We can now put June in the record books, and with that, half of 2021 is gone. What a June it has been, filled with high heat across much of the state and concerns about water and drought. Those have been concerns of mine as well, as June has been a construction month around Chez Cahighways. [see post for details, if you care]
June also saw us on the wonderful highways of California. We drove to Las Vegas, taking Route 14, Route 138, Route 18, and I-15 out, and came back via I-15, Route 58, and Route 14. We also drove to Los Osos, using Route 118, US 101 and Route 154 out, and exploring a new way back: US 101, Route 166, and I-5. Next time: Route 33 and either Lockwood Valley or Hudson Valley to Mt. Pinos to Frazier Mtn Parkway to I-5.
[more blather, see post for details]
With that said: What did you do in June, out on the roads and in the state? Hopefully one thing you'll be doing right now is discussing these headlines. So, as I always say, "ready, set, discuss" .
Here's the link: https://cahighways.org/wordpress/?p=16116
Ready, set, discuss.
June was all in with former US 101 alignments on the coast from SLO to Ventura. I did the stand alone segment of 1 approaching Ventura and even took the time to photograph the Ojai Freeway.
Just a few quick, probably uninformed, comments.
Glad they are making the effort to help wildlife safely cross CA 60 through the Badlands area. Usually there are enough large culverts in hilly-to-mountainous areas to help wildlife, but that doesn't always happen.
Very surprised that interchange at CA 210 and Beech Ave in Fontana wasn't already either a stop light or four-way stop. That had to be one scary intersection.
I don't see the need for a big project on CA 247 south of Barstow. It's not been busy any time I've used it (4-5 times over the last three years) and I don't remember it being all that bad.
The tiny highway signs are a hoot.
Quote from: skluth on June 30, 2021, 07:20:20 PM
Glad they are making the effort to help wildlife safely cross CA 60 through the Badlands area. Usually there are enough large culverts in hilly-to-mountainous areas to help wildlife, but that doesn't always happen.
Related to this, they did some work to convert a number of culverts under Route 118 between Moorpark and a bit W of Somis into wildlife crossings. I had some articles in the May headlines on this. See https://spectrumnews1.com/ca/la-west/environment/2021/05/06/skunks--possums--a-bear--oh-my--animals-make-use-of-crossings-under-sr-118
There's also the big crossing they are building at Liberty Canyon over US 101: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/national-wildlife-federation-receives-record-25-million-annenberg-challenge-grant-for-largest-urban-wildlife-crossing-in-the-world-301291972.html
That interchange at US 101/CA 25 is hellacious to get through. It is especially bad if you are taking US 101 northbound on CA 25 southbound which includes a left hand turn at a stop sign. It can take up to 10-15 minutes sometimes to get through waiting for gap in traffic.
Yeah, I hate it whenever I have to use it. It's not a well-designed interchange at all.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 30, 2021, 11:06:11 PM
That interchange at US 101/CA 25 is hellacious to get through. It is especially bad if you are taking US 101 northbound on CA 25 southbound which includes a left hand turn at a stop sign. It can take up to 10-15 minutes sometimes to get through waiting for gap in traffic.
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on June 30, 2021, 11:48:08 PM
Yeah, I hate it whenever I have to use it. It's not a well-designed interchange at all.
Have a friend living in Hollister whose Morgan Hill-based company finally called him back to the office full-time, and he's dreading it, partially due to the interchange mentioned. He's been known just to shoot down to CA 156 and backtrack into town just to avoid not only the interchange but CA 25 southeast from there, which is a peak-hour nightmare. The new 4-lane expressway project, including a relocation/revision of the 101/25 interchange, can't come soon enough (although construction isn't scheduled to start before mid-2022).
In regards to the backups at Primm on the 15, I guess it might take just as long, if not more, taking U.S. 95 south from Vegas and then the 40 or 10 the rest of the way, though there's no agricultural inspection point that way.
