It's the start of a new month, and you know what that means: It's time for highway headlines. Here are your headlines, and other related articles, that caught my eye about California Highways during January.
https://cahighways.org/wordpress/?p=17120
Ready, set, discuss.
Sounds like the city of Watsonville should have pushed for the adopted 152 bypass to be actually constructed. That certainly would've pulled a lot of those cars out of downtown. Photos 40 and 41 in the blog below show the CHC adopted corridor:
https://www.gribblenation.org/2025/01/the-former-surface-alignment-of.html
I have some stuff coming up on my Facebook page about the surveyed extension corridors for the Tioga Road. That was a huge focus in some of the early California Highway Biennial reports around the start of the 20th century.
You added a few notes about President Trump's freezes on infrastructure bills but I believe that has been rescinded so you may wanna do some research into that to confirm it and remove those notes if true.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 02, 2025, 12:19:09 AMYou added a few notes about President Trump's freezes on infrastructure bills but I believe that has been rescinded so you may wanna do some research into that to confirm it and remove those notes if true.
It's actually unclear what the status of that action is. They rescinded the memo immediately freezing funding, but then Trump's press secretary said that the executive orders were still in effect.
So I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens /shrug
Quote from: stevashe on February 02, 2025, 12:38:04 PMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on February 02, 2025, 12:19:09 AMYou added a few notes about President Trump's freezes on infrastructure bills but I believe that has been rescinded so you may wanna do some research into that to confirm it and remove those notes if true.
It's actually unclear what the status of that action is. They rescinded the memo immediately freezing funding, but then Trump's press secretary said that the executive orders were still in effect.
So I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens /shrug
To be specific: What was rescinded was the memo that cut grant and similar funding. Separately, there were two infrastructure bills: The Inflation Reduction Act, and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), which included the Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE) Grant Program, the Reconnecting Communities Pilot (RCP) Grant Program, and the Rural Surface Transportation Grant (Rural) Program. The Executive Orders signed his first day in office froze certain sections of the Inflation Reduction Act. In particular, sections related to Reconnecting Communities (which they think relate to DEI) were paused or somehow cancelled, and that might impact certain funding such as the rejoining communities that were looking into things like the 980 vision studies, or the studies related to I-5 in San Diego.
Here's the reference: https://www.morganlewis.com/pubs/2025/01/federal-agencies-ordered-to-pause-spending-of-inflation-reduction-act-infrastructure-investment-and-jobs-act-funds
Additionally, Federal Funds related to climate change related spending were frozen. This would impact the planning work on Route 37.
So, I think at this point, much of the funding with respect to highways from the Federal side is up in the air, and in particular, articles from early January about new initiatives are even iff-ier today and needed that caveat.
Hopefully, the new administration will not cut the highway funding ALREADY APPROVED BY CONGRESS, but one never knows with these folks.
Those 2009 Inyo traffic studies really could use a refresh.
Anything that cancels that that stupid 980 project I'll support. That road needs to stay.
I'm not a fan of getting rid of I-980 myself for numerous reasons. All the same, there are some prices not worth paying to stop interest in studying removal of the corridor.
In this case there is because it's just another freeway they want to remove due to the anti-Car nuts in the state. So yes, it is a waste of money and the studies need to stop.
Sure, sounds great on paper that there is a push to stop the studies. Problem is the people who are pushing to stop them and what else they'll want with it. It is just too bad this couldn't have come from a place of more level-headedness.
Levelheadedness is driving the highway and seeing how many people use this and not asking what else they want with it other than the purpose it was built for which was to drive on it. I don't see why saying the studies to remove the 980 with classify somebody is not being levelheaded. To me that sort of logic is a two-way street.
There is very little levelheaded with the current administration. Just because they have some highway related ideas I agree with doesn't mean I'm going to go in wholesale with thinking all their ideas are great.
I never said no one implied that you thought all of their ideas are great. I'm not sure where you got that from.
One might read the below passage a certain way. Based off what you just said I don't think you really thought through what you originally wrote.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 02, 2025, 04:52:25 PMAnything that cancels that that stupid 980 project I'll support. That road needs to stay.
I would prefer the I-980 deletion stuff goes away myself. The rationale for removing the freeway has shaky and poorly constructed arguments (IMO). That said considering what administration this potential study cancellation came from it is attached with a whole bunch of extra baggage. I don't see said baggage as being worth the price to maintain a freeway in a city which I don't reside.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 02, 2025, 10:12:10 PMOne might read the below passage a certain way. Based off what you just said I don't think you really thought through what you originally wrote.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 02, 2025, 04:52:25 PMAnything that cancels that that stupid 980 project I'll support. That road needs to stay.
I would prefer the I-980 deletion stuff goes away myself. The rationale for removing the freeway has shaky and poorly constructed arguments (IMO). That said considering what administration this potential study cancellation came from it is attached with a whole bunch of extra baggage. I don't see said baggage as being worth the price to maintain a freeway in a city which I don't reside.
And, it is really important to note that the study results were not yes/no on removal. There are a large variety of options to consider -- freeway caps, increased bus service, other ways of addressing things. This was a STUDY to see what the STAKEHOLDERS wanted, and those stakeholders included commuters.
Please, folks, hold back on the kneejerk reactions. All this came from the fact that I noted that funding announced in January might not happen, and thus those articles required more time to be borne out. That's all.
Much of my personal ire towards doing anything with I-980 comes from the fact that the removal concept was pushed so heavily by New Urbanism groups. Those groups despite what they say they often do not speak for the affected communities and corridor users.
Yes, a study would get a more accurate picture of what the community wants (which I suspect is not removal). All the same, things got to this point with I-980 for the wrong reasons. Other states pushed back against similar New Urbanism pushes (I-275 in Tampa comes to mind).
