LA Times - High Desert Highway

[sparker]

Watch Seatlle, where a city on an isthmus cannot spread out and watch Portland OR, where state land use laws put boundaries on development.  The highways and freeways of these cities are hopelessly congested at this time.  Put enough pain into the equation and eventually someone is going to try a solution.  How long before one that works comes along?  I sure hope the answer is "Soon!".  It will be interesting to find out what the solution turned out to be, assuming one was found.

Rick

What's unique about Portland and its politics is the fact that Metro's jurisdiction ends in the middle of the Columbia River; while they can (and certainly do) piss & moan about things across the river in WA,  for the time being there's little they can do about it.  So Clark County has become something of a "safety valve" for greater PDX; developers have the choice of attempting to locate their activities well south of the metro region (let's say Woodburn and points south -- closer to Salem than Portland!) or simply reposition those activities northward.  Ranch houses on substantial lots? -- easy peezy in Woodland or Battle Ground.  And while it's not like the Wild West -- there are rules and regs, getting housing built isn't an uphill battle like across the river.  And there are advantages -- residents can simply schlep over the river and purchase "big-ticket" items sans sales tax (a residual "free rider" effect), while taking advantage of the slightly lower property taxes in WA.  Not that housing is any cheaper in WA -- just a greater variety, particularly in regards to new housing stock, is generally available.  Now -- whether this situation will persist in the long haul is uncertain; there are political and fiscal pressures, some attached to potential new/upgrades regarding river crossings, that eventually may provoke Vancouver and/or Clark County into alliances with Metro involving some concessions to many of the latter's policies.  That whole situation was intriguing when I was living up there in the mid-90's; it remains so today. 

[Bobby5280]

The problem with the utopian ideals expressed by the new urbanist activists (who, if embedded within planning departments at the city/county/MPO level, attempt to manifest) is that they have collectively identified the driving public as public enemy #1; no methodology is considered unless it contains a component that makes driving in their area of influence as difficult and even onerous as possible.  This tends to discard solutions that are doable and fair in favor of those that are punitive -- which invariably leads to political backlash that has the effect of kicking the can of urban/metro problems down the road.   Urbanist approaches are, first and foremost, a methodology; conflating them into an ideology is a fools' errand.   Unless one's head is stuck way up in the clouds (or another location that smells considerably worse!), attempting to mold a new human species based upon one's derived ideals rather than simply negotiate with the populace as encountered (i.e., playing the hand dealt to you) to arrive at a consensual solution is, in plain terms, a "bridge too far"; the feasible is ignored while the ideal either runs into a brick wall or is whittled away notion by notion until nothing workable remains (the late '60's/early '70's redux!).  It's similar to abortion opponents who also oppose contraception simply because they want to erect/maintain "speed bumps" in the path of sexual activity -- their generally unstated end game.  They want to stop certain folks from fucking; in a similar vein the more adamant urbanists want to stop most folks from driving.   The idea that vehicles could within our lifetimes be carbon-emission free isn't enough for some of them; they want a populace inured to the bounded rationality of restricted mobility.   On a side note, it must be nice to be able to look at one's self in a mirror and think "....if everyone were like me, the world would be a better place!"  Fortunately, most of us aren't that delusional -- just human!

Putting it more simply: too many people in positions of power and influence are out of touch. They're either not aware or concerned with adverse effects their policies will have on people who aren't members of their very select peer group. They bulldoze their choices through anyway.

It's pretty common for Americans to have very skewed perspectives on various socio-economic issues. We think we know what's best for different groups of people who aren't us even though we often lack the honest ability to really see things from the perspective of people in those other groups. We just invent some BS rationale to ram-rod our wants into law if we have the power to do it.

[nexus73]

Watch Seatlle, where a city on an isthmus cannot spread out and watch Portland OR, where state land use laws put boundaries on development.  The highways and freeways of these cities are hopelessly congested at this time.  Put enough pain into the equation and eventually someone is going to try a solution.  How long before one that works comes along?  I sure hope the answer is "Soon!".  It will be interesting to find out what the solution turned out to be, assuming one was found.

