrastructure to support these new businesses, but won't see any revenue from those businesses to support the infrastructure roll-out for many years. In some cases, the big box store development might close before the incentive period expires. That risk has increased greatly due to online retailers.
What this article didn't mention is how the current dense urban model in American cities is not sustainable for the long term either due to the soaring living costs. Regardless of where anyone lives all Americans depend on a lot of low wage earning employees to keep the wheels rolling on our way of life, like people working in restaurants making burgers for us to eat on our lunch breaks. I don't know how something like a McDonalds can even exist in a place like New York City. Do the employees commute a couple hours each way just to flip burgers? Or do several of them cram into one apartment?
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 19, 2019, 12:25:35 PM
I read an article a day or two ago on a business web site which described how most American cities are now functionally insolvent, thanks in large part to many of the incentives they use to attract new businesses and industry. The article was kind of an attack on American suburban sprawl, noting low little revenue per acre is generated compared to a property in a dense urban center.
Many towns and suburbs are vying to create all kinds of new, accelerated growth but it often isn't productive growth that can pay for itself. The communities inviting the growth somehow have to pay for the infrastructure to support these new businesses, but won't see any revenue from those businesses to support the infrastructure roll-out for many years. In some cases, the big box store development might close before the incentive period expires. That risk has increased greatly due to online retailers.
What this article didn't mention is how the current dense urban model in American cities is not sustainable for the long term either due to the soaring living costs. Regardless of where anyone lives all Americans depend on a lot of low wage earning employees to keep the wheels rolling on our way of life, like people working in restaurants making burgers for us to eat on our lunch breaks. I don't know how something like a McDonalds can even exist in a place like New York City. Do the employees commute a couple hours each way just to flip burgers? Or do several of them cram into one apartment?
That question you ask about where do the workers live is important. In the SF Bay Area, a school district had to build its own apartment complex so they could get the needed teachers. If a teacher's salary (middle class) cannot provide housing, then the minimum wage sector workers are going to sink out of sight, leaving the well off with no one to serve them. Money can only buy happiness when one knows where to shop but close the shop and there goes the happiness...LOL!
It will be interesting to see how this all settles out. Got any ideas on how it will? I sure don't!
Rick
Regarding how people with low incomes live in dense and expensive areas I can hit on that from some of my own experience. Most people who are working entry level jobs either live with family or have roommates to share the cost of rent, I had to do the latter in my early adult life. For some people I suppose that mode of living is fine but I absolutely hated having almost no privacy and solitude. Once I got established in what I do I was able to get further and further from having to live in a big city or even metro area. Granted, I what I'm describing about high urban living costs is a new phenomenon, there are all sorts of old time stories about industrial cities in the Mid-West that were similar.
Regarding urban sprawl, that has proliferated greatly since freeways began being built. A lot of people want to blame urban sprawl on the freeway but it has just as much to do with dense living conditions and high costs. I'd argue that freeway development sped up the pace of urban sprawl but wasn't the cause of it. People eventually on a large scale were going to want more livable and less costly living space eventually. What tends to kill the suburban life style is the absurd and unlivable commute times many of the big Metro Areas have.
Somewhat topical to this discussion, I've been offered two transfers to the Los Angeles/Inland Empire Area and San Diego once. In my particular case I had those cities in my area of responsibility already from Phoenix. It was way more livable to drive from Phoenix when I could dictate my travel times and just spend a week in a hotel every month. Someone recently asked me again about a big city, as much I was interested in the opportunity I was equally less interested in the metro area because it was too densely populated with a high living cost. I suppose at the end of the day a lot of folks don't have those choices which is why projects like the High Desert Corridor get proposed in the first place.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 17, 2019, 12:18:31 PM
Hell had the Division of Highways backed down during the 1960s when groups started aggressively objecting to potential projects in the mainstream they might still be here.
I take it that the premise here is that the DOH would have remained a singular agency instead of being "absorbed" into the broader Caltrans back in '73 if only they had been more accommodating to the groups objecting to their freeway-deploying activities, particularly in urban settings. If that consolidation had happened 2-3 years later during the first Jerry Brown administration, I'd be in full concurrence; but it happened during Ronald Reagan's 2nd term as governor -- and, if anything, freeway construction as a whole was proceeding as with previous years. The legislature was also more of a mixed bag then as well, with Republicans' and Democrats' dominance of either chamber shifting every few electoral cycles. The truth was that the fiscal problems endemic to transit agencies reached a head in the late '60's, and the state was dispersing funds to shore them up in any case; it was decided that since the state was in fact the funding agency of record, that all transportation-related expenses should be addressed under one umbrella. The "hand-slapping" of the DOH actually occurred with class-action lawsuits and other court cases; while the agency
had come under criticism from some urban-based jurisdictions and urban legislators, most of the urban freeway mileage at that time (save Sacramento) was already on the ground in 1973; it could be safely said that when Interstate funds became available at the beginning of 1957, the DOH judiciously elected to prioritize the more expensive urban mileage over rural segments (the polar opposite of many midwest states!), getting most of those out of the way by the time organized protest movements peaked in the '70's, except for the notable cases in San Francisco. That paid off for L.A., San Diego, and the remainder of the Bay Area; the proof of that particular pudding was the protracted negotiations for the Interstate "add-on" (part of the '68 additions) I-105/Century Freeway across south-central metro L.A. that delayed the project and drove the costs skyward -- and, of course, the ill-fated I-710 Pasadena extension, also with an "add-on" corridor. Of the '57 designations, the L.A. mileage essentially went of without a hitch except for the NIMBY protestations about the routing of I-210 in the decidedly wealthy La Canada/Flintridge area (that happened when I was in high school in Glendale and through a couple of my college years, so I had a front-row seat to the negotiations).
In short, Caltrans was formed from the DOH, the state aviation authority, and a smattering of lesser agencies simply to place fiscal responsibility and authority within one agency -- at least ostensibly for efficiency and cost-saving. It wasn't until several years later that internal conflicts effectively truncated road building for a few years, only to come back with a change of administrations -- but with a more bare-boned cost structure that emphasized penny-pinching measures.