Quote from: theroadwayone on July 01, 2021, 11:00:12 PM
In regards to the backups at Primm on the 15, I guess it might take just as long, if not more, taking U.S. 95 south from Vegas and then the 40 or 10 the rest of the way, though there's no agricultural inspection point that way.
In theory if you have high clearance it probably is fairly easy to bypass the station via Yates Well Road and Ivanpah Road south to Nipton Road.
OK, rant time! Saw the plans for the proposed 101/25 interchange; since plans are in place to upgrade CA 25 to a divided expressway south to Hollister, this "upgrade" is more a lateral move, still retaining the convoluted right-then-left-then right ramp from NB 25 to NB 101, the direction of the morning commute. One would think that D4 would be thinking ahead and designing a free-flow interchange instead -- one that would have little if any chance of backup in either direction (but then that district has become gun-shy when it comes to anything that resembles new freeway construction). Besides, they're missing a golden opportunity to, proverbially, "kill two birds with one stone"; a free-flow interchange (north-biased trumpet?) could serve double-duty as a jumping-off point for a CA 152 expressway realignment that would avoid the wetlands along the existing 2-lane stretch that has heretofore stifled attempts at an upgrade. Hell, the district could justify/rationalize the construction as a safety-based improvement, citing incident rates on both 152 and 25, although the most vehement BANANA's in and around the region's planning circles would still piss and moan! They're never going to be able to please everyone, so IMO D4 should suck it up and not even try; at least the regional realities would finally be addressed!
(end rant). Will look at the other items in the monthly report over the next few days and will comment when appropriate.
Have a link to the plans?
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on July 02, 2021, 02:54:04 AM
Have a link to the plans?
Just go up to the link within the OP in this thread, scroll down, and click on the entry about the 101/25 interchange starting construction in 2023; the plans are illustrated right there.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 02, 2021, 12:16:39 AM
Quote from: theroadwayone on July 01, 2021, 11:00:12 PM
In regards to the backups at Primm on the 15, I guess it might take just as long, if not more, taking U.S. 95 south from Vegas and then the 40 or 10 the rest of the way, though there's no agricultural inspection point that way.
In theory if you have high clearance it probably is fairly easy to bypass the station via Yates Well Road and Ivanpah Road south to Nipton Road.
That, too.
Quote from: theroadwayone on July 02, 2021, 03:00:18 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 02, 2021, 12:16:39 AM
Quote from: theroadwayone on July 01, 2021, 11:00:12 PM
In regards to the backups at Primm on the 15, I guess it might take just as long, if not more, taking U.S. 95 south from Vegas and then the 40 or 10 the rest of the way, though there's no agricultural inspection point that way.
In theory if you have high clearance it probably is fairly easy to bypass the station via Yates Well Road and Ivanpah Road south to Nipton Road.
That, too.
Six-laning I-15 in CA would help immeasurably; seeing that the plans for the quasi-high-speed-rail Victorville-Vegas line that will in part reside in the freeway's median are still active -- and the median is pretty damn wide for most of its length -- adding the lane at the time the rail line is being constructed might be something for Caltrans/D8 to consider -- one regimen of disruption rather than two!
Also, in Daniel's list was a reference to the reconstruction of the NB CA 29 underpass at that route's southern terminus at I-80. I for one am really surprised that 29 hasn't been relinquished south of CA 37; through traffic from I-80 to Napa and vicinity invariably uses 37 west to 29 and then north rather than schlep through central Vallejo. I'm guessing that the city doesn't want to assume maintenance of the street at this time -- or ever!
Any particular reason why Caltrans is avoiding building a ramp in the southeast corner of the 101/25 interchange?
Quote from: SeriesE on July 02, 2021, 03:41:31 PM
Any particular reason why Caltrans is avoiding building a ramp in the southeast corner of the 101/25 interchange?