Rick

What's unique about Portland and its politics is the fact that Metro's jurisdiction ends in the middle of the Columbia River; while they can (and certainly do) piss & moan about things across the river in WA,  for the time being there's little they can do about it.  So Clark County has become something of a "safety valve" for greater PDX; developers have the choice of attempting to locate their activities well south of the metro region (let's say Woodburn and points south -- closer to Salem than Portland!) or simply reposition those activities northward.  Ranch houses on substantial lots? -- easy peezy in Woodland or Battle Ground.  And while it's not like the Wild West -- there are rules and regs, getting housing built isn't an uphill battle like across the river.  And there are advantages -- residents can simply schlep over the river and purchase "big-ticket" items sans sales tax (a residual "free rider" effect), while taking advantage of the slightly lower property taxes in WA.  Not that housing is any cheaper in WA -- just a greater variety, particularly in regards to new housing stock, is generally available.  Now -- whether this situation will persist in the long haul is uncertain; there are political and fiscal pressures, some attached to potential new/upgrades regarding river crossings, that eventually may provoke Vancouver and/or Clark County into alliances with Metro involving some concessions to many of the latter's policies.  That whole situation was intriguing when I was living up there in the mid-90's; it remains so today. 

Even with Vancouver acting as a relief valve, there is still way too much congestion in PDX.  Something needs to be done.  What will be done?  There is where the story needs to go.

Rick

[Plutonic Panda]

I can't help but think this road diet, new urbanism, and bike obsession thing is a fad. I think the American public is being sold on a lie that dense areas are more sustainable and cheaper as well as freeways won't work because induced demand which is just nonsense. I hope, and think we'll start seeing some push back against these things soon. I expect the future to have more balance and give people more choices, but I don't foresee this urban oriented transit fantasy land. Suburbs will always rule and seem to be becoming more popular over the world. They are superior in nearly every way offering a much better quality of life than urban areas can.

[Bobby5280]

Dense urban areas with mixed use development can work, but only if people of ALL social classes can afford living there. Simple as that. The New Urbanist neighborhood needs to have room for everyone from the douche bag millionaire down to the lowly minimum wage fry cook. The big question is how do you set up the housing market and other mechanisms of big city living to be class-inclusive like that?

If the New Urbanist neighborhood's housing is priced so only people with six figure incomes and up can afford to live there they'll run off all their lower wage workers to live in the suburbs or even move to other parts of the country. And that ruins that whole New Urbanist goal of fighting sprawl, fighting new freeways, etc. When it comes to jobs like waiting tables or working in a fast food kitchen there's plenty of those jobs out in the suburbs and other lower cost places. Over the long term that will threaten high cost cities like New York and San Francisco with labor shortages in service sector jobs.

[nexus73]

I can't help but think this road diet, new urbanism, and bike obsession thing is a fad. I think the American public is being sold on a lie that dense areas are more sustainable and cheaper as well as freeways won't work because induced demand which is just nonsense. I hope, and think we'll start seeing some push back against these things soon. I expect the future to have more balance and give people more choices, but I don't foresee this urban oriented transit fantasy land. Suburbs will always rule and seem to be becoming more popular over the world. They are superior in nearly every way offering a much better quality of life than urban areas can.

The problem in allowing sprawl in the Willamette Valley is that this valley is the most fecund valley on the West Coast.  Unlike the San Joaquin Velley, it does not need massive amounts of irrigating.  Annual rainfall is about 35".  Soil is rich.  This valley is the reason our nation wound up with the Oregon Trail. 

Take the urban footprint of SoCal.  Place it in Oregon.  You would cover the entire Willamette Valley with plenty more land covered in the mountains.  Losing prime agricultural land is a bigger loss than losing arid desert land. 

Oregon will need to find a way to handle concentrated populations if our state is going to be engaged in large scale agriculture.  SoCal will need to find a way to move a whole lot of people through the massive amount of land which has been urbanized.  These are two different challenges.  Political will.  Market forces.  Water availability. Terrain.  Energy supplies.  It is like we are playing a Sim game at slow speed with slow reaction time and there is a field of icebergs to be navigated through.  What solutions?  When do they come?  I will not be alive to see these problems solved but someone will....I hope!  What the solutions are for each situation is something I wish I could know.  Who wants to read half a book and lose it before knowing how the story ended?

Rick

[DTComposer]

Suburbs will always rule and seem to be becoming more popular over the world. They are superior in nearly every way offering a much better quality of life than urban areas can.

And yet, we're not the happiest nation on the planet - not even close.

My point is the problem - with both sides of this argument - is that each side thinks they know what is best for everyone. As someone who has spent his life fairly equally between high-density central cities and suburban tracts, my quality of life has consistently been higher in the cities. Easier commute, easier access to services and entertainment, more engagement with my neighbors and neighborhood. But that's my story only, and I don't pretend that it works that way for everyone.

There is no one great answer, and what works for one city/region will not work for another.