Quote from: sparker on December 19, 2019, 07:36:09 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 17, 2019, 12:18:31 PM
Hell had the Division of Highways backed down during the 1960s when groups started aggressively objecting to potential projects in the mainstream they might still be here.
I take it that the premise here is that the DOH would have remained a singular agency instead of being "absorbed" into the broader Caltrans back in '73 if only they had been more accommodating to the groups objecting to their freeway-deploying activities, particularly in urban settings. If that consolidation had happened 2-3 years later during the first Jerry Brown administration, I'd be in full concurrence; but it happened during Ronald Reagan's 2nd term as governor -- and, if anything, freeway construction as a whole was proceeding as with previous years. The legislature was also more of a mixed bag then as well, with Republicans' and Democrats' dominance of either chamber shifting every few electoral cycles. The truth was that the fiscal problems endemic to transit agencies reached a head in the late '60's, and the state was dispersing funds to shore them up in any case; it was decided that since the state was in fact the funding agency of record, that all transportation-related expenses should be addressed under one umbrella. The "hand-slapping" of the DOH actually occurred with class-action lawsuits and other court cases; while the agency had come under criticism from some urban-based jurisdictions and urban legislators, most of the urban freeway mileage at that time (save Sacramento) was already on the ground in 1973; it could be safely said that when Interstate funds became available at the beginning of 1957, the DOH judiciously elected to prioritize the more expensive urban mileage over rural segments (the polar opposite of many midwest states!), getting most of those out of the way by the time organized protest movements peaked in the '70's, except for the notable cases in San Francisco. That paid off for L.A., San Diego, and the remainder of the Bay Area; the proof of that particular pudding was the protracted negotiations for the Interstate "add-on" (part of the '68 additions) I-105/Century Freeway across south-central metro L.A. that delayed the project and drove the costs skyward -- and, of course, the ill-fated I-710 Pasadena extension, also with an "add-on" corridor. Of the '57 designations, the L.A. mileage essentially went of without a hitch except for the NIMBY protestations about the routing of I-210 in the decidedly wealthy La Canada/Flintridge area (that happened when I was in high school in Glendale and through a couple of my college years, so I had a front-row seat to the negotiations).
In short, Caltrans was formed from the DOH, the state aviation authority, and a smattering of lesser agencies simply to place fiscal responsibility and authority within one agency -- at least ostensibly for efficiency and cost-saving. It wasn't until several years later that internal conflicts effectively truncated road building for a few years, only to come back with a change of administrations -- but with a more bare-boned cost structure that emphasized penny-pinching measures.
I was more getting at the often unintended long term effects of attempting to downsize/consolidate government agencies which often was a staple of how Reagan (this is a minor political take related solely to the topic of roads in California) ran things at every level of governance. All that money being spent coupled with the push to build in expensive urban areas first certainly didn't help ward off those that would have said the DOH was operating out of control or without restraint. Granted hindsight is always 20/20 but it seems Caltrans is far less focused (and seemingly less aggressive) of an agency because it has it's hands so other avenues of transportation aside from highways.
^^^^^^^^^^^
The view that the current Caltrans lacks focus -- particularly in terms of a consistent approach to just about anything concerning their highway network (besides a fond desire to get rid of as much urban surface mileage as feasible) -- is pretty accurate. All one has to do is peruse any of the last two or three STIP's to see what the agency's current charge is -- the level of expenditure on local items outside the state system has seen a marked increase with each 6-year timeframe -- for both local road/street projects and transit provision. The agency seems to have virtually relinquished their traditional leading role in even interregional projects; it seems like more and more impetus begins at the local/MPO level, with Caltrans simply becoming the vehicle that organizes and provides the technical aspects of the various projects once they're in process. Also, they seem to be attempting to keep a very low profile when it comes to road projects less they piss off the more PC/modern urban groups by appearing to favor that mode of transportation. It's almost an outright miracle that a few significant projects such as the work on CA 58, the gradual upgrading of CA 99, 80/680/12 Cordelia Junction, and the expansion of I-5 in SE L.A. County have actually come about! But there's so much left to do -- even if big urban road projects are now non-starters -- commercial traffic continues to increase on the various interregional connectors -- which is the current driving force now that what emphasis on roads that remains has shifted outward from the denser urbanized areas. With the current trend toward items delivered from regional hubs (Amazon, Walmart, etc.) the sheer volume of commercial movement to address just consumer needs -- in addition to the usual volume of B-to-B activity -- tends to highly tax, if not overwhelm, the state's roadway connections. Even addressing a few longstanding discrepancies -- a 58/14 freeway connector, the Los Banos 152 bypass (and other sections of that route as well!), full extension of CA 58 to I-5 -- plus others scattered around the state -- would go a long way toward ameliorating, if not resolving, many in-state needs. But I certainly concur that the agency needs to regain some of its former level of focus to do so -- hopefully, that'll start with the individual districts and work its way back up the chain to Sacramento HQ. They need to come to the realization that despite the fervent wishes of a few, automotive commercial, recreational, and workplace travel -- regardless of the fuel source -- isn't going to disappear anytime in the near future, and that they're the ones that will need to deal with that reality.
Caltrans and California will once again focus on road and freeway expansions as they will have no other choice. It is a matter of time before this anti freeway/road diet crap comes to a head and once it does I believe sanity will prevail again.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 21, 2019, 09:31:09 AM
Caltrans and California will once again focus on road and freeway expansions as they will have no other choice. It is a matter of time before this anti freeway/road diet crap comes to a head and once it does I believe sanity will prevail again.
To that end some of the apathetic mindset has been abated by recent maintenance concerns and some large public support for some of the projects that Sparker described. Nothing really tends to ebb one way or another for an indefinite period of times, usually DOTs tend to changes in response to public wants and/or needs. As an example; Michigan used to be the National punching bag for not maintaining roads, especially as "Pure Potholes" became an internet meme. While that perception still exists I'd argue that MDOT has done a very good job in the past two decades bringing the State Trunklines back towards an acceptable standards. I'd say Caltrans is in a similar position right now that MDOT was two decades ago, only time will tell of some of the changes happening now will stick. SB1 at least in my area has been a huge help, even though it was unpopular due to all the clauses about mass transportation.