There's some sort of agricultural complex located at that corner; also Gavilan Creek has been "channelized" into an irrigation ditch that runs under both US 101 and the CA 25 overcrossing simultaneously; it disappears then reappears within that complex, so there might be a pumping station on those grounds. There's access to that complex from the current feeder from 25 to and from NB 101 (the little connector that passes by the tourist store) that also ducks under the 25 bridge plus a second access point east on 25 itself; this may be owned by one of the major farming interests in the area and politically off limits to road development (not uncommon in these parts).
Prior to the pandemic there was serious talk about moving the entire 25/101 interchange complex about a third to a half-mile north of the current location; this would have avoided the problem of impingement on this particular agricultural setup. The plans as shown look like a fiscal retrenchment from those original plans; while the evening commute might be slightly improved with a multi-lane ramp; the morning commute will in all likelihood remain a convoluted slow-speed mess due to the retention of the tight folded-diamond ramp configuration on the north side of the bridge.
Quote from: theroadwayone on July 01, 2021, 11:00:12 PM
In regards to the backups at Primm on the 15, I guess it might take just as long, if not more, taking U.S. 95 south from Vegas and then the 40 or 10 the rest of the way, though there's no agricultural inspection point that way.
It's longer, probably. But I like US 95, so I actually used to do this a fair amount.
Meanwhile, regarding the San Diego item which mentions building parks over highways (in this case I-5). San Diego already has the Teralta Neighborhood Park over California SR 15; I have only driven under it and have not visited the park itself. If building parks and open space over highways improves neighborhoods, what's not to like?
Quote from: sparker on July 02, 2021, 07:00:36 PM
Quote from: SeriesE on July 02, 2021, 03:41:31 PM
Any particular reason why Caltrans is avoiding building a ramp in the southeast corner of the 101/25 interchange?
There's some sort of agricultural complex located at that corner; also Gavilan Creek has been "channelized" into an irrigation ditch that runs under both US 101 and the CA 25 overcrossing simultaneously; it disappears then reappears within that complex, so there might be a pumping station on those grounds. There's access to that complex from the current feeder from 25 to and from NB 101 (the little connector that passes by the tourist store) that also ducks under the 25 bridge plus a second access point east on 25 itself; this may be owned by one of the major farming interests in the area and politically off limits to road development (not uncommon in these parts).
Prior to the pandemic there was serious talk about moving the entire 25/101 interchange complex about a third to a half-mile north of the current location; this would have avoided the problem of impingement on this particular agricultural setup. The plans as shown look like a fiscal retrenchment from those original plans; while the evening commute might be slightly improved with a multi-lane ramp; the morning commute will in all likelihood remain a convoluted slow-speed mess due to the retention of the tight folded-diamond ramp configuration on the north side of the bridge.
Looks like there's enough room within the current right of way if the northbound lanes are shifted to the median by say 6 ft and then building a tight diamond ramp
Quote from: SeriesE on July 03, 2021, 03:36:11 AM
Quote from: sparker on July 02, 2021, 07:00:36 PM
Quote from: SeriesE on July 02, 2021, 03:41:31 PM
Any particular reason why Caltrans is avoiding building a ramp in the southeast corner of the 101/25 interchange?
There's some sort of agricultural complex located at that corner; also Gavilan Creek has been "channelized" into an irrigation ditch that runs under both US 101 and the CA 25 overcrossing simultaneously; it disappears then reappears within that complex, so there might be a pumping station on those grounds. There's access to that complex from the current feeder from 25 to and from NB 101 (the little connector that passes by the tourist store) that also ducks under the 25 bridge plus a second access point east on 25 itself; this may be owned by one of the major farming interests in the area and politically off limits to road development (not uncommon in these parts).
Prior to the pandemic there was serious talk about moving the entire 25/101 interchange complex about a third to a half-mile north of the current location; this would have avoided the problem of impingement on this particular agricultural setup. The plans as shown look like a fiscal retrenchment from those original plans; while the evening commute might be slightly improved with a multi-lane ramp; the morning commute will in all likelihood remain a convoluted slow-speed mess due to the retention of the tight folded-diamond ramp configuration on the north side of the bridge.