[Bobby5280]

A suburb will do well as long as it has plenty of upper middle class and upper class residents adding to the tax base. The schools, infrastructure and services like police, fire and garbage removal all cost a lot of money to maintain.

Many small towns are struggling badly because they don't have the tax base to cover all the basics of public services and infrastructure. So much of the living cost inflation happening in big cities is filtering down to smaller cities and towns. It's costing more to repair streets or hire policemen. The problem is compounded by young people in small towns leaving when they get out of high school and not returning. Rising costs and a shrinking tax base is a terrible equation for a small town's future.

There is plenty of pros and cons to living in the city versus the suburbs. There were plenty of things I did like about living in New York City, such as close access to all kinds of stores and entertainment outlets. I was a big movie fan and got spoiled to watching movies projected from 70mm film prints in huge 1000 seat theaters. That's not available in the suburbs and small towns. But the city is really crowded. Standing elbow to elbow on a subway platform that smells like dried pee is not fun. NYC is also very noisy; there's only a few places in the 5 boroughs where you can get any peace and quiet (such as some spots on Staten Island).

[nexus73]

A suburb will do well as long as it has plenty of upper middle class and upper class residents adding to the tax base. The schools, infrastructure and services like police, fire and garbage removal all cost a lot of money to maintain.

Many small towns are struggling badly because they don't have the tax base to cover all the basics of public services and infrastructure. So much of the living cost inflation happening in big cities is filtering down to smaller cities and towns. It's costing more to repair streets or hire policemen. The problem is compounded by young people in small towns leaving when they get out of high school and not returning. Rising costs and a shrinking tax base is a terrible equation for a small town's future.

There is plenty of pros and cons to living in the city versus the suburbs. There were plenty of things I did like about living in New York City, such as close access to all kinds of stores and entertainment outlets. I was a big movie fan and got spoiled to watching movies projected from 70mm film prints in huge 1000 seat theaters. That's not available in the suburbs and small towns. But the city is really crowded. Standing elbow to elbow on a subway platform that smells like dried pee is not fun. NYC is also very noisy; there's only a few places in the 5 boroughs where you can get any peace and quiet (such as some spots on Staten Island).

Your paragraph on smaller cities and towns certainly applies to my home area of Coos Bay-North Bend.  I have seen this area in boom times, in totally collapsed times and now I see changing times that are for the better but they were in ways I never would have predicted half a century ago.  Imagine a town going from the timber and fishing industry to one known for world class golf course complexes and high end housing for well off retirees.  That is what happened to Bandon OR.  Go inland on 42S, the former US 101 to Coquille.  There is your classic small town which became dog-eared but somehow there is just enough good stuff to keep the old heart beating.  The times they are a'changing and doing so in very different fashions for each of the seven incorporated cities in Coos County.  It has been interesting to see how each story played out.

Rick

[Plutonic Panda]

I do believe the classic suburbs as we know it will change a bit and become more dense with large suburban malls shifting siteplans and more structured parking. Freeway design should be different with more lanes and perhaps more carriage ways to separate traffic. More tunnels and/or park caps should be in order.

Developing most of the high desert into a low density sprawled community with large freeways every 5 miles and large 6-8 arterials with more freeways built and existing ones widened to get people into LA and the Valley coupled with HSR at least to the Valley or Pasadena would solve the California housing crisis. The infrastructure simply doesn't exist to allow for this to happen at the moment.

[Bobby5280]

I do believe the classic suburbs as we know it will change a bit and become more dense with large suburban malls shifting siteplans and more structured parking. Freeway design should be different with more lanes and perhaps more carriage ways to separate traffic. More tunnels and/or park caps should be in order.

Aside from improving freeways, I think much more improvement is needed on the surface street level. A busy arterial really needs limits on how many streets intersect with it and limit the number of driveways making direct contact with the arterial. Too many intersections and driveways leads to way too many traffic flow conflicts and even traffic jams. Parts of Houston are notorious for having surface street back-ups and gridlock that ends up even leading to jams on nearby freeways.

New housing and retail developments are getting better at limiting the number of vehicle access points onto the main thoroughfares. A new residential neighborhood might have its own self contained street grid with only a couple or so access points in and out of the neighborhood rather than letting every street spill out onto the main arterial or allow homes to have driveways connecting directly with the main arterial.

It's easier to properly design the street layout for a new housing or retail development. What can be done to alter existing old fashioned street grids and busy city streets already infested with drive-ways?

[Plutonic Panda]

I do believe the classic suburbs as we know it will change a bit and become more dense with large suburban malls shifting siteplans and more structured parking. Freeway design should be different with more lanes and perhaps more carriage ways to separate traffic. More tunnels and/or park caps should be in order.