All the same, I suspect long term a corridor study will get done one way or another in the somewhat relative short term.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 02, 2025, 10:12:10 PMOne might read the below passage a certain way. Based off what you just said I don't think you really thought through what you originally wrote.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 02, 2025, 04:52:25 PMAnything that cancels that that stupid 980 project I'll support. That road needs to stay.
I would prefer the I-980 deletion stuff goes away myself. The rationale for removing the freeway has shaky and poorly constructed arguments (IMO). That said considering what administration this potential study cancellation came from it is attached with a whole bunch of extra baggage. I don't see said baggage as being worth the price to maintain a freeway in a city which I don't reside.
Correct, but this is all part of a plan to make it as hard to drive as possible, and to create more traffic, congestion. They're not planning this in good faith there's other freeways as well. They want studies on to have them removed. I mean they're closing the upper great highway a road I use often when I'm in the area a road that a lot of neighbors didn't want to see closed either. So my position is a lot of these studies are not in good faith. I'm not against alternatives and adding other ways to move around to less than traffic congestion.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 02, 2025, 10:40:33 PMThose groups despite what they say they often do not speak for the affected communities and corridor users.
For sure. I was speaking with some neighbors about the Central Freeway in San Francisco recently (we all live near it), and there are at least several folks who want to see the freeway stay up, not because of traffic impact, but because they don't want the neighborhood to attract the type of investment that would make it more expensive to live in it. There were also several folks who mentioned that the traffic on the freeway is better off there than it would be at surface level. So there is often not a clear consensus. Which is why we do studies to understand all these things. It's a shame these studies take so long and are so expensive.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 02, 2025, 11:23:03 PMCorrect, but this is all part of a plan to make it as hard to drive as possible, and to create more traffic, congestion.
Where is this coming from? I've never seen a study that says that this is the goal. A side effect of achieving other goals that are deemed more important, sure. But I don't think anyone is seriously saying this is the reason to do anything. We are still a democracy (supposedly), after all. The SF Supervisor who championed the Great Highway removal is now facing a recall, as he is ultimately accountable to the ballot box here if it turns out the goals of this project were not actually what the voters wanted. If they really overstepped, he will be replaced.
Quote from: citrus on February 03, 2025, 01:00:08 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on February 02, 2025, 10:40:33 PMThose groups despite what they say they often do not speak for the affected communities and corridor users.
For sure. I was speaking with some neighbors about the Central Freeway in San Francisco recently (we all live near it), and there are at least several folks who want to see the freeway stay up, not because of traffic impact, but because they don't want the neighborhood to attract the type of investment that would make it more expensive to live in it. There were also several folks who mentioned that the traffic on the freeway is better off there than it would be at surface level. So there is often not a clear consensus. Which is why we do studies to understand all these things. It's a shame these studies take so long and are so expensive.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 02, 2025, 11:23:03 PMCorrect, but this is all part of a plan to make it as hard to drive as possible, and to create more traffic, congestion.
Where is this coming from? I've never seen a study that says that this is the goal. A side effect of achieving other goals that are deemed more important, sure. But I don't think anyone is seriously saying this is the reason to do anything. We are still a democracy (supposedly), after all. The SF Supervisor who championed the Great Highway removal is now facing a recall, as he is ultimately accountable to the ballot box here if it turns out the goals of this project were not actually what the voters wanted. If they really overstepped, he will be replaced.
Well, of course a study is never gonna come out and say hey, we wanna make it harder to drive.
The goal isn't to make it harder to drive. The goal is to make things carbon neutral. That goal is helped by having fewer cars on the road, and ... encouraging ... people to move to mass transit and active transportation.
Quote from: cahwyguy on February 03, 2025, 02:27:42 PMThe goal isn't to make it harder to drive. The goal is to make things carbon neutral. That goal is helped by having fewer cars on the road, and ... encouraging ... people to move to mass transit and active transportation.
... which is done in part by making it harder to drive.
Quote from: pderocco on February 03, 2025, 02:28:55 PMQuote from: cahwyguy on February 03, 2025, 02:27:42 PMThe goal isn't to make it harder to drive. The goal is to make things carbon neutral. That goal is helped by having fewer cars on the road, and ... encouraging ... people to move to mass transit and active transportation.
... which is done in part by making it harder to drive.
Ah, but that's not the GOAL. It is one of the means of achieving it, but there are other means, such as transit incentives, increased use of HOV lanes over general purpose lines, providing preferential treatment to vehicles with a smaller carbon footprint, increased registration fees based on carbon footprint. Each potential solution has different drawbacks, and as we are seeing, different administrations have different priorities.
Quote from: cahwyguy on February 03, 2025, 02:27:42 PMThe goal isn't to make it harder to drive. The goal is to make things carbon neutral. That goal is helped by having fewer cars on the road, and ... encouraging ... people to move to mass transit and active transportation.
I'll just agree to disagree
Quote from: cahwyguy on February 03, 2025, 03:53:20 PMQuote from: pderocco on February 03, 2025, 02:28:55 PMQuote from: cahwyguy on February 03, 2025, 02:27:42 PMThe goal isn't to make it harder to drive. The goal is to make things carbon neutral. That goal is helped by having fewer cars on the road, and ... encouraging ... people to move to mass transit and active transportation.
... which is done in part by making it harder to drive.
Ah, but that's not the GOAL. It is one of the means of achieving it, but there are other means, such as transit incentives, increased use of HOV lanes over general purpose lines, providing preferential treatment to vehicles with a smaller carbon footprint, increased registration fees based on carbon footprint. Each potential solution has different drawbacks, and as we are seeing, different administrations have different priorities.
Yes, it is the goal. They just don't talk about it.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 03, 2025, 04:02:49 PMQuote from: cahwyguy on February 03, 2025, 03:53:20 PMQuote from: pderocco on February 03, 2025, 02:28:55 PMQuote from: cahwyguy on February 03, 2025, 02:27:42 PMThe goal isn't to make it harder to drive. The goal is to make things carbon neutral. That goal is helped by having fewer cars on the road, and ... encouraging ... people to move to mass transit and active transportation.