FWIW, I would not have voted for SB1 without the mass transit provisions. I'm a firm believer in both improving the both roads and transportation systems for those who don't use cars for whatever reason. There are valid business arguments for supporting mass transit, including making sure employees can actually get to work. I know a lot of readers here are against mass transit and think we should just build new highways. I get similar blowback from the other side when I post on urbanist sites where some idiots want to destroy all cars and force everyone to use mass transit and bicycles. We need both, even if you don't use one or the other. Not everyone is going to Uber when they don't have a car.
Getting back to the topic at hand, a transit line parallel to the High Desert Highway would have allowed many families who have one person working in LA to own one car mostly for local use and use mass transit for work commutes to LA. The highway corridor would have coordinated planning so that future high density developments and commercial districts would be concentrated around interchanges and transit stations rather than the haphazard development we now see along the 18/138 corridor. I agree with those who think this highway is needed. I'm disappointed it's not being built, even with the mass transit ROW preserved for a system to be built later rather than being built concurrently. From my POV, we just blew a great chance to build the core of a smart, integrated transportation network to serve people and businesses from Palmdale to Victorville.
Quote from: skluth on December 21, 2019, 07:40:10 PM
FWIW, I would not have voted for SB1 without the mass transit provisions. I'm a firm believer in both improving the both roads and transportation systems for those who don't use cars for whatever reason. There are valid business arguments for supporting mass transit, including making sure employees can actually get to work. I know a lot of readers here are against mass transit and think we should just build new highways. I get similar blowback from the other side when I post on urbanist sites where some idiots want to destroy all cars and force everyone to use mass transit and bicycles. We need both, even if you don't use one or the other. Not everyone is going to Uber when they don't have a car.
Getting back to the topic at hand, a transit line parallel to the High Desert Highway would have allowed many families who have one person working in LA to own one car mostly for local use and use mass transit for work commutes to LA. The highway corridor would have coordinated planning so that future high density developments and commercial districts would be concentrated around interchanges and transit stations rather than the haphazard development we now see along the 18/138 corridor. I agree with those who think this highway is needed. I'm disappointed it's not being built, even with the mass transit ROW preserved for a system to be built later rather than being built concurrently. From my POV, we just blew a great chance to build the core of a smart, integrated transportation network to serve people and businesses from Palmdale to Victorville.
Bingo! You hit the nail on the head with your proposal. Might as well get things set up before all that land fills up, which it most certainly will.
Rick
Quote from: nexus73 on December 21, 2019, 11:12:02 PM
Quote from: skluth on December 21, 2019, 07:40:10 PM
FWIW, I would not have voted for SB1 without the mass transit provisions. I'm a firm believer in both improving the both roads and transportation systems for those who don't use cars for whatever reason. There are valid business arguments for supporting mass transit, including making sure employees can actually get to work. I know a lot of readers here are against mass transit and think we should just build new highways. I get similar blowback from the other side when I post on urbanist sites where some idiots want to destroy all cars and force everyone to use mass transit and bicycles. We need both, even if you don't use one or the other. Not everyone is going to Uber when they don't have a car.
Getting back to the topic at hand, a transit line parallel to the High Desert Highway would have allowed many families who have one person working in LA to own one car mostly for local use and use mass transit for work commutes to LA. The highway corridor would have coordinated planning so that future high density developments and commercial districts would be concentrated around interchanges and transit stations rather than the haphazard development we now see along the 18/138 corridor. I agree with those who think this highway is needed. I'm disappointed it's not being built, even with the mass transit ROW preserved for a system to be built later rather than being built concurrently. From my POV, we just blew a great chance to build the core of a smart, integrated transportation network to serve people and businesses from Palmdale to Victorville.
Bingo! You hit the nail on the head with your proposal. Might as well get things set up before all that land fills up, which it most certainly will.
Rick
Seems like the gist of the argument against the HDC was the increased potential for additional housing filling up the area between Palmdale/Lancaster and Victorville/Hesperia. What mitigated against that with the HDC plans was a deliberate lack of interchanges along the tolled facility -- essentially nothing between 47th Avenue in Palmdale and US 395 except for a single interchange to serve the existing community at Lake Los Angeles (which has been and is primarily a retirement site). If, as I expect, local pressure will eventually result in a more conventional freeway facility along CA 138 and CA 18 -- and it most likely
will feature a multitude of interchanges -- it'll be the type of thing that does enhance the chance of residential development. But the employment situation out in the desert isn't likely to expand much beyond its current meager pickings unless somehow defense spending increases multifold (even the presence of WalMart's major SoCal distribution center in Victorville can't supply that many jobs); most living out there endure the commute down, alternately, I-15 or CA 14. Putting massive housing tracts near Lake L.A. or even up against the mountains near Pearblossom or Littlerock isn't really in the cards; infill within a few miles of the major N-S arterials (14, 395, 15) is considerably more feasible -- and even popular -- than further expansion into that 40 miles of effective nothing between the existing (sub/ex)urban boundaries. Commuters, particularly hourly workers, are willing to endure the 50 miles between Victorville and the employment centers in Fontana and Ontario for houses still hovering around $200-250K -- but to add another 20-odd miles to that would likely be a bridge too far unless the housing would be
much cheaper (well below $140-150K) as well as reasonably attractive. At present the economics of building housing anywhere in CA mitigate against that happening -- so developers' eyeing of that stretch of land straddling the L.A.-S.B. county line is something that won't likely happen in the foreseeable future -- there's just too much remaining open land between the existing tracts nearer the routes heading over the hill.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 21, 2019, 01:38:12 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 21, 2019, 09:31:09 AM
Caltrans and California will once again focus on road and freeway expansions as they will have no other choice. It is a matter of time before this anti freeway/road diet crap comes to a head and once it does I believe sanity will prevail again.
To that end some of the apathetic mindset has been abated by recent maintenance concerns and some large public support for some of the projects that Sparker described. Nothing really tends to ebb one way or another for an indefinite period of times, usually DOTs tend to changes in response to public wants and/or needs. As an example; Michigan used to be the National punching bag for not maintaining roads, especially as "Pure Potholes" became an internet meme. While that perception still exists I'd argue that MDOT has done a very good job in the past two decades bringing the State Trunklines back towards an acceptable standards. I'd say Caltrans is in a similar position right now that MDOT was two decades ago, only time will tell of some of the changes happening now will stick. SB1 at least in my area has been a huge help, even though it was unpopular due to all the clauses about mass transportation.