Aside from improving freeways, I think much more improvement is needed on the surface street level. A busy arterial really needs limits on how many streets intersect with it and limit the number of driveways making direct contact with the arterial. Too many intersections and driveways leads to way too many traffic flow conflicts and even traffic jams. Parts of Houston are notorious for having surface street back-ups and gridlock that ends up even leading to jams on nearby freeways.

New housing and retail developments are getting better at limiting the number of vehicle access points onto the main thoroughfares. A new residential neighborhood might have its own self contained street grid with only a couple or so access points in and out of the neighborhood rather than letting every street spill out onto the main arterial or allow homes to have driveways connecting directly with the main arterial.

It's easier to properly design the street layout for a new housing or retail development. What can be done to alter existing old fashioned street grids and busy city streets already infested with drive-ways?

OKC is horrible with this! Especially placing curb cuts right at intersections.

[sparker]

A while back my GF an I were out in the Manteca/Lathrop area looking at new housing; I noticed that a number of the tracts -- particularly those nearest to the Delta -- were laid out with arterials -- some 2-lane, some 4-lane divided with frontage roads on either side, from which perpendicular single ended streets -- relatively long -- extended to a similar frontage road on the next arterial.  In the particular tract that was showing model homes that day the arterials alternated 2-lane, 4-lane, and another 2-lane; the last batch of houses terminated on a street that paralleled a delta levee.  The arterials were accessed from the frontage roads by connectors about every 5 blocks; these intersected the frontage roads between the streets containing the housing so no connector would become a functional thoroughfare.  Obviously, the rectangular format was retained to maximize land use (the lots were quite narrow but deep, with functional front & back yards), but this method of arterials+frontage roads seemed, at least to my sensibilities, to be a reasonable way to provide both access and a level of isolation from through traffic.  And no, we didn't make a purchase; neither of us particularly cared for the layout of the single-level homes.  Looks like we'll be sticking around San Jose for at least the next couple of years. 

It's easier to properly design the street layout for a new housing or retail development. What can be done to alter existing old fashioned street grids and busy city streets already infested with drive-ways?

Probably not a hell of a lot save a comprehensive razing and reconstruction -- but any entity proposing such will invariably encounter enough opposition to render a major project infeasible.  The residents and business owners in these older areas will have to reach some sort of tipping point -- a rash of accidents, customers avoiding an area because of issues surrounding the safety of both pedestrians and drivers -- or any other circumstances deemed detrimental to the conduct of life in that particular neighborhood.   Then some substantial "modifications" to the physical layout -- likely involving longer-term regional disruption -- might be on the table.   But barring those events, it's likely that only incremental steps -- "road diets", conversion of alleyways to functional commercial loading areas (to lessen trucks blocking arterial lanes while loading/unloading), and maybe the occasional roundabout (I can already hear the groans from some quarters) deployment -- will be taken.  But in either scenario, it would probably be best to take measures to avoid such actions being characterized as gentrification, which is a phenomenon, except in private developmental quarters, that is becoming a widely despised situation.     

[nexus73]

A while back my GF an I were out in the Manteca/Lathrop area looking at new housing; I noticed that a number of the tracts -- particularly those nearest to the Delta -- were laid out with arterials -- some 2-lane, some 4-lane divided with frontage roads on either side, from which perpendicular single ended streets -- relatively long -- extended to a similar frontage road on the next arterial.  In the particular tract that was showing model homes that day the arterials alternated 2-lane, 4-lane, and another 2-lane; the last batch of houses terminated on a street that paralleled a delta levee.  The arterials were accessed from the frontage roads by connectors about every 5 blocks; these intersected the frontage roads between the streets containing the housing so no connector would become a functional thoroughfare.  Obviously, the rectangular format was retained to maximize land use (the lots were quite narrow but deep, with functional front & back yards), but this method of arterials+frontage roads seemed, at least to my sensibilities, to be a reasonable way to provide both access and a level of isolation from through traffic.  And no, we didn't make a purchase; neither of us particularly cared for the layout of the single-level homes.  Looks like we'll be sticking around San Jose for at least the next couple of years. 

It's easier to properly design the street layout for a new housing or retail development. What can be done to alter existing old fashioned street grids and busy city streets already infested with drive-ways?