... which is done in part by making it harder to drive.
Ah, but that's not the GOAL. It is one of the means of achieving it, but there are other means, such as transit incentives, increased use of HOV lanes over general purpose lines, providing preferential treatment to vehicles with a smaller carbon footprint, increased registration fees based on carbon footprint. Each potential solution has different drawbacks, and as we are seeing, different administrations have different priorities.
Yes, it is the goal. They just don't talk about it.
The CTC has a published goal of being carbon neutral. So please keep any notions of hidden agendas and conspiracies to the fantasy forums.
Quote from: cahwyguy on February 03, 2025, 04:21:18 PMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on February 03, 2025, 04:02:49 PMQuote from: cahwyguy on February 03, 2025, 03:53:20 PMQuote from: pderocco on February 03, 2025, 02:28:55 PMQuote from: cahwyguy on February 03, 2025, 02:27:42 PMThe goal isn't to make it harder to drive. The goal is to make things carbon neutral. That goal is helped by having fewer cars on the road, and ... encouraging ... people to move to mass transit and active transportation.
... which is done in part by making it harder to drive.
Ah, but that's not the GOAL. It is one of the means of achieving it, but there are other means, such as transit incentives, increased use of HOV lanes over general purpose lines, providing preferential treatment to vehicles with a smaller carbon footprint, increased registration fees based on carbon footprint. Each potential solution has different drawbacks, and as we are seeing, different administrations have different priorities.
Yes, it is the goal. They just don't talk about it.
The CTC has a published goal of being carbon neutral. So please keep any notions of hidden agendas and conspiracies to the fantasy forums.
No, I don't think I will. When I see bullshit, I'm gonna call it out. You can characterize however whatever it is, they do you want but to me it is a hidden agenda that they have that they won't come out and say. But if you wanna sit here and exaggerate what I'm saying and use these provoking words like conspiracy theory and blah blah blah. Then have at. But they are anti-Car and they do have a hidden motive to try and stop people from driving. It's very clear.
So once again to me, it is simple as their actual goal is to make it harder to drive. That's not a conspiracy theory. You can see it with the actions they take or rather don't take in many cases. You're just phrasing it differently by saying they're achieving carbon neutrality. That's just smoke and mirrors.
I think one can infer Caltrans has no real interest in removing I-980. VMT reductions aside removal or major alternations to the corridor are going to a huge budget issue. A corridor study doesn't mean anything will be acted upon.
QuoteWe're making it easier, healthier and safer to get around without a car.
https://environmentamerica.org/california/center/campaigns/drive-less-live-more/
Now, if you go read these types of press releases, they sound so great. They don't wanna make it harder to drive. They just wanna make it easier to get around without a car. OK, I can buy that in some cases. But I've posted several times on this form threads where they have stated they are not widening a highway or they're canceling a freeway project to not allow additional capacity to make it easier to drive. I'm not gonna go do your homework for you and find my post nor am I gonna go and cross reference other ridiculous ideologies the person in the article that I posted proposes and or supports.
Those aren't conspiracy theories or hidden agendas. And a lot of conspiracy theories turned out to be true. So if you wanna sit there and say that me saying they're making it harder to drive because you're saying the CTC wants to achieve carbon neutrality is a conspiracy theory, then fine I couldn't care less.
But I'm not taking it to some theoretical fantasy board they have here because that's for highways that are posted by users. They like to see built first of all. Furthermore, it's a bit more than a conspiracy when I've posted links to multiple articles in this thread and on several of your threads that you post every month that always have this anti-Car crap in it. Sometimes it's stuff that has little or nothing to do with California.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 03, 2025, 06:28:59 PMAnd a lot of conspiracy theories turned out to be true.
Which ones?
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 03, 2025, 06:17:46 PMQuote from: cahwyguy on February 03, 2025, 04:21:18 PMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on February 03, 2025, 04:02:49 PMQuote from: cahwyguy on February 03, 2025, 03:53:20 PMQuote from: pderocco on February 03, 2025, 02:28:55 PMQuote from: cahwyguy on February 03, 2025, 02:27:42 PMThe goal isn't to make it harder to drive. The goal is to make things carbon neutral. That goal is helped by having fewer cars on the road, and ... encouraging ... people to move to mass transit and active transportation.
... which is done in part by making it harder to drive.
Ah, but that's not the GOAL. It is one of the means of achieving it, but there are other means, such as transit incentives, increased use of HOV lanes over general purpose lines, providing preferential treatment to vehicles with a smaller carbon footprint, increased registration fees based on carbon footprint. Each potential solution has different drawbacks, and as we are seeing, different administrations have different priorities.
Yes, it is the goal. They just don't talk about it.
The CTC has a published goal of being carbon neutral. So please keep any notions of hidden agendas and conspiracies to the fantasy forums.
No, I don't think I will. When I see bullshit, I'm gonna call it out. You can characterize however whatever it is, they do you want but to me it is a hidden agenda that they have that they won't come out and say. But if you wanna sit here and exaggerate what I'm saying and use these provoking words like conspiracy theory and blah blah blah. Then have at. But they are anti-Car and they do have a hidden motive to try and stop people from driving. It's very clear.
So once again to me, it is simple as their actual goal is to make it harder to drive. That's not a conspiracy theory. You can see it with the actions they take or rather don't take in many cases. You're just phrasing it differently by saying they're achieving carbon neutrality. That's just smoke and mirrors.
People like you are the reason roadgeeks are ridiculed by anyone who's remotely pro-transit.
Quote from: LilianaUwU on February 03, 2025, 07:19:44 PMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on February 03, 2025, 06:17:46 PMQuote from: cahwyguy on February 03, 2025, 04:21:18 PMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on February 03, 2025, 04:02:49 PMQuote from: cahwyguy on February 03, 2025, 03:53:20 PMQuote from: pderocco on February 03, 2025, 02:28:55 PMQuote from: cahwyguy on February 03, 2025, 02:27:42 PMThe goal isn't to make it harder to drive. The goal is to make things carbon neutral. That goal is helped by having fewer cars on the road, and ... encouraging ... people to move to mass transit and active transportation.