Looks like there's enough room within the current right of way if the northbound lanes are shifted to the median by say 6 ft and then building a tight diamond ramp
Still doesn't solve or even improve the NB morning commute from Hollister to Gilroy and beyond. A relocation and anything but a half-assed approach would do the trick, if only D4 would consider something that actually benefits the driving public rather than throwing more obstacles at them!
Does anyone know when they plan to start Phase II with the partial cloverleaf?
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on July 03, 2021, 07:58:13 PM
Does anyone know when they plan to start Phase II with the partial cloverleaf?
Reviewed the 101/25 plan as shown in the OP several times; while referring to future phases, there's no specific mention of a parclo format being built; only the fact that the current folded-diamond "stem" connecting the NB 101 offramp/onramp to CA 25 will get a signal at the latter intersection. IIRC, the original plans moving the connection farther north did have a parclo as one of the interchange options. If there are links to documents indicating said parclo at the interchange site, please supply them -- thanks!
Quote from: sparker on July 03, 2021, 04:25:30 AM
Quote from: SeriesE on July 03, 2021, 03:36:11 AM
Quote from: sparker on July 02, 2021, 07:00:36 PM
Quote from: SeriesE on July 02, 2021, 03:41:31 PM
Any particular reason why Caltrans is avoiding building a ramp in the southeast corner of the 101/25 interchange?
There's some sort of agricultural complex located at that corner; also Gavilan Creek has been "channelized" into an irrigation ditch that runs under both US 101 and the CA 25 overcrossing simultaneously; it disappears then reappears within that complex, so there might be a pumping station on those grounds. There's access to that complex from the current feeder from 25 to and from NB 101 (the little connector that passes by the tourist store) that also ducks under the 25 bridge plus a second access point east on 25 itself; this may be owned by one of the major farming interests in the area and politically off limits to road development (not uncommon in these parts).
Prior to the pandemic there was serious talk about moving the entire 25/101 interchange complex about a third to a half-mile north of the current location; this would have avoided the problem of impingement on this particular agricultural setup. The plans as shown look like a fiscal retrenchment from those original plans; while the evening commute might be slightly improved with a multi-lane ramp; the morning commute will in all likelihood remain a convoluted slow-speed mess due to the retention of the tight folded-diamond ramp configuration on the north side of the bridge.
Looks like there's enough room within the current right of way if the northbound lanes are shifted to the median by say 6 ft and then building a tight diamond ramp
Still doesn't solve or even improve the NB morning commute from Hollister to Gilroy and beyond. A relocation and anything but a half-assed approach would do the trick, if only D4 would consider something that actually benefits the driving public rather than throwing more obstacles at them!
It's not District 4 that necessarily makes that decision. Funding for this project comes from the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. Under state law, transportation planning agencies like VTA control their county's share of STIP funding as well as any locally generated transportation sales tax funds. Caltrans is involved in the decision making process and makes the final call on paper because of its responsibilities under NEPA and CEQA. But the decisions really rest with agencies like VTA since they are funding the project.
The preferred alternative for these projects has to not only meet the purpose and need but there also has to be enough funding to get it done. Furthermore, under SB 743, level of service is not supposed to be considered as a deciding factor when selecting a preferred alternative. I'm not privy to the decision making process for the 101/25 interchange but I would suspect that the decisions were based on the SB 743 requirements and available funding.
Quote from: jrouse on July 04, 2021, 02:12:11 AM
Quote from: sparker on July 03, 2021, 04:25:30 AM
Quote from: SeriesE on July 03, 2021, 03:36:11 AM
Quote from: sparker on July 02, 2021, 07:00:36 PM
Quote from: SeriesE on July 02, 2021, 03:41:31 PM
Any particular reason why Caltrans is avoiding building a ramp in the southeast corner of the 101/25 interchange?