Probably not a hell of a lot save a comprehensive razing and reconstruction -- but any entity proposing such will invariably encounter enough opposition to render a major project infeasible.  The residents and business owners in these older areas will have to reach some sort of tipping point -- a rash of accidents, customers avoiding an area because of issues surrounding the safety of both pedestrians and drivers -- or any other circumstances deemed detrimental to the conduct of life in that particular neighborhood.   Then some substantial "modifications" to the physical layout -- likely involving longer-term regional disruption -- might be on the table.   But barring those events, it's likely that only incremental steps -- "road diets", conversion of alleyways to functional commercial loading areas (to lessen trucks blocking arterial lanes while loading/unloading), and maybe the occasional roundabout (I can already hear the groans from some quarters) deployment -- will be taken.  But in either scenario, it would probably be best to take measures to avoid such actions being characterized as gentrification, which is a phenomenon, except in private developmental quarters, that is becoming a widely despised situation.     

Yes!  The mainline with frontage roads is a design I call superboulevard.  Maybe other people do as well.  My first time to see one was in the Nineties.  Hammond LA was the location.  It struck me as an impressive design for an urban area.  The one you describe, where superboulevards combine with a network of streets and frontage roads, sounds like just the ticket for letting traffic flow.

Rick

[mrsman]

A while back my GF an I were out in the Manteca/Lathrop area looking at new housing; I noticed that a number of the tracts -- particularly those nearest to the Delta -- were laid out with arterials -- some 2-lane, some 4-lane divided with frontage roads on either side, from which perpendicular single ended streets -- relatively long -- extended to a similar frontage road on the next arterial.  In the particular tract that was showing model homes that day the arterials alternated 2-lane, 4-lane, and another 2-lane; the last batch of houses terminated on a street that paralleled a delta levee.  The arterials were accessed from the frontage roads by connectors about every 5 blocks; these intersected the frontage roads between the streets containing the housing so no connector would become a functional thoroughfare.  Obviously, the rectangular format was retained to maximize land use (the lots were quite narrow but deep, with functional front & back yards), but this method of arterials+frontage roads seemed, at least to my sensibilities, to be a reasonable way to provide both access and a level of isolation from through traffic.  And no, we didn't make a purchase; neither of us particularly cared for the layout of the single-level homes.  Looks like we'll be sticking around San Jose for at least the next couple of years. 

It's easier to properly design the street layout for a new housing or retail development. What can be done to alter existing old fashioned street grids and busy city streets already infested with drive-ways?

Probably not a hell of a lot save a comprehensive razing and reconstruction -- but any entity proposing such will invariably encounter enough opposition to render a major project infeasible.  The residents and business owners in these older areas will have to reach some sort of tipping point -- a rash of accidents, customers avoiding an area because of issues surrounding the safety of both pedestrians and drivers -- or any other circumstances deemed detrimental to the conduct of life in that particular neighborhood.   Then some substantial "modifications" to the physical layout -- likely involving longer-term regional disruption -- might be on the table.   But barring those events, it's likely that only incremental steps -- "road diets", conversion of alleyways to functional commercial loading areas (to lessen trucks blocking arterial lanes while loading/unloading), and maybe the occasional roundabout (I can already hear the groans from some quarters) deployment -- will be taken.  But in either scenario, it would probably be best to take measures to avoid such actions being characterized as gentrification, which is a phenomenon, except in private developmental quarters, that is becoming a widely despised situation.     

Yes!  The mainline with frontage roads is a design I call superboulevard.  Maybe other people do as well.  My first time to see one was in the Nineties.  Hammond LA was the location.  It struck me as an impressive design for an urban area.  The one you describe, where superboulevards combine with a network of streets and frontage roads, sounds like just the ticket for letting traffic flow.

Rick

Curious to see how this looks.  Is there any link to a google map to see?

[nexus73]

A while back my GF an I were out in the Manteca/Lathrop area looking at new housing; I noticed that a number of the tracts -- particularly those nearest to the Delta -- were laid out with arterials -- some 2-lane, some 4-lane divided with frontage roads on either side, from which perpendicular single ended streets -- relatively long -- extended to a similar frontage road on the next arterial.  In the particular tract that was showing model homes that day the arterials alternated 2-lane, 4-lane, and another 2-lane; the last batch of houses terminated on a street that paralleled a delta levee.  The arterials were accessed from the frontage roads by connectors about every 5 blocks; these intersected the frontage roads between the streets containing the housing so no connector would become a functional thoroughfare.  Obviously, the rectangular format was retained to maximize land use (the lots were quite narrow but deep, with functional front & back yards), but this method of arterials+frontage roads seemed, at least to my sensibilities, to be a reasonable way to provide both access and a level of isolation from through traffic.  And no, we didn't make a purchase; neither of us particularly cared for the layout of the single-level homes.  Looks like we'll be sticking around San Jose for at least the next couple of years. 