... which is done in part by making it harder to drive.
Ah, but that's not the GOAL. It is one of the means of achieving it, but there are other means, such as transit incentives, increased use of HOV lanes over general purpose lines, providing preferential treatment to vehicles with a smaller carbon footprint, increased registration fees based on carbon footprint. Each potential solution has different drawbacks, and as we are seeing, different administrations have different priorities.
Yes, it is the goal. They just don't talk about it.
The CTC has a published goal of being carbon neutral. So please keep any notions of hidden agendas and conspiracies to the fantasy forums.
No, I don't think I will. When I see bullshit, I'm gonna call it out. You can characterize however whatever it is, they do you want but to me it is a hidden agenda that they have that they won't come out and say. But if you wanna sit here and exaggerate what I'm saying and use these provoking words like conspiracy theory and blah blah blah. Then have at. But they are anti-Car and they do have a hidden motive to try and stop people from driving. It's very clear.
So once again to me, it is simple as their actual goal is to make it harder to drive. That's not a conspiracy theory. You can see it with the actions they take or rather don't take in many cases. You're just phrasing it differently by saying they're achieving carbon neutrality. That's just smoke and mirrors.
People like you are the reason roadgeeks are ridiculed by anyone who's remotely pro-transit.
I really don't care cause I'm not a road geek. I'm an infrastructure geek if there's such a term. And I'm not sure if you have amnesia or something, but I have posted several times to put it mildly that I am very much pro transit and I support over 90% of the mass transit projects either proposed or under construction in California and pretty much anywhere. And I'm not ridiculing road geeks. So I don't know what you're talking about.
And you know, I need to edit this and add one thing: this ridiculous trope of " oh, we have a fair amount of people on this form who disagree with a particular poster so that must mean that particular poster makes the entire road geek community look bad" argument really needs to stop. I've seen it used on several people, not gonna say that I don't disagree with some of it, but nonetheless, it's still a ridiculous argument, and you should come up with something new.
I have three cars, but I'm about to get on the B line to go to downtown LA to meet a friend. Why because I do see the value in transit. So don't marginalized people you don't agree with.
Quote from: citrus on February 03, 2025, 07:13:30 PMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on February 03, 2025, 06:28:59 PMAnd a lot of conspiracy theories turned out to be true.
Which ones?
This really isn't the time or the place for Minor details like this, but I'll bite... MK Ultra never happened. Was the Epstein Island debacle never a conspiracy?
At any rate, that's the last reply you you're gonna get from me on this topic because again this is not the time nor place to discuss such things. I was just making a minor point. Not something to be made a discussion out of.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 03, 2025, 06:28:59 PMBut I've posted several times on this form threads where they have stated they are not widening a highway or they're canceling a freeway project to not allow additional capacity to make it easier to drive.
Not making it easier to drive is *not* the same is making it harder to drive.
IMO, the people making it harder to drive are those who want more lower-density developments and who oppose higher-density affordable housing closer to urban centers, the ones who prefer big-box "lifestyle centers" with oceans of parking only reachable by eight-lane arterials. They're the ones allowing, if not outright encouraging, super-commutes, having to take freeways to do daily errands, etc.
MK Ultra sounds like the title of a 16-bit era Mortal Kombat game.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 03, 2025, 07:52:38 PMMK Ultra sounds like the title of a 16-bit era Mortal Kombat game.
That should've been the title of Mortal Kombat 1 (the 2023 game) or Mortal Kombat (the 2011 game).
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 03, 2025, 07:52:38 PMMK Ultra sounds like the title of a 16-bit era Mortal Kombat game.
I'm sure all the people that were killed didn't think it was a game.
Quote from: DTComposer on February 03, 2025, 07:43:28 PMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on February 03, 2025, 06:28:59 PMBut I've posted several times on this form threads where they have stated they are not widening a highway or they're canceling a freeway project to not allow additional capacity to make it easier to drive.
Not making it easier to drive is *not* the same is making it harder to drive.
IMO, the people making it harder to drive are those who want more lower-density developments and who oppose higher-density affordable housing closer to urban centers, the ones who prefer big-box "lifestyle centers" with oceans of parking only reachable by eight-lane arterials. They're the ones allowing, if not outright encouraging, super-commutes, having to take freeways to do daily errands, etc.
I'm on my phone so forgive me I don't have the patience to format this the way I should properly quote each point you made.
But regarding your first one, I don't disagree at all.
Now regarding your second point, I'm not sure I really understand that logic. The people who want low density, sprawled out development and the big box urban lifestyle centers, surrounded by sea of parking lots or garages, want that lifestyle because that's just what they want. And for some, it may be more affordable than living in downtown Manhattan, where one may prefer to live rather than way out in the goonies, which by goonies I mean in suburbia.
There's some pretty interesting irony in there, though given the fact that a lot of those same people would oppose mega freeways and super roads to foster their low density suburban lifestyle. These people are better referred to as NIMBYs. They're also the same kind of people like that community in Atlanta that opposed the expansion of MARTA(Gywnett if I'm spelling it or remembering correctly) as well, which would've offered an alternative to driving in one of the most congested metros in the country.
So if we're talking about the same people here, we're talking about people who wanna live in a major metro, but they wanna live in their own little bubble and not have the proper infrastructure that is needed to support cities that become the size of those like Dallas or Atlanta.
But in the case of California, to sit here and see all of the slip lanes removed, freeway expansions canceled, new freeways, like the high desert corridor canceled, article after article like the OP in this thread post about how California is still spending so much money on freeway expansions even if it's a half mile auxiliary lane, closing down major roadways, and spending millions of dollars on pointless studies to remove very important freeway connections, I'm gonna say there's a bit more to that than it just being the state wanting to achieve carbon neutrality.