There's some sort of agricultural complex located at that corner; also Gavilan Creek has been "channelized" into an irrigation ditch that runs under both US 101 and the CA 25 overcrossing simultaneously; it disappears then reappears within that complex, so there might be a pumping station on those grounds. There's access to that complex from the current feeder from 25 to and from NB 101 (the little connector that passes by the tourist store) that also ducks under the 25 bridge plus a second access point east on 25 itself; this may be owned by one of the major farming interests in the area and politically off limits to road development (not uncommon in these parts).
Prior to the pandemic there was serious talk about moving the entire 25/101 interchange complex about a third to a half-mile north of the current location; this would have avoided the problem of impingement on this particular agricultural setup. The plans as shown look like a fiscal retrenchment from those original plans; while the evening commute might be slightly improved with a multi-lane ramp; the morning commute will in all likelihood remain a convoluted slow-speed mess due to the retention of the tight folded-diamond ramp configuration on the north side of the bridge.
Looks like there's enough room within the current right of way if the northbound lanes are shifted to the median by say 6 ft and then building a tight diamond ramp
Still doesn't solve or even improve the NB morning commute from Hollister to Gilroy and beyond. A relocation and anything but a half-assed approach would do the trick, if only D4 would consider something that actually benefits the driving public rather than throwing more obstacles at them!
It's not District 4 that necessarily makes that decision. Funding for this project comes from the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. Under state law, transportation planning agencies like VTA control their county's share of STIP funding as well as any locally generated transportation sales tax funds. Caltrans is involved in the decision making process and makes the final call on paper because of its responsibilities under NEPA and CEQA. But the decisions really rest with agencies like VTA since they are funding the project.
The preferred alternative for these projects has to not only meet the purpose and need but there also has to be enough funding to get it done. Furthermore, under SB 743, level of service is not supposed to be considered as a deciding factor when selecting a preferred alternative. I'm not privy to the decision making process for the 101/25 interchange but I would suspect that the decisions were based on the SB 743 requirements and available funding.
Thus the upshot of the implementation of SB 743 is that a commute such as required to reach an outlying area such as Hollister is considered in & of itself detrimental to the overall community/region regardless of the economic dynamics that have made that commute necessary for some. Infill may be preferable from multiple standpoints, but if that infill is subject to internal inflationary pressures due to zoning, gentrification, and even public policy measures brought to bear by well-meaning but occasionally naive planners and agencies to the point where it is rendered largely unaffordable, measures of local accessibility become effectively moot. Unfortunately, policy shifts such as mandated by 743 tend to be shepherded through the legislative and administrative process by parties who seem to function in a virtual vacuum, where temporally favored concepts are prioritized over the realities of actually living and working in a region -- a top-down, "elite"-based decision process based on a predetermined conceptual model informing the determination of what actually is placed "on the ground" rather than basing that decision on information regarding
why the situation being addressed has come to pass.
Part of the issue specific to the 101/25 interchange planning efforts stems from the fact that the commute "attractant", Hollister, is actually located outside D4 (in D5), so any input from that city or its residents -- a large portion of which are recent arrivals drawn there by housing cost differentials -- is filtered and/or "distilled" prior to its insertion into the discussions within the VTA regarding projects within its parvenu. The interchange in question has the misfortune of being located at the outskirts of VTA territory while principally serving a population living outside its bounds. Policy decisions such as the dismissal of LOS as a factor when determining facility design -- particularly when those decisions are largely informed by theoretical concepts promulgated within an isolated, often academic, setting, have on more than one occasions resulted in a disconnect between the reality of functioning within a set of physical and geographical circumstances and a conceptual definition of what a "community" should resemble. Living in proximity to where one works is a noble concept -- but economically unachievable for a sizeable portion of the working public -- hence the outsized growth of outlying housing in places such as Hollister, Tracy, Vacaville, and other "exurbs" with costs sitting at 40-60% of what they entail in anything from Morgan Hill northward or Livermore westward. And absent a massive investment in public transit, including both localized and commuter services that renders them dramatically more convenient and easier to use than at present, the automobile so derided by the current generation of planners will continue to be the vehicle (no pun intended) of necessity if not choice. Measures such as SB 743, formulated as they are in a procedural vacuum, are well-meaning but functionally a manifestation of naivete. And as much as it pains me to say this, the continued ignorance of on-the-ground realities can and often do result in the form of political backlash that tends to be openly hostile toward the goals of those engaging in public planning efforts, occasionally to the point of populist/reactionary activity.