It's easier to properly design the street layout for a new housing or retail development. What can be done to alter existing old fashioned street grids and busy city streets already infested with drive-ways?

Probably not a hell of a lot save a comprehensive razing and reconstruction -- but any entity proposing such will invariably encounter enough opposition to render a major project infeasible.  The residents and business owners in these older areas will have to reach some sort of tipping point -- a rash of accidents, customers avoiding an area because of issues surrounding the safety of both pedestrians and drivers -- or any other circumstances deemed detrimental to the conduct of life in that particular neighborhood.   Then some substantial "modifications" to the physical layout -- likely involving longer-term regional disruption -- might be on the table.   But barring those events, it's likely that only incremental steps -- "road diets", conversion of alleyways to functional commercial loading areas (to lessen trucks blocking arterial lanes while loading/unloading), and maybe the occasional roundabout (I can already hear the groans from some quarters) deployment -- will be taken.  But in either scenario, it would probably be best to take measures to avoid such actions being characterized as gentrification, which is a phenomenon, except in private developmental quarters, that is becoming a widely despised situation.     

Yes!  The mainline with frontage roads is a design I call superboulevard.  Maybe other people do as well.  My first time to see one was in the Nineties.  Hammond LA was the location.  It struck me as an impressive design for an urban area.  The one you describe, where superboulevards combine with a network of streets and frontage roads, sounds like just the ticket for letting traffic flow.

Rick

Curious to see how this looks.  Is there any link to a google map to see?

I have no link, just the memory!  If you want to search, try US 51 Hammond Louisiana.  Look for the section between US 190 and the south interchange on I-55.

Rick

[pderocco]

What the hell does this all have to do with the High Desert Highway?

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^
The thread took a sideways turn when relative housing costs of various areas in SoCal -- relevant because of the location of the High Desert corridor through what is turning out to be some of the more affordable areas to place housing -- and by extension the raison d'etre for the corridor's planning efforts and design criteria.  It moved to Long Beach, then to Seattle & Portland, and started coming home by talking about more affordable housing within Bay Area exurbs.  We're getting back to the High Desert a few hundred miles per post!

Seriously, with the truncation of the plans for the CA HSR, which puts the Palmdale section of that rail route way off in the distant future -- if the project ever gets back on track (bad pun) -- a major High Desert corridor component likely went with it.  The original concept was to run some form of HSR, be it a branch of the now-shrunk N-S corridor or an extension of the long-discussed (there's another dedicated thread in Mass Transit concerning this) Victorville-Vegas HSR (likely either a PPP or fully private project).  Likely to have been placed in the median of the toll roadway facility, it looks like if & when the road is built, it'll leave room -- or even be graded -- for future grade-separated rail, but will be initially built as just a toll road, since at present there's little demand for a conventional commute-rail line between the L.A. County desert exurbs flanking CA 14 (Palmdale, Lancaster) and those about 45 miles east (Adelanto, Victorville, Hesperia) along I-15 and US 395.  The road itself will likely find use as a "shunt" between the two N-S freeways -- including use as a "shortcut" from the western reaches of greater L.A. (including Ventura County) and the main road to Las Vegas -- avoiding the chokepoints in the San Gabriel Valley and Inland Empire.  Presently that task is relegated to a series of conventional highways (CA 138 and CA 18), much of which remains 2 lane.     

And that roadway-only aspect of the corridor may well precede a funding shortfall for the High Desert project due to the connection to the HSR project; lacking the revenue potential from HSR-related income, the corridor's prospects are now tied to whatever prospective income can be derived from tolls (probably strictly OTR).  And that may not be enough to advance this project to the near term when juxtaposed with other regional needs.  It might just take some concrete action regarding the Vegas HSR project -- and the potential desire of its financial backers to include the additional 45 miles of track to access L.A. County (and the Metrolink connection at Palmdale) to get the High Desert corridor past the planning stage to actual construction.

[Bobby5280]

The United States just doesn't have what it takes to build a legitimate, true high speed rail network. Hell, we barely have the capability to even manage building a new highway. There is no nation-wide collective vision to get projects like that done anymore. It's absolutely clear that if the Interstate highway network didn't already exist and we set about to being building it today, it would be a white elephant just like that unfinished stub of a rail line in the Central Valley.