Now Max has told me in the past that perhaps I should just move to a city that wants to expand its car infrastructure network more because the cities probably aren't for me. He couldn't be more wrong. If I had the money, I would love to retire in San Francisco. And if a debate came up, I would love to sit and talk about how I think the city needs to retain some of its Car oriented design, and I'd argue. It should build some more.
Now me and CAHWYGUY have gone back-and-forth in the past, and he makes great points, but I think it's a little bit out of line to just discount what I'm saying and calling it basically ridiculous banter because I'm insinuating there's a conspiracy theory afoot or a hidden agenda.
Then you have that lilyanu(sorry I butchered that name but I'm way beyond the point of caring to even scroll to properly spell their name given the fact I've put more time and energy into this discussion than I really should have) that I'm making road geeks look bad, as if I'm some anti-transit type who wants to see 50 lane freeways all over the place.
Frankly, this whole discussion is kind of ridiculous at this point, and I'm not exempting myself from it. I do better sitting down having a conversation with somebody than I do talking over the Internet. But I will see this though, if there's anybody here that thinks that I'm making the road geek community look bad, go have a look on Reddit at fuck cars or suburban hell sub forums to see what an anti-Car nut really looks like. Those people are the transit lover versions of Kernals.
But in the case of California, particularly in the cities of Los Angeles and San Francisco, I would argue there are leaders that be whether elected or appointed who think that the cities were built to be too car friendly and thus endanger pedestrians. There is truth behind that. I'm not against undoing some of the things that we've done to make cities a bit more friendly for pedestrians and offer more alternatives to driving, but I do think that we're leaning a little too far in the anti-Car direction and there is a hidden motive behind a lot of the so-called complete streets and carbon neutrality type arguments and we need the center ourselves a little better.
I'm actually seriously considering going to LATTC to see what kind of programs they offer in terms of urban or transportation planning because I'd love to know what is being taught. That's if I don't end up going to LACC.
But once again, I don't think it's very fair to say that I'm just spouting conspiracy theories because of the California transportation commission claims they just want to achieve carbon neutrality. A lot of governments and agencies they run say all these great things but how true are they really....
Me personally I rather move back to a small rural town or the Sierra Nevada foothills. The southeast corner of Fresno is all well and good for now, but it will be overrun someday by sprawl. I'm trying to convince my wife that we can have it made in Mariposa County come retirement age. She loved working in nearby Oakhurst but seems to be afraid of fire risk.
One thing is for sure, much of what we are talking about in thread simply doesn't apply in the foothills. You need to have a vehicle up there simply because there aren't any other options to get around large distances.
if I had my choice, and the money it would be hard for me to pick between either a row home near the Golden Gate State Park or the area San Rafael area. Only problem with the San Rafael area, is the SMART train doesn't connect to San Francisco and I don't think it ever will. But it would be nice to have a place there hop on the train for a day in San Fran.
I've also thought about a mountain town where it snows a lot in the Sierras or the Rockies, but I'm sure visiting during the winter and enjoying the snow for a week or two is different than living there and dealing with it all season long.
I just prefer to be away from as many people as possible. When I lived on Cudjoe Key I didn't have cable and pretty much was about as detached as I could be from the modern world. While I did enjoy the peace and quiet the mountains here offer far more recreational opportunities which I like.
I've grown very fond of Moab. I spend at least a month sometimes two out of the year there.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 03, 2025, 06:28:59 PMFurthermore, it's a bit more than a conspiracy when I've posted links to multiple articles in this thread and on several of your threads that you post every month that always have this anti-Car crap in it. Sometimes it's stuff that has little or nothing to do with California.
First, I note in every post: "Lastly, the post also includes some things that I think would be of peripheral interest to my
highway-obsessed highway-interested readers." And that goes to the real reason I do the headline post: To collect material that I want to review later for my highway pages.
So, what in my post for January didn't have to do with California:
QuoteColorado, Minnesota DOTs Chart a New Road Forward on Cutting Emissions (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2025-01-07/colorado-minnesota-dots-chart-a-new-road-forward-on-cutting-emissions?srnd=phx-citylab) (Bloomberg). At the start of Minnesota's 2023 legislative session, Democrats controlled the governor's office, the state senate and house of representatives — a trifecta that presented an opportunity for all kinds of progressive reforms. Larry Kraft, then beginning his first year as a representative in the Minnesota legislature after building a political career on climate policy in a Minneapolis suburb, used the moment to tackle one of the state's biggest sources of greenhouse gases: transportation. Minnesota has the fourth most road lane miles of any US state, despite having a population that comes in at 22nd place.
This was there because the CTC has (as we've noted) a goal to reduce VMT and greenhouse cases, and so other solutions to do that are relevant to the discussion.
QuoteCan American Drivers Learn to Love Roundabouts? (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2025-01-06/can-american-drivers-learn-to-love-roundabouts?srnd=phx-citylab) (Bloomberg). Almost every night, after he helps put his kid to bed, Joshua Blanton drives across his hometown of Ashland, Kentucky, to look at a roundabout. Five were installed along one of its main commercial stretches this year, replacing five stoplights and reducing four traffic lanes to two. The project is part of a larger downtown revitalization effort to boost walkability and safety in the city of 20,000 people. But for Blanton, it's become much more than that. "It's habit," he said of his frequent drives. "We were so involved in it, it's just hard to break away."Can American Drivers Learn to Love Roundabouts? (Bloomberg). Almost every night, after he helps put his kid to bed, Joshua Blanton drives across his hometown of Ashland, Kentucky, to look at a roundabout. Five were installed along one of its main commercial stretches this year, replacing five stoplights and reducing four traffic lanes to two. The project is part of a larger downtown revitalization effort to boost walkability and safety in the city of 20,000 people. But for Blanton, it's become much more than that. "It's habit," he said of his frequent drives. "We were so involved in it, it's just hard to break away."