The mass transit part was ultimately one of the reasons I almost voted no mainly because I didn't see any big ticket projects to mass transit made possible from SB-1 but even if there were some I'm not a huge fan of mass transit being directly subsidized from revenue made from cars like gas taxes or tolls. I'd rather other means of funding was had for mass transit. The road network in California is so bad especially on a local level that every penny possible from user fees should go to maintenance. I'd argue expansion but for the time being that would open a can of worms and preservation is most important right now.
Quote from: sparker on December 19, 2019, 07:36:09 PM
I take it that the premise here is that the DOH would have remained a singular agency instead of being "absorbed" into the broader Caltrans back in '73 if only they had been more accommodating to the groups objecting to their freeway-deploying activities, particularly in urban settings.
The U.S. Department of Transportation was created in 1966-1967. Basically the vast majority of states followed this pattern in the next few years. I think this was the impetus for California creating a statewide DOT, not local factors.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 19, 2019, 07:22:03 PM
Regarding how people with low incomes live in dense and expensive areas I can hit on that from some of my own experience. Most people who are working entry level jobs either live with family or have roommates to share the cost of rent, I had to do the latter in my early adult life. For some people I suppose that mode of living is fine but I absolutely hated having almost no privacy and solitude. Once I got established in what I do I was able to get further and further from having to live in a big city or even metro area. Granted, I what I'm describing about high urban living costs is a new phenomenon, there are all sorts of old time stories about industrial cities in the Mid-West that were similar.
Regarding urban sprawl, that has proliferated greatly since freeways began being built. A lot of people want to blame urban sprawl on the freeway but it has just as much to do with dense living conditions and high costs. I'd argue that freeway development sped up the pace of urban sprawl but wasn't the cause of it. People eventually on a large scale were going to want more livable and less costly living space eventually. What tends to kill the suburban life style is the absurd and unlivable commute times many of the big Metro Areas have.
Somewhat topical to this discussion, I've been offered two transfers to the Los Angeles/Inland Empire Area and San Diego once. In my particular case I had those cities in my area of responsibility already from Phoenix. It was way more livable to drive from Phoenix when I could dictate my travel times and just spend a week in a hotel every month. Someone recently asked me again about a big city, as much I was interested in the opportunity I was equally less interested in the metro area because it was too densely populated with a high living cost. I suppose at the end of the day a lot of folks don't have those choices which is why projects like the High Desert Corridor get proposed in the first place.
As many of us know, decentralization in Southern California was initially made possible by the Pacific Electric Trolley System. Once car ownership became available to the masses, freeways were inevitable to allow people to get between their workplaces in Downtown LA and the newly created suburbs. Even more important with defense industry jobs in El Segundo and Long Beach (McDonnell Douglas). If anything, freeways helped Downtown remain relevant longer. People would have continued living in the suburbs anyway but they remained connected to the core via the automobile.
Ironically, most other developing countries are increasing their pace of freeway building. Globally, this is the future. Eventually California will catch up, once people grow tired of the continued deterioration of our infrastructure. Even with freeways that move less than 5 MPH, most travel is still done by private automobile, not mass transit.
The 138 corridor will fill in as the demand for housing will not abate. Once it does, that freeway will get built - toll or no toll. Hopefully they do the smart thing like they did with the 210 and leave some room. It really is sad when established neighborhoods have to be torn down (like Westpark in Bakersfield for the Centennial 58 Freeway). That was so unnecessary had the freeway just been built when it was first planned.
Quote from: don1991 on May 30, 2020, 03:57:28 AM
As many of us know, decentralization in Southern California was initially made possible by the Pacific Electric Trolley System. Once car ownership became available to the masses, freeways were inevitable to allow people to get between their workplaces in Downtown LA and the newly created suburbs. Even more important with defense industry jobs in El Segundo and Long Beach (McDonnell Douglas). If anything, freeways helped Downtown remain relevant longer. People would have continued living in the suburbs anyway but they remained connected to the core via the automobile.
Ironically, most other developing countries are increasing their pace of freeway building. Globally, this is the future. Eventually California will catch up, once people grow tired of the continued deterioration of our infrastructure. Even with freeways that move less than 5 MPH, most travel is still done by private automobile, not mass transit.
The 138 corridor will fill in as the demand for housing will not abate. Once it does, that freeway will get built - toll or no toll. Hopefully they do the smart thing like they did with the 210 and leave some room. It really is sad when established neighborhoods have to be torn down (like Westpark in Bakersfield for the Centennial 58 Freeway). That was so unnecessary had the freeway just been built when it was first planned.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 19, 2019, 07:22:03 PM
Regarding how people with low incomes live in dense and expensive areas I can hit on that from some of my own experience. Most people who are working entry level jobs either live with family or have roommates to share the cost of rent, I had to do the latter in my early adult life. For some people I suppose that mode of living is fine but I absolutely hated having almost no privacy and solitude. Once I got established in what I do I was able to get further and further from having to live in a big city or even metro area. Granted, I what I'm describing about high urban living costs is a new phenomenon, there are all sorts of old time stories about industrial cities in the Mid-West that were similar.
Regarding urban sprawl, that has proliferated greatly since freeways began being built. A lot of people want to blame urban sprawl on the freeway but it has just as much to do with dense living conditions and high costs. I'd argue that freeway development sped up the pace of urban sprawl but wasn't the cause of it. People eventually on a large scale were going to want more livable and less costly living space eventually. What tends to kill the suburban life style is the absurd and unlivable commute times many of the big Metro Areas have.
Somewhat topical to this discussion, I've been offered two transfers to the Los Angeles/Inland Empire Area and San Diego once. In my particular case I had those cities in my area of responsibility already from Phoenix. It was way more livable to drive from Phoenix when I could dictate my travel times and just spend a week in a hotel every month. Someone recently asked me again about a big city, as much I was interested in the opportunity I was equally less interested in the metro area because it was too densely populated with a high living cost. I suppose at the end of the day a lot of folks don't have those choices which is why projects like the High Desert Corridor get proposed in the first place.