What do articles like this have to do with California headlines regarding its highways:
https://www.autoblog.com/2021/05/30/removing-highways-improving-cities-difficult/?guccounter=1
I also find it amusing how that article uses a city with declining population growth as a model for freeway removal claiming there wasn't an increase in traffic– again, in a city that is seeing a net loss in population.
It's also funny how that article fails to mention NYC taking top place in traffic congestion(even though I'm not the biggest fan of using the hours wasted in traffic metric) after it's been removing car lanes in favor of bus and bike lanes left and right. Then city leaders claim the only way to reduce traffic is to implement congestion pricing.
Here's a novel plan, how about building out the original 20th century subway plan, removing all bus and parking lanes, and restoring all car lanes with a network of protected bike lanes. Build the Midtown Expressway in Tokyo fashion.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 04, 2021, 05:55:12 PM
It's also funny how that article fails to mention NYC taking top place in traffic congestion(even though I'm not the biggest fan of using the hours wasted in traffic metric) after it's been removing car lanes in favor of bus and bike lanes left and right. Then city leaders claim the only way to reduce traffic is to implement congestion pricing.
Here's a novel plan, how about building out the original 20th century subway plan, removing all bus and parking lanes, and restoring all car lanes with a network of protected bike lanes. Build the Midtown Expressway in Tokyo fashion.
Yeah, Midtown Expressway, and the LOMEX and I-78 on Long Island. While we're at it, extend I-278 through Springfield (underground) and plug I-78 into it's auxiliaries.
Quote from: theroadwayone on July 04, 2021, 06:32:21 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 04, 2021, 05:55:12 PM
It's also funny how that article fails to mention NYC taking top place in traffic congestion(even though I'm not the biggest fan of using the hours wasted in traffic metric) after it's been removing car lanes in favor of bus and bike lanes left and right. Then city leaders claim the only way to reduce traffic is to implement congestion pricing.
Here's a novel plan, how about building out the original 20th century subway plan, removing all bus and parking lanes, and restoring all car lanes with a network of protected bike lanes. Build the Midtown Expressway in Tokyo fashion.
Yeah, Midtown Expressway, and the LOMEX and I-78 on Long Island. While we're at it, extend I-278 through Springfield (underground) and plug I-78 into it's auxiliaries.
Im game.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 04, 2021, 05:45:12 PM
What do articles like this have to do with California headlines regarding its highways:
https://www.autoblog.com/2021/05/30/removing-highways-improving-cities-difficult/?guccounter=1
I also find it amusing how that article uses a city with declining population growth as a model for freeway removal claiming there wasn't an increase in traffic– again, in a city that is seeing a net loss in population.
The parallel is that both Rochester's freeway and I-980 are adjacent to downtowns. I don't think most urbanists look beyond that. The difference is Rochester's freeway didn't go anywhere; it was a beltway for the downtown and even with it removed doesn't change the commute for tens of thousands of drivers. I-980 is an important connector between CA 24 and I-880; removing it would move the traffic from I-980 onto I-580 as it approaches the SF-O Bay Bridge and the Nimitz next to Oakland's port. Removing I-980 would instead toss that commuting traffic onto other already crowded freeways.
This is not to say every freeway removal option is dumb. However, removing I-980 would be incredibly dumb and short-sighted.