An increasing solution that Caltrans is using is roundabouts, and roundabouts are a level of change that is of interest for my highway pages. So whether roundabouts work and are effective is of interest.
QuoteWhy Do We Keep Widening Highways If It Doesn't Reduce Traffic? (https://www.sciencefriday.com/segments/widening-highways-makes-traffic-worse/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR3Fdi93YKE4KYLJ8iyXzJrM1JyDPJNxuF5yyTCHiRs_f353zgMSZfm8mqE_aem_OcRznrvLphcKC-8Molz8pg) (Science Friday). Have you ever been stuck in traffic and thought, if only this highway was a little wider so it could fit more cars? You aren't alone. Many states have been expanding their highways. New York Governor Kathy Hochul recently announced a $1.3 billion project to expand one of the state's highways for an estimated maximum six-minute travel savings. Other highway-widening projects are underway in Texas, California, and Maryland. In 2022, federal, state, and local governments in the US spent $127 billion on highway construction. Some departments of transportation say expanding highways is necessary to reduce congestion, especially in areas with growing populations, and to encourage economic development.
Given all the debates about highway widening on this forum, and whether it makes things better or worse for drivers, it is useful when there is some actual SCIENCE behind things to discuss. So I grabbed this so I could come back to it, and perhaps look into the book, because I usually use the Science Friday segments to fall asleep (if I don't have any "Daily Tech News Show").
Those were the three non-California articles in the list this month. Nothing specifically anti-car (well, perhaps the Science Friday piece might be viewed that way, but that's not the intent of the source, unlike (say) Streetsblog LA), and all are relevant to debates and discussions we've been having over California.
More importantly: None of these were the articles that set you off on this tangent. It was the note that some of the articles from early January might be impacted by Trmp's executive orders, which included the Reconnecting Communities grants. That's certainly relevant to California.
For me, there was loads of interesting stuff in there that should be discussed, but that your obsession with widening derailed. The article from the SCRM Gazette about the proposed I-15 and Route 74 routings in Perris. The new interchange near Lovers Lane. This history of Mulholland Highways. The 1952 Parkways proposal map. The changes planned for Watsonville. The history of the Bishop Bypass and the Wye at the intersection of US 6 and US 395. The Stevenson Bridge rehab. The history of US 80.
Where's the discussion on that?
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 03, 2025, 09:06:29 PMif I had my choice, and the money it would be hard for me to pick between either a row home near the Golden Gate State Park or the area San Rafael area. Only problem with the San Rafael area, is the SMART train doesn't connect to San Francisco and I don't think it ever will. But it would be nice to have a place there hop on the train for a day in San Fran.
I've also thought about a mountain town where it snows a lot in the Sierras or the Rockies, but I'm sure visiting during the winter and enjoying the snow for a week or two is different than living there and dealing with it all season long.
The SMART train doesn't go to the City, and almost certainly never will, but it does go to Larkspur where you can catch the ferry (which is a nice ride in itself and runs +/- hourly on weekdays, less so on weekends) to the Ferry Building at the foot of Market Street. And from there pretty much everything is accessible by Muni metro or bus.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 03, 2025, 09:06:29 PMI've also thought about a mountain town where it snows a lot in the Sierras or the Rockies, but I'm sure visiting during the winter and enjoying the snow for a week or two is different than living there and dealing with it all season long.
I have lived at Lake Tahoe for 16 years. The winters do get a bit tiresome as the years go by. The way I deal with it is by doing a lot of travel to warm weather locations between Thanksgiving and early April. This winter there are 5 separate trips of anywhere from 6 to 15 days, never with more than about 3-4 weeks at home between them. That's somewhat costly, but then from early April through late November I'm rarely away from home for more than a couple days. As a younger person, perhaps with a family, you tend to think of "summer vacations", but later on you might shift to the "snowbird" lifestyle.
Quote from: cahwyguy on February 04, 2025, 08:25:05 AMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on February 03, 2025, 06:28:59 PMFurthermore, it's a bit more than a conspiracy when I've posted links to multiple articles in this thread and on several of your threads that you post every month that always have this anti-Car crap in it. Sometimes it's stuff that has little or nothing to do with California.
First, I note in every post: "Lastly, the post also includes some things that I think would be of peripheral interest to my highway-obsessed highway-interested readers." And that goes to the real reason I do the headline post: To collect material that I want to review later for my highway pages.
So, what in my post for January didn't have to do with California:
QuoteColorado, Minnesota DOTs Chart a New Road Forward on Cutting Emissions (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2025-01-07/colorado-minnesota-dots-chart-a-new-road-forward-on-cutting-emissions?srnd=phx-citylab) (Bloomberg). At the start of Minnesota's 2023 legislative session, Democrats controlled the governor's office, the state senate and house of representatives — a trifecta that presented an opportunity for all kinds of progressive reforms. Larry Kraft, then beginning his first year as a representative in the Minnesota legislature after building a political career on climate policy in a Minneapolis suburb, used the moment to tackle one of the state's biggest sources of greenhouse gases: transportation. Minnesota has the fourth most road lane miles of any US state, despite having a population that comes in at 22nd place.
This was there because the CTC has (as we've noted) a goal to reduce VMT and greenhouse cases, and so other solutions to do that are relevant to the discussion.