Near its western terminus, the HDC followed a path previously reserved for the 1994-rescinded "Metropolitan Bypass" along CA 138. That alignment had been adopted in the mid-60's, so nothing was built along a 2-block wide path between central Palmdale and the old Lockheed "skunk works" research/development site. The HDC as originally planned, with rail in the median between a 3+3 road configuration, would have essentially occupied one block width (likely right down the middle, leaving room for frontage stuff). But since it's cut back to rail only -- and the "worst case analysis", HSR, would likely only be half to 2/3 the original width; there's room to snake in a CA 138 freeway which would curve down parallel to the existing Palmdale Blvd/47th Avenue alignment of the current route. IMO, eventually a freeway
will be built parallel to CA 138, just not under the auspices of the existing HDC authority. Now -- whether, once in San Bernardino County, it stays along 138 or shifts to CA 18 due east to Victorville is yet TBD; since any such activity is unlikely to occur within the next 15 years or so, it'll remain a mystery for the time being.
Nevertheless I stand by my assessment that any near-to-mid-term housing development north of the San Gabriels will probably be configured as
infill rather than expansion between the L.A. and San Bernardino County desert population centers. When I left Hesperia in 2012, that was one of the principal planning topics; the four incorporated cities were in basic agreement about the desirability of infill -- and the major regional developers were in concert with that -- probably because the closer to I-15 or CA 14 the property, the more that it would bring on the market. Outward development brings addition costs of dragging utilities out past their current service areas, which would have to be built into the price of any residence -- but that would be up against the opposing force of even cheaper housing to offset commute costs. Eventually the margins won't be practical for development without massive employment shift to nearby areas -- and the Inland Empire has yet to "fill up" with such; deployment of new facilities there is ongoing. Right now the tracts extend 2-3 miles west of US 395 in both Victorville and Adelanto, and only east about to Avenue 60-64 in Palmdale (and most Lancaster development is west of the old Sierra Highway). I wouldn't expect that to shift until the vacant lands within the already developed areas are reasonably full.
And Max is on to something -- there's something of a "chicken vs. egg" dichotomy about housing development either
preceding or
following roadway development in a given area. I did a study regarding that issue back in the early '90's; the conclusions (historically, statistically, and even anecdotally!) were that if there's an existing road facility of reasonable capacity serving an area -- and that area is economically favorable for development -- then development will likely occur. Also -- if a new-terrain facility of, again, reasonable capacity is constructed into a region -- and the same economic factors are present --
and the local jurisdictions support or at minimum don't obstruct such development via taxes, zoning, and other obstacles -- then development is also likely to occur. But
capacity increases on existing facilities has only a marginal effect on housing expansion. In short, if a multilane highway already serves an area, that is usually sufficient to promote housing given the market needs for such -- and because a conventional highway can also host amenities such as shopping areas, services, etc., it could be considered to be something of a benefit in that regard. Commuters, especially long-distance ones (40+ miles/direction), tend to be "vicinity-centered" -- e.g., once an Ontario-employed worker gets out to Hesperia or Victorville via I-15, she or he considers it to be "home territory" once off the freeway, even if it means there's another 8-10 miles of surface street in the commute. Except for the HDC-extension CA 18 expressway planned to bypass Apple Valley around its north side, there hasn't been much push for limited-access E-W corridors to serve the existing housing areas. The length of the commute seems to be internalized rather quickly by those having to endure it. But even with that there are limitations; once past "old" Apple Valley, there's little in the way of discernable development. About 12 miles distant from I-15 seems to be about the limit; with CA 14 in L.A. County, it's more like 6-7 east of the freeway and 8-10 to the west. That still leaves 30-odd miles in between the edges that consists of widely spaced old housing stock, only interrupted by the Lake Los Angeles retirement community. The original HDC plans, which lacked interim interchanges save for Lake L.A., likely wouldn't have prompted any development in heretofore "pristine" areas; but if a freeway is ever deployed within shouting distance of present CA 138, all bets are off as regards interchange spacing, adjacent zoning standards, etc. At least with the HDC one could be assured that the facility wasn't development-friendly. But with current (and likely future) budget restrictions, it'll likely be at least 15-20 years before any major corridor upgrades are even on the table -- so that 30 miles of unreclaimed desert will remain as such for the foreseeable future.
Quote from: sparker on May 30, 2020, 05:37:48 PM
Quote from: don1991 on May 30, 2020, 03:57:28 AM
As many of us know, decentralization in Southern California was initially made possible by the Pacific Electric Trolley System. Once car ownership became available to the masses, freeways were inevitable to allow people to get between their workplaces in Downtown LA and the newly created suburbs. Even more important with defense industry jobs in El Segundo and Long Beach (McDonnell Douglas). If anything, freeways helped Downtown remain relevant longer. People would have continued living in the suburbs anyway but they remained connected to the core via the automobile.
Ironically, most other developing countries are increasing their pace of freeway building. Globally, this is the future. Eventually California will catch up, once people grow tired of the continued deterioration of our infrastructure. Even with freeways that move less than 5 MPH, most travel is still done by private automobile, not mass transit.
The 138 corridor will fill in as the demand for housing will not abate. Once it does, that freeway will get built - toll or no toll. Hopefully they do the smart thing like they did with the 210 and leave some room. It really is sad when established neighborhoods have to be torn down (like Westpark in Bakersfield for the Centennial 58 Freeway). That was so unnecessary had the freeway just been built when it was first planned.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 19, 2019, 07:22:03 PM
Regarding how people with low incomes live in dense and expensive areas I can hit on that from some of my own experience. Most people who are working entry level jobs either live with family or have roommates to share the cost of rent, I had to do the latter in my early adult life. For some people I suppose that mode of living is fine but I absolutely hated having almost no privacy and solitude. Once I got established in what I do I was able to get further and further from having to live in a big city or even metro area. Granted, I what I'm describing about high urban living costs is a new phenomenon, there are all sorts of old time stories about industrial cities in the Mid-West that were similar.