Quote from: skluth on July 04, 2021, 06:42:57 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 04, 2021, 05:45:12 PM
What do articles like this have to do with California headlines regarding its highways:
https://www.autoblog.com/2021/05/30/removing-highways-improving-cities-difficult/?guccounter=1
I also find it amusing how that article uses a city with declining population growth as a model for freeway removal claiming there wasn't an increase in traffic– again, in a city that is seeing a net loss in population.
The parallel is that both Rochester's freeway and I-980 are adjacent to downtowns. I don't think most urbanists look beyond that. The difference is Rochester's freeway didn't go anywhere; it was a beltway for the downtown and even with it removed doesn't change the commute for tens of thousands of drivers. I-980 is an important connector between CA 24 and I-880; removing it would move the traffic from I-980 onto I-580 as it approaches the SF-O Bay Bridge and the Nimitz next to Oakland's port. Removing I-980 would instead toss that commuting traffic onto other already crowded freeways.
This is not to say every freeway removal option is dumb. However, removing I-980 would be incredibly dumb and short-sighted.
The part that gets me is how everyone has forgotten that I-980 essentially carried all the Nimitz traffic when the Cypress Viaduct collapsed in the Loma Prieta Earthquake. Having a tiny bit of redundancy in the limited access road network can go a long way and that was a prime example.
Quote from: skluth on July 04, 2021, 06:42:57 PM
I-980 is an important connector between CA 24 and I-880; removing it would move the traffic from I-980 onto I-580 as it approaches the SF-O Bay Bridge and the Nimitz next to Oakland's port. Removing I-980 would instead toss that commuting traffic onto other already crowded freeways.
It's actually more complicated than that. If I-980 is removed, then ramps would need to be constructed connecting I-880 to I-580 at the MacArthur Maze. Otherwise, that commute traffic will find it's way onto Oakland's city streets as commuters try to get to I-880 from the inland east bay which I'm sure is not what the locals want.
Quote
This is not to say every freeway removal option is dumb. However, removing I-980 would be incredibly dumb and short-sighted.
I agree.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 04, 2021, 05:45:12 PM
What do articles like this have to do with California headlines regarding its highways:
https://www.autoblog.com/2021/05/30/removing-highways-improving-cities-difficult/?guccounter=1
To answer the question: They are articles I find of interest that I want to come back to for when I update my California Highways pages. Generally they have to do with California highways, but occasionally they are just something I want to read in more detail.
QuoteCalTrans to start work on $5.6M Highway 273 project. CalTrans will begin working on a project at the intersection of Highway 273 and Girvan Road Wednesday. CalTrans said they are going to create a flat railroad crossing that will also include a new bus stop, remove the sidewalk gap on Eastside Road, improve the intersection and widen the lanes to current standards. They will also install a trail between Westside Road and Canyon Road. The traffic signal will be deactivated and access to Girvan and Westside roads will be blocked. The total cost of the project is $5.6 million. (Action News Now)
Looking at the Google Maps for this area, while the railroad crossing is under construction on Girvan Road, there appears to be just one way in or out of the neighborhood bounded by the railroad parallel to SR 273 on the west, the Sacramento River on the east, Clear Creek on the south, and farmland/Allen's Golf Course on the north. The detour to South Bonnyview Road is a bit out of the way especially when traveling south. Here is a link to the Google Map of this area: https://goo.gl/maps/9aEzcsQwsNwfFyWeA.
Hopefully the project will improve the connection between SR 273 and the neighborhood east of the railroad.
Quote from: cahwyguy on July 08, 2021, 08:27:23 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 04, 2021, 05:45:12 PM
What do articles like this have to do with California headlines regarding its highways:
https://www.autoblog.com/2021/05/30/removing-highways-improving-cities-difficult/?guccounter=1
To answer the question: They are articles I find of interest that I want to come back to for when I update my California Highways pages. Generally they have to do with California highways, but occasionally they are just something I want to read in more detail.