QuoteCan American Drivers Learn to Love Roundabouts? (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2025-01-06/can-american-drivers-learn-to-love-roundabouts?srnd=phx-citylab) (Bloomberg). Almost every night, after he helps put his kid to bed, Joshua Blanton drives across his hometown of Ashland, Kentucky, to look at a roundabout. Five were installed along one of its main commercial stretches this year, replacing five stoplights and reducing four traffic lanes to two. The project is part of a larger downtown revitalization effort to boost walkability and safety in the city of 20,000 people. But for Blanton, it's become much more than that. "It's habit," he said of his frequent drives. "We were so involved in it, it's just hard to break away."Can American Drivers Learn to Love Roundabouts? (Bloomberg). Almost every night, after he helps put his kid to bed, Joshua Blanton drives across his hometown of Ashland, Kentucky, to look at a roundabout. Five were installed along one of its main commercial stretches this year, replacing five stoplights and reducing four traffic lanes to two. The project is part of a larger downtown revitalization effort to boost walkability and safety in the city of 20,000 people. But for Blanton, it's become much more than that. "It's habit," he said of his frequent drives. "We were so involved in it, it's just hard to break away."
An increasing solution that Caltrans is using is roundabouts, and roundabouts are a level of change that is of interest for my highway pages. So whether roundabouts work and are effective is of interest.
QuoteWhy Do We Keep Widening Highways If It Doesn't Reduce Traffic? (https://www.sciencefriday.com/segments/widening-highways-makes-traffic-worse/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR3Fdi93YKE4KYLJ8iyXzJrM1JyDPJNxuF5yyTCHiRs_f353zgMSZfm8mqE_aem_OcRznrvLphcKC-8Molz8pg) (Science Friday). Have you ever been stuck in traffic and thought, if only this highway was a little wider so it could fit more cars? You aren't alone. Many states have been expanding their highways. New York Governor Kathy Hochul recently announced a $1.3 billion project to expand one of the state's highways for an estimated maximum six-minute travel savings. Other highway-widening projects are underway in Texas, California, and Maryland. In 2022, federal, state, and local governments in the US spent $127 billion on highway construction. Some departments of transportation say expanding highways is necessary to reduce congestion, especially in areas with growing populations, and to encourage economic development.
Given all the debates about highway widening on this forum, and whether it makes things better or worse for drivers, it is useful when there is some actual SCIENCE behind things to discuss. So I grabbed this so I could come back to it, and perhaps look into the book, because I usually use the Science Friday segments to fall asleep (if I don't have any "Daily Tech News Show").
Those were the three non-California articles in the list this month. Nothing specifically anti-car (well, perhaps the Science Friday piece might be viewed that way, but that's not the intent of the source, unlike (say) Streetsblog LA), and all are relevant to debates and discussions we've been having over California.
More importantly: None of these were the articles that set you off on this tangent. It was the note that some of the articles from early January might be impacted by Trmp's executive orders, which included the Reconnecting Communities grants. That's certainly relevant to California.
For me, there was loads of interesting stuff in there that should be discussed, but that your obsession with widening derailed. The article from the SCRM Gazette about the proposed I-15 and Route 74 routings in Perris. The new interchange near Lovers Lane. This history of Mulholland Highways. The 1952 Parkways proposal map. The changes planned for Watsonville. The history of the Bishop Bypass and the Wye at the intersection of US 6 and US 395. The Stevenson Bridge rehab. The history of US 80.
Where's the discussion on that?
Well, personally, I'm not even sure what the reconnecting community thing is really even about. It's a weird grant. Is it talking about removing a freeway? Capping a freeway? Putting a ground level freeway in a tunnel?
And one could argue if you move a freeway with the reconnecting freeways, grant your disconnecting other communities that use that freeway to connect to each other. So it makes no sense.
I don't know what the status is on that, I'm not against freeway removals where they make sense nor am I against freeway caps. Though I will say I do enjoy driving on urban freeways through big cities being able to look up and see skyscrapers on each side of the highway for example CA-110 in DTLA.
But Trump is a republican, and reconnecting community grants seem like they are anti-Car, again I could be wrong. Maybe I fully don't understand what exactly those grants are about. Republicans are generally more pro Car than Democrats are who seem to be more pro transit and urban. But again that's a pretty broad generalization so it's not a hill that I'm gonna die on.
I know I-244 in Tulsa is using a reconnecting communities grant for some study. I don't know what it is, but I'm guessing it either is going to study removing the freeway or making it a tunnel. Personally I think they should turn it into a tunnel. And with I-42 I think that would kill any chances of that freeway ever being removed. But again the reconnecting communities grant was just being used as a study from ODOT. I don't believe there are any actual plans to do anything.
I do recall, seeing some grass roots movements to place park caps over the 101 in DTLA. Are you aware of any reconnecting community grants being used in California? I haven't heard of any.
Now hell, it's all about the wording, I guess. Cause I'd say that connecting communities would be something like actually building the high desert corridor to connect Lancaster to Victorville. But then again you could also say that's not reconnecting those two communities because they weren't really connected that way to begin with.
I guess I just don't see what that grant is supposed to achieve and neither does Trump apparently. And to be honest, I never gave it much thought until he paused funding on it.
Quote from: gonealookin on February 04, 2025, 04:20:44 PMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on February 03, 2025, 09:06:29 PMI've also thought about a mountain town where it snows a lot in the Sierras or the Rockies, but I'm sure visiting during the winter and enjoying the snow for a week or two is different than living there and dealing with it all season long.
I have lived at Lake Tahoe for 16 years. The winters do get a bit tiresome as the years go by. The way I deal with it is by doing a lot of travel to warm weather locations between Thanksgiving and early April. This winter there are 5 separate trips of anywhere from 6 to 15 days, never with more than about 3-4 weeks at home between them. That's somewhat costly, but then from early April through late November I'm rarely away from home for more than a couple days. As a younger person, perhaps with a family, you tend to think of "summer vacations", but later on you might shift to the "snowbird" lifestyle.
That's funny because one of the guys that I rent jet skis from when I go to Lake Powell lives in Breckenridge during the winter. Which obviously as I'm sure you know is a cold and snowy mountain town. And in the summer, he lives in Page, Arizona, which is usually pretty hot.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 04, 2025, 09:05:52 PMWell, personally, I'm not even sure what the reconnecting community thing is really even about. It's a weird grant. Is it talking about removing a freeway? Capping a freeway? Putting a ground level freeway in a tunnel?