Regarding urban sprawl, that has proliferated greatly since freeways began being built. A lot of people want to blame urban sprawl on the freeway but it has just as much to do with dense living conditions and high costs. I'd argue that freeway development sped up the pace of urban sprawl but wasn't the cause of it. People eventually on a large scale were going to want more livable and less costly living space eventually. What tends to kill the suburban life style is the absurd and unlivable commute times many of the big Metro Areas have.
Somewhat topical to this discussion, I've been offered two transfers to the Los Angeles/Inland Empire Area and San Diego once. In my particular case I had those cities in my area of responsibility already from Phoenix. It was way more livable to drive from Phoenix when I could dictate my travel times and just spend a week in a hotel every month. Someone recently asked me again about a big city, as much I was interested in the opportunity I was equally less interested in the metro area because it was too densely populated with a high living cost. I suppose at the end of the day a lot of folks don't have those choices which is why projects like the High Desert Corridor get proposed in the first place.
Near its western terminus, the HDC followed a path previously reserved for the 1994-rescinded "Metropolitan Bypass" along CA 138. That alignment had been adopted in the mid-60's, so nothing was built along a 2-block wide path between central Palmdale and the old Lockheed "skunk works" research/development site. The HDC as originally planned, with rail in the median between a 3+3 road configuration, would have essentially occupied one block width (likely right down the middle, leaving room for frontage stuff). But since it's cut back to rail only -- and the "worst case analysis", HSR, would likely only be half to 2/3 the original width; there's room to snake in a CA 138 freeway which would curve down parallel to the existing Palmdale Blvd/47th Avenue alignment of the current route. IMO, eventually a freeway will be built parallel to CA 138, just not under the auspices of the existing HDC authority. Now -- whether, once in San Bernardino County, it stays along 138 or shifts to CA 18 due east to Victorville is yet TBD; since any such activity is unlikely to occur within the next 15 years or so, it'll remain a mystery for the time being.
Nevertheless I stand by my assessment that any near-to-mid-term housing development north of the San Gabriels will probably be configured as infill rather than expansion between the L.A. and San Bernardino County desert population centers. When I left Hesperia in 2012, that was one of the principal planning topics; the four incorporated cities were in basic agreement about the desirability of infill -- and the major regional developers were in concert with that -- probably because the closer to I-15 or CA 14 the property, the more that it would bring on the market. Outward development brings addition costs of dragging utilities out past their current service areas, which would have to be built into the price of any residence -- but that would be up against the opposing force of even cheaper housing to offset commute costs. Eventually the margins won't be practical for development without massive employment shift to nearby areas -- and the Inland Empire has yet to "fill up" with such; deployment of new facilities there is ongoing. Right now the tracts extend 2-3 miles west of US 395 in both Victorville and Adelanto, and only east about to Avenue 60-64 in Palmdale (and most Lancaster development is west of the old Sierra Highway). I wouldn't expect that to shift until the vacant lands within the already developed areas are reasonably full.
And Max is on to something -- there's something of a "chicken vs. egg" dichotomy about housing development either preceding or following roadway development in a given area. I did a study regarding that issue back in the early '90's; the conclusions (historically, statistically, and even anecdotally!) were that if there's an existing road facility of reasonable capacity serving an area -- and that area is economically favorable for development -- then development will likely occur. Also -- if a new-terrain facility of, again, reasonable capacity is constructed into a region -- and the same economic factors are present -- and the local jurisdictions support or at minimum don't obstruct such development via taxes, zoning, and other obstacles -- then development is also likely to occur. But capacity increases on existing facilities has only a marginal effect on housing expansion. In short, if a multilane highway already serves an area, that is usually sufficient to promote housing given the market needs for such -- and because a conventional highway can also host amenities such as shopping areas, services, etc., it could be considered to be something of a benefit in that regard. Commuters, especially long-distance ones (40+ miles/direction), tend to be "vicinity-centered" -- e.g., once an Ontario-employed worker gets out to Hesperia or Victorville via I-15, she or he considers it to be "home territory" once off the freeway, even if it means there's another 8-10 miles of surface street in the commute. Except for the HDC-extension CA 18 expressway planned to bypass Apple Valley around its north side, there hasn't been much push for limited-access E-W corridors to serve the existing housing areas. The length of the commute seems to be internalized rather quickly by those having to endure it. But even with that there are limitations; once past "old" Apple Valley, there's little in the way of discernable development. About 12 miles distant from I-15 seems to be about the limit; with CA 14 in L.A. County, it's more like 6-7 east of the freeway and 8-10 to the west. That still leaves 30-odd miles in between the edges that consists of widely spaced old housing stock, only interrupted by the Lake Los Angeles retirement community. The original HDC plans, which lacked interim interchanges save for Lake L.A., likely wouldn't have prompted any development in heretofore "pristine" areas; but if a freeway is ever deployed within shouting distance of present CA 138, all bets are off as regards interchange spacing, adjacent zoning standards, etc. At least with the HDC one could be assured that the facility wasn't development-friendly. But with current (and likely future) budget restrictions, it'll likely be at least 15-20 years before any major corridor upgrades are even on the table -- so that 30 miles of unreclaimed desert will remain as such for the foreseeable future.
You'd be surprised. I watched western Bakersfield mushroom well before Westside Parkway was a for-sure plan. The housing came in anyway and the developers just helped build wide arterials to substitute for the freeways.
This is what is happening in the High Desert as well. Hesperia, Victorville, and Apple Valley are marching well east of I-15 using a widened Bear Valley Road and Main Street. In Palmdale, Pearblossom Highway (which Google maps incorrectly identifies as CA-122) is a main corridor for new housing development. West of CA-14, Palmdale is growing fast, relying on wide arterials.
In Riverside County, Hemet, San Jacinto, and other areas east and west of I-215 have seen significant growth without any assurance of new freeways. Mid-County "Parkway" and the future CA-79 Freeway in Hemet / San Jacinto will help but those roads were only confirmed a few years ago. West of I-215, there is much more uncertainty, with the best hope being an "Ethanac Expressway" which will be more of a hybrid expressway / upgraded arterial than anything. But I guarantee you those housing developments are going in.
Along the 138 and points north and south between Palmdale and Victorville / Adelanto / Hesperia, I believe the housing will come first and developers will agree to fund arterial expansion in exchange for being able to build. Once things get critical, the freeway will be built. I hope there is some plan to at least preserve ROW.