While I think high speed rail is pretty neat (I loved watching the Bullet Train rocket through the countryside when I was a kid living in Japan), I see absolutely no appeal at all in a scattering of a few "short line" HSR routes in isolated parts of our nation. I see no appeal in these different routes using different kinds of trains and possibly different rail gauges too. The Shinkansen is the high speed rail network for Japan. There's no other competing networks. China now has, by far, the world's largest high speed rail network. By the year 2020 they'll have 18,000 miles of HSR routes in operation.

I think the only way high speed rail would have any appeal in the United States is if the routes covered some long distances, even cross country, to actually compete with flying or taking a long road trip. Too many of the proposed routes (nearly all of which remain in perpetual limbo) are just short regional routes geared for long distance commuters. It's like they're all trying to imitate the metro-liner route from DC to Boston -which is not a real high speed route. No one is planning HSR routes like New York to Miami or Chicago to Los Angeles.

Even if some politician or other person of influence managed to actually make high speed rail a real priority for the national agenda there is no way the United States can get shit like this done without absolutely H-bombing the budget. Example: over $70 billion just to build one freaking route from the outskirts of Los Angeles to the outskirts of San Francisco? By that measure a cross country HSR route would tip the scales at close to $1 trillion. So there's no reason to even bother. We can barely get a few miles of slow speed light rail line built without it turning into a shameful cost-overrun boondoggle.

That gets back to the High Desert Highway. The thing will end up being necessary to build. With or without a high speed rail line nearby. Zero people in positions of power and influence are doing anything about soaring living costs within Los Angeles and other big cities. All the price gouging will push more middle income people over the mountains into exurbs Palmdale, Lancaster and Victorville (if the gouging doesn't push more of those people out of the state). None of the "elites" seem aware of the problem of big city living costs. Can't let that get in the way of the New Urbanist vision. I guess they think everyone has millions of dollars just laying around.

I saw one news story earlier today where Barbara Corcoran from Shark Tank was griping about Amazon's pull-out from Long Island City. In her gripes she made zero mention about people who actually live there struggling to survive. No mention about the effects of gentrification and New York's exploding homeless problem and growing ranks of working homeless. She personally was looking to make a bunch of money on real estate deals for all these 25,000 new Amazon employees -very few of which would be existing residents. No. Those people would move in and kick out a bunch of existing poorer people. All while Amazon is gifted $3 billion from the taxpayers.

I guess one thing I kind of hope happens is that maybe less desirable places like Palmdale on the other side of the mountains hits a sweet spot of affordability, stability and job growth while the real estate bubble in Los Angeles pops. It would make the "good" and "bad" sides of the San Gabriel Mountains switch perspectives.

The original concept was to run some form of HSR, be it a branch of the now-shrunk N-S corridor or an extension of the long-discussed (there's another dedicated thread in Mass Transit concerning this) Victorville-Vegas HSR (likely either a PPP or fully private project).  Likely to have been placed in the median of the toll roadway facility, it looks like if & when the road is built, it'll leave room -- or even be graded -- for future grade-separated rail, but will be initially built as just a toll road, (snipped)

It's possible to build a standard commuter rail line within the median of a new freeway or toll road. It's impossible to add high speed rail in the median of a super highway, especially if the super highway is built first and built to the usual standards. Grade and curve standards are just too difficult for a super highway to maintain. The only way it is possible to have a HSR line in the median of a freeway or toll road is if the HSR line is built first and enough ROW is reserved alongside the HSR route to add a freeway or tollroad.

[theroadwayone]

To go off that, and for what it's worth, my geography professor last fall made near-constant remarks about how America's behind in stuff like high-speed rail, and not with the metric system, among other things. I'm amazed I even passed that class at all.

[sparker]

It's possible to build a standard commuter rail line within the median of a new freeway or toll road. It's impossible to add high speed rail in the median of a super highway, especially if the super highway is built first and built to the usual standards. Grade and curve standards are just too difficult for a super highway to maintain. The only way it is possible to have a HSR line in the median of a freeway or toll road is if the HSR line is built first and enough ROW is reserved alongside the HSR route to add a freeway or tollroad.

The virtually flat topography -- and lack of structural facilities within the potential corridor location parameters -- render it possible to design the physical aspects of this corridor with a virtual "blank slate".  Since the requirements re gradient, curvature, and width for HSR are now a known entity (courtesy of the planning/construction of the remaining segment from Bakersfield to Merced), there is no reason why a corridor meeting those standards couldn't be graded to spec -- and then the roadways flanking that corridor could be fully constructed -- with the rail component built when (and if) state funds become available again and/or a private party steps in with funding for the rail portion.   