Thanks for the response.
Quote from: sparker on July 03, 2021, 08:38:47 PM
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on July 03, 2021, 07:58:13 PM
Does anyone know when they plan to start Phase II with the partial cloverleaf?
Reviewed the 101/25 plan as shown in the OP several times; while referring to future phases, there's no specific mention of a parclo format being built; only the fact that the current folded-diamond "stem" connecting the NB 101 offramp/onramp to CA 25 will get a signal at the latter intersection. IIRC, the original plans moving the connection farther north did have a parclo as one of the interchange options. If there are links to documents indicating said parclo at the interchange site, please supply them -- thanks!
Page 14 of the linked PowerPoint identifies an "ultimate configuration" with a curved northbound offramp and on-ramp: https://www.vta.org/sites/default/files/2021-06/Webpage%20version_101-25%20Open%20House_SLIDES.pdf
My description of it as a "parclo" was a bit generous. "Slightly better ramp radii" might be a more accurate description.
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on July 09, 2021, 07:55:23 PM
Quote from: sparker on July 03, 2021, 08:38:47 PM
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on July 03, 2021, 07:58:13 PM
Does anyone know when they plan to start Phase II with the partial cloverleaf?
Reviewed the 101/25 plan as shown in the OP several times; while referring to future phases, there's no specific mention of a parclo format being built; only the fact that the current folded-diamond "stem" connecting the NB 101 offramp/onramp to CA 25 will get a signal at the latter intersection. IIRC, the original plans moving the connection farther north did have a parclo as one of the interchange options. If there are links to documents indicating said parclo at the interchange site, please supply them -- thanks!
Page 14 of the linked PowerPoint identifies an "ultimate configuration" with a curved northbound offramp and on-ramp: https://www.vta.org/sites/default/files/2021-06/Webpage%20version_101-25%20Open%20House_SLIDES.pdf
My description of it as a "parclo" was a bit generous. "Slightly better ramp radii" might be a more accurate description.
Well, that's marginally better. If D4 and possibly D5 (depending upon alignment preferences) plan on including a relocated CA 152, with its massive truck flow, in the mix, they had better plan on a set of free-flow movements from SB 101 to SB 25/EB 152 and vice-versa -- the combination of Hollister-bound/originating commute traffic and semis heading to and from Pacheco Pass
will overwhelm any configuration that requires traffic stoppage. To and from south 101, not so much; CA 156 generally handles much of that overall regional movement. A nice SB>EB flyover would handle things quite well.
Just keep anyone with visions of roundabouts well away from this project --
please!!!!!
Just keep anyone with visions of roundabouts well away from this project -- please!!!!!
Amen to all that !!! This is a serious inter-regional project, especially when factoring the future SR 152 upgrade/re-route.
Quote from: Concrete Bob on July 09, 2021, 11:37:25 PM
Just keep anyone with visions of roundabouts well away from this project -- please!!!!!
Amen to all that !!! This is a serious inter-regional project, especially when factoring the future SR 152 upgrade/re-route.
Don't know if the plans for such are current, but a couple of years ago a roundabout was mentioned as one of the intersection options for the CA 25/156 junction just north of Hollister. Given the truck traffic on 156 (Valley to Monterey Peninsula/Watsonville and back), it's a spectacularly bad idea unless it's a "hybrid", with at least a bridge over the whole mess along 156. It might work with CA 25 as currently configured (standard semi-rural 2-lane), but if it's elevated to a 4-lane expressway as per current (and let) D5 plans, the raised prevailing speeds on that enhanced road might render a roundabout problematic on that road as well. Currently the intersection is signalized with channelized lefts; even with peak commute traffic, it seems to work reasonably well; whoever set the signal timing pretty much got it right! IMO simply grade-separating the intersection with 156 as the prevailing route and simple diamond ramps to 25 would be the best option if an upgrade is deemed necessary; no need to throw in the favored design
du jour just because it's there!