[...]
But Trump is a republican, and reconnecting community grants seem like they are anti-Car, again I could be wrong. Maybe I fully don't understand what exactly those grants are about. Republicans are generally more pro Car than Democrats are who seem to be more pro transit and urban. But again that's a pretty broad generalization so it's not a hill that I'm gonna die on.
I wrote about the Reconnecting Community grants when they first came out. This is what I have on the 980 page:
QuoteIn February 2023, it was reported that the city of Oakland and Caltrans received $680,000 in federal money to study ways to reconnect areas divided by I-980. A range of options will be considered for using or crossing the I-980 corridor. Caltrans officials said all options are on the table including demolishing the freeway. Caltrans plans to hire a consultant this year to study the options for crossing or using the corridor it expects the study will take two to four years to complete. The funding is part of the Reconnecting Communities Pilot program through the U.S. Department of Transportation. The other cities receiving funds are San Jose, Long Beach, Pasadena and Fresno. The pilot program was established in the nation's Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which passed in 2021. Construction on I-980 began in the 1960s, but wasn't completed until 1985. The roughly 2-mile stretch was meant to provide East Bay motorists taking I-580 and Route 24 with a direct connection to I-880, past the Oakland airport to San Jose. For many, I-980 is the quickest route to Jack London Square. But the highway project led to the destruction of over 500 homes, nearly two dozen businesses and several churches. While planners had envisioned a connection to a second transbay bridge linking San Francisco to Route 24, that span was never built. Past efforts to convert the highway to a tree-laden city street have consistently fallen short. Even a project included in President Joe Biden's $2.3 trillion infrastructure proposal in 2021 was later left out of the approved spending package.
According to the source articles:
https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/interstate-980-oakland-caltrans-receives-federal-funds-study-freeway-removal/
https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2023/02/28/would-dismantling-interstate-980-repair-damage-to-black-neighborhoods/
https://cal.streetsblog.org/2023/02/28/federal-reconnecting-communities-program-announces-first-grants-four-in-california/
QuoteThe city of San Jose is receiving $2 million to study changing Monterey Road from a highway to a "complete street," which is a street that is safe and supports travel by all whether they are driving, walking, bicycling or taking public transit.
Oakland and San Jose are two of the five cities in California to receive a total $35 million in federal funding as part of the Reconnecting Communities Pilot program through the U.S. Department of Transportation. The other three cities are Long Beach, Pasadena and Fresno.
The pilot program was established in the nation's Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which passed in 2021. For highway programs, the law provides $350 billion over five years.
Here's some more information:
QuoteCalifornia communities also received four planning grants in this round. Those are for:
$680,00 for the Vision 980 Feasibility Study, which will look at reconfiguring the I-980 corridor in Oakland. It will study improving access for bikes, pedestrians, and transit, and "explore options for lessening the barrier, ranging from freeway removal to improvements to the crossings of the existing facility," according to the project fact sheet.
$2 million for the North 710 Freeway Stub Re-envisioning Project in the city of Pasadena, to study transportation and land use needs near this recently relinquished highway stub. This short piece of freeway was built in anticipation of future highway connection, caused massive residential displacement gutting a Black neighborhood, and severed access to a central business district. The freeway connection was later canceled. "The goal is to develop a collaborative plan for the sixty-acre site that considers redressing historic inequities, while coordinating land use, housing, and transportation needs that are reflective of the city's existing and future population."
$600,000 for a pedestrian bridge at Parkway Drive on State Route 99 in the city of Fresno. "The construction of California State Route 99 ushered in a period of sharp decline for the Jane Addams Neighborhood, a disadvantaged community that found itself isolated from greenspace, community services, and economic investment following the project's completion," says the fact sheet. "The isolation played a role in soon establishing Parkway Drive as the epicenter of human trafficking and crime in the Fresno community, further leading to disinvestment and community problems. Historically, the neighborhood has largely lacked curbs, sidewalks, street trees, and green space in general. Pedestrian and vehicular crossings for SR 99 are minimal ... and hamper vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian connections to other parts of the city."
$2 million for the Monterey Road Highway to Grand Boulevard Design Study in the city of San Jose, which will explore converting Monterey Road from a motor highway to a grand boulevard. The project proposes to redesign Monterey Road - currently a six-lane facility with 50 mph traffic - as "a complete street that will prioritize safety and improve accessibility for individuals who walk, bike, or use transit... Community engagement activities will bring residents, community organizations, and transportation agencies together to identify the most important transportation challenges and develop strategies to overcome them. Potential project improvements to be considered include dedicated transit lanes, protected bike lanes, urban greening, and reconstructed intersections."
As for why the R don't like them: It has nothing to do with cars. The grants deal with reconnecting disadvantaged communities. That's DEI to them, and DEI is now verboten. Basically, if it smacks of either being DEI or Climate Change related, the new administration wants to pause the Federal funding.
Quote from: heynow415 on February 04, 2025, 12:53:20 PMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on February 03, 2025, 09:06:29 PMif I had my choice, and the money it would be hard for me to pick between either a row home near the Golden Gate State Park or the area San Rafael area. Only problem with the San Rafael area, is the SMART train doesn't connect to San Francisco and I don't think it ever will. But it would be nice to have a place there hop on the train for a day in San Fran.
I've also thought about a mountain town where it snows a lot in the Sierras or the Rockies, but I'm sure visiting during the winter and enjoying the snow for a week or two is different than living there and dealing with it all season long.
The SMART train doesn't go to the City, and almost certainly never will, but it does go to Larkspur where you can catch the ferry (which is a nice ride in itself and runs +/- hourly on weekdays, less so on weekends) to the Ferry Building at the foot of Market Street. And from there pretty much everything is accessible by Muni metro or bus.
Yes, I'm aware of that, but even though you can take a ferry(I have not done it) I do wish they would come up with a long-term plan to connect the smart train to the salesforce transit center somehow.