[Bobby5280]

Even though the area where the High Desert Highway would be built seems desolate or sparsely populated quite a bit of private property, homes, businesses, etc are in the path. Those types of obstacles are the main reason why so many new highways are built so damn crooked. Even a lot of older Interstates on seemingly pancake-flat land, such as I-70 in Kansas, were forced to make lots of up and down dips to save money on grading costs. That specific road has plenty of bends in it where the alignment had to be adjusted to avoid land that couldn't be acquired for a more direct route. In this particular case any successful hold-outs blocking ROW acquisition could literally derail the whole endeavor. A 200mph HSR route can't be built all bend-o-matic style like I-69 in Southern Indiana.

Aside from possible court battles on ROW acquisition, I also wonder if a business as usual type of inertia would force a new freeway aspiring to hold a future high speed rail line to get built to the same old usual standards. The much higher standards for grading and curves would likely raise the road construction cost dramatically.

[skluth]

A while back my GF an I were out in the Manteca/Lathrop area looking at new housing; I noticed that a number of the tracts -- particularly those nearest to the Delta -- were laid out with arterials -- some 2-lane, some 4-lane divided with frontage roads on either side, from which perpendicular single ended streets -- relatively long -- extended to a similar frontage road on the next arterial.  In the particular tract that was showing model homes that day the arterials alternated 2-lane, 4-lane, and another 2-lane; the last batch of houses terminated on a street that paralleled a delta levee.  The arterials were accessed from the frontage roads by connectors about every 5 blocks; these intersected the frontage roads between the streets containing the housing so no connector would become a functional thoroughfare.  Obviously, the rectangular format was retained to maximize land use (the lots were quite narrow but deep, with functional front & back yards), but this method of arterials+frontage roads seemed, at least to my sensibilities, to be a reasonable way to provide both access and a level of isolation from through traffic.  And no, we didn't make a purchase; neither of us particularly cared for the layout of the single-level homes.  Looks like we'll be sticking around San Jose for at least the next couple of years. 

It's easier to properly design the street layout for a new housing or retail development. What can be done to alter existing old fashioned street grids and busy city streets already infested with drive-ways?

Probably not a hell of a lot save a comprehensive razing and reconstruction -- but any entity proposing such will invariably encounter enough opposition to render a major project infeasible.  The residents and business owners in these older areas will have to reach some sort of tipping point -- a rash of accidents, customers avoiding an area because of issues surrounding the safety of both pedestrians and drivers -- or any other circumstances deemed detrimental to the conduct of life in that particular neighborhood.   Then some substantial "modifications" to the physical layout -- likely involving longer-term regional disruption -- might be on the table.   But barring those events, it's likely that only incremental steps -- "road diets", conversion of alleyways to functional commercial loading areas (to lessen trucks blocking arterial lanes while loading/unloading), and maybe the occasional roundabout (I can already hear the groans from some quarters) deployment -- will be taken.  But in either scenario, it would probably be best to take measures to avoid such actions being characterized as gentrification, which is a phenomenon, except in private developmental quarters, that is becoming a widely despised situation.     

Yes!  The mainline with frontage roads is a design I call superboulevard.  Maybe other people do as well.  My first time to see one was in the Nineties.  Hammond LA was the location.  It struck me as an impressive design for an urban area.  The one you describe, where superboulevards combine with a network of streets and frontage roads, sounds like just the ticket for letting traffic flow.

Rick

Curious to see how this looks.  Is there any link to a google map to see?

I'm not quite sure what is meant by this either. Here's a couple possibilities:

Sunset Blvd, San Francisco
Virginia Beach Blvd, Norfolk, VA

I think what is being discussed is much like the old Verona Road outside the Beltline in Madison, WI, but I don't have any imagery of that. In any case, I'm not sure if it's ever a good solution. The Madison one wasn't because it got way too busy to handle traffic in that configuration. However, if you mean the boulevards that become Texas freeways like this part of the Anderson Loop around San Antonio I can understand your point. (Sorry I couldn't find a good image for this because most of the old roads are now Texas freeways with frontage roads.)

[Techknow]

I-40 near Amarillo, TX has frontage roads with 2 lanes in both directions, and the freeway exits lead to the frontage road itself.

Having driven on Sunset Blvd, I wouldn't call the side street frontage roads - there are stop signs on every intersection that parallel Sunset Blvd itself, so it's not practical for traveling through the Sunset District. The I-40 Frontage Road matches that description better I think.

[nexus73]

Superboulevard: Multiple lanes in each direction.  On one or both sides, frontage roads.  Intersections spaced wide apart with them controlled by stoplights which are hopefully synchronized.  