Thanks to CAHWYGUY for posting a link to Metro's proposal to shift HDH funds to high speed rail (https://la.streetsblog.org/2020/08/19/metro-looks-to-shift-high-desert-freeway-funds-to-high-speed-rail/) on his California Highways page (https://cahighways.org/wordpress/?p=15949). I thought this thread might be a better place to discuss this.
First, I want to say I still think the highway should be built. I'm not big on new freeways and have even argued elsewhere on AA Roads for freeway removal in select locations. However, this is a highway that will inevitably be needed so it's best to get it right early while the land is mostly undeveloped.
I will say that if this moves forward, I would like enough ROW retained for a possible parallel freeway or expressway. A coordinated transportation corridor will help concentrate commercial and denser residential development near stations and interchanges serving a wide variety of economic levels. I do like HSR aspect, though I think a heavy commuter rail (with some non-stop express trains for the Las Vegas tourists) running at 80-100 mph between stations would be an reasonable, cheaper option.
From my POV, the most important item for the present is identifying the corridor and starting land acquisition. Retrofitting anything is a pain in the butt for planners (I minored in Regional Planning ages ago) and having an identified, prepared corridor is the #1 defense against future NIMBY opposition. It can also build momentum to actually build what's planned. I know state finances are tight right now with COVID-induced job and business losses reducing incoming money and half the state aflame, but obtaining the corridor and starting any environmental impact analysis can still be done.
I'd like to see the HSR project built. HSR is in the 200 mph range, and it's essential for superior travel times to cars. A medium speed rail project won't get a comparable ridership. How much use would the freeways get if their maximum speed limit were 45 mph?
Quote from: kkt on September 02, 2020, 03:58:25 AM
I'd like to see the HSR project built. HSR is in the 200 mph range, and it's essential for superior travel times to cars. A medium speed rail project won't get a comparable ridership. How much use would the freeways get if their maximum speed limit were 45 mph?
Any intermediate stations will have bypass tracks that will allow trains that are running 'express' (no stops between their terminals) to safely blow through at full track speed. Assuming that this is built, it will use the CAHSR (California High Speed Rail) line that is planned to run between Palmdale and Los Angeles Union Station via CA 14 (Soledad Canyon), which will involve extensive tunneling.
Yes, I also believe that the CA 18/138 corridor will require major highway upgrades as time passes, regardless of what the enviros have to say about it.
Mike
Hm. I wonder why they made that choice. HSR can go up or down steeper grades than most railroads, so tunneling should be less necessary.
Quote from: mgk920 on September 03, 2020, 12:49:18 AM
Quote from: kkt on September 02, 2020, 03:58:25 AM
I'd like to see the HSR project built. HSR is in the 200 mph range, and it's essential for superior travel times to cars. A medium speed rail project won't get a comparable ridership. How much use would the freeways get if their maximum speed limit were 45 mph?
Any intermediate stations will have bypass tracks that will allow trains that are running 'express' (no stops between their terminals) to safely blow through at full track speed. Assuming that this is built, it will use the CAHSR (California High Speed Rail) line that is planned to run between Palmdale and Los Angeles Union Station via CA 14 (Soledad Canyon), which will involve extensive tunneling.
Yes, I also believe that the CA 18/138 corridor will require major highway upgrades as time passes, regardless of what the enviros have to say about it.
Mike
IIRC the HSR project between L.A. and Palmdale utilizes the existing Metrolink (former UP/SP) line from LAUPT to the desert -- with some upgrades, but the HSR itself will slow down to generally south of 100mph over that line; that was a compromise to avoid extensive (and ridiculously expensive) property acquisition in metro L.A. The line will be "straightened out" as much as possible, although right now it snakes through Soledad Canyon and utilizes a long tunnel between Sylmar and Newhall (which will itself likely require a parallel facility). The actual 200 mph HSR commences near Lancaster and is intended to extend over the Tehachapi Mountains to Bakersfield via a series of tunnels and excavation; it'll head up the valley from there.
Over in another thread it was mentioned that the timing of the interest in the rail portion seems to "dovetail" with the start of construction on the Victorville-Vegas semi-high-speed passenger service (private financing); extending the service west into L.A. County at Palmdale would allow it to connect with not only the HSR path but also Metrolink's Antelope Valley line (which as per above will be upgraded to accommodate HSR). The upshot is that if that happens, the service could conceivably extend itself to LAUPT -- or simply utilize Metrolink or eventually the state HSR for the same purposes. Potentially it could also allow Metrolink to extend east to Victorville for commute purposes -- although in reality most commuting from the Victor Valley area heads straight down I-15 to employment centers in the Inland Empire. But BNSF has yet to be convinced to allow Metrolink to use its tracks over Cajon Pass to extend service from San Bernardino out to the desert due to scheduling issues (that's part of the rail line's "Transcon" container "conveyor belt", with virtually constant freight movements in both directions -- I should know; I lived a half-block from those tracks for three years!). That being said -- it's likely that the first usage of any Victorville-Palmdale trackage along the HDC alignment would most certainly be related to the Vegas service.
Quote from: kkt on September 03, 2020, 01:57:52 AM
Hm. I wonder why they made that choice. HSR can go up or down steeper grades than most railroads, so tunneling should be less necessary.
Regardless of the specific physics involved with HSR, it's still steel wheels on steel rails, so there's still a traction and/or "slippage" factor involved with rail gradients -- even with the momentum achieved at 200 mph, a train will slow down to some degree when a hill -- particularly when grades over 2-3% (a 2 to 3 foot elevation gain over 100 feet of track) are encountered. The current joint BNSF/UP line paralleling CA 58 over the Tehachapi grade maxes out at about 2.2% eastward -- considered the practical maximum for efficient freight movement; in this case, it moves, on average, about 15-20 mph uphill for a loaded 120-car container train with five distributed-power 4000 HP locomotives doing the work. That's why a completely new offsite alignment for HSR, utilizing extensive tunneling and very high-radius curvature, is in the process of design -- to maintain speeds of at least 170 mph, a maximum 2% grade can be employed with curvature radii of roughly a mile, heavily banked. Arguably the Tehachapi section will be the most costly to construct of all the planned HSR mileage, with Pacheco Pass alongside CA 152 a close second.
See https://hsr.ca.gov/high_speed_rail/maps/project_sections_stations.aspx
(This is seriously interesting!)
Palmdale-Burbank, the drawings that I have seen over the past couple of years are for a new-ROW full-speed HSR line to run between Palmdale and a planned station in the Burbank area that would involve extensive tunneling. They are currently evaluating engineering alternatives on this section.
https://hsr.ca.gov/docs/programs/statewide_rail/proj_sections/palmdale_burbank/Palmdale_Burbank_New_Alternatives_Only.pdf
(dated 2018)
Beyond this section:
Burbank-Los Angeles Union Station, preferred alternative (this looks to be mostly a combination of upgraded existing tracks and newly laid tracks within the existing ROW):
https://hsr.ca.gov/docs/newsroom/maps/Burbank_to_LA.pdf
Palmdale to Bakersfield, via Tehachapi Pass (alternatives are still being evaluated on this section):
https://hsr.ca.gov/docs/newsroom/maps/Bakersfield_to_Palmdale.pdf
(dated November, 2019)
Enjoy!
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on September 03, 2020, 04:08:45 PM
See https://hsr.ca.gov/high_speed_rail/maps/project_sections_stations.aspx
(This is seriously interesting!)
Palmdale-Burbank, the drawings that I have seen over the past couple of years are for a new-ROW full-speed HSR line to run between Palmdale and a planned station in the Burbank area that would involve extensive tunneling. They are currently evaluating engineering alternatives on this section.
https://hsr.ca.gov/docs/programs/statewide_rail/proj_sections/palmdale_burbank/Palmdale_Burbank_New_Alternatives_Only.pdf
(dated 2018)
Beyond this section:
Burbank-Los Angeles Union Station, preferred alternative (this looks to be mostly a combination of upgraded existing tracks and newly laid tracks within the existing ROW):
https://hsr.ca.gov/docs/newsroom/maps/Burbank_to_LA.pdf
Palmdale to Bakersfield, via Tehachapi Pass (alternatives are still being evaluated on this section):
https://hsr.ca.gov/docs/newsroom/maps/Bakersfield_to_Palmdale.pdf
(dated November, 2019)
Enjoy!
Mike
I knew that there was a tunnel alternative that broke away from both CA 14 and the existing Metrolink line and emerged somewhere around Sun Valley or Pacoima, but the "cheap-out" option of rebuilding the Metrolink line to accommodate about 90-110 mph all the way from LAUPT to Palmdale was the front-runner as of a couple of years ago, which would have slowed down the overall trip from SoCal to the Bay Area by about an hour or so. Looks like they've gotten back to the original 200 mph concept with the requisite tunneling and viaducts needed to do so in the available topology -- which, except for the inevitable cost overruns, is a step in the right direction for the entire concept -- i.e., if it's truly going to be HSR, don't cripple it with intervening segments of slow-speed travel. Contrary to how the concept was "sold" to the public circa 2007-08, the ridership for HSR is likely to be drawn from those currently utilizing airline travel (largely meaning Southwest, with a little Alaska Air mixed in). While it might shave off a few solo-driver trips from I-5 or US 101, my best guesstimate is that if and when completed the effect on highway use will be marginal at best. If someone has things to schlep between the metro areas that can't be stowed in luggage, they're still going to make the trip with their vehicle. HSR will get those folks who (a) want to try it as a novelty -- maybe they'll like it and use it as a regular air travel alternative, (b) with all else equal would rather not deal with airports, TSA, airport parking, etc., (c) fearful of flying and only do so for business or emergency reasons (d) don't have Teslas that they want to try out on I-5 just to see what electric 0-60 will do for them (if the CHP didn't have radio communication, a model S would render them toast in short order!). :sombrero: But riders will still need to get to a HSR station in a fashion similar to that of any collective transportation mode (interesting that one's planned to be integrated with the Burbank airport -- I'm old enough to remember that as Lockheed Field!). It's just difficult to see a
unique ridership group for HSR -- and the prospect of significantly reducing over-the-road trips isn't terribly bright.
But I wonder if any of the structures or tunnels on the rail line will be named after Jerry Brown!
Yea, any slow zones or intermediate station stops will render the entire system non-competitive with airlines for traffic between its terminals at LAX (et al) and SFO (et al). I fully expect the intermediate stations to all have tracks that bypass their platforms that will allow trains that are running 'express' between the terminals to safely blow through them at full track speed.
As for a 'Jerry Brown Tunnel', howabout one of those short ones that will be drilled in the Tehachapi Pass part of the system?
(DUCKS and RUNS!!!! :-o )
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on September 04, 2020, 04:55:24 AM
Yea, any slow zones or intermediate station stops will render the entire system non-competitive with airlines for traffic between its terminals at LAX (et al) and SFO (et al). I fully expect the intermediate stations to all have tracks that bypass their platforms that will allow trains that are running 'express' between the terminals to safely blow through them at full track speed.
As for a 'Jerry Brown Tunnel', howabout one of those short ones that will be drilled in the Tehachapi Pass part of the system?
(DUCKS and RUNS!!!! :-o )
Mike
Yet......at the north end of the system (from Gilroy to S.F.) the plans still are for the HSR to "piggyback" on Caltrain's tracks, which will be improved to "quasi-high-speed" -- but nothing approaching the 200 mph standard for the rest of the system. The first step in this process -- which also involves converting Caltrain to an all-electric operation -- is underway; the supports for the overhead catenary are being erected along the Caltrain line; it's gotten as far south as the Curtner Ave. overpass south of downtown San Jose; the local rag has claimed that those supports will reach Gilroy by late October. They're pretty large and impressive (looking like the stuff seen on the Northeast Corridor from D.C. to Boston), obviously sturdy enough to withstand a pantograph (electric pickup arm atop the locomotive) rolling along at 120-150 mph, which is what's projected for the Gilroy-to-San Jose segment. At least if the HSR project fails or is indefinitely postponed, Caltrain will have some decent infrastructure with which to work!
And since his electoral base was in NorCal, I'd expect either a tunnel or viaduct in the Pacheco Pass area to bear Jerry Brown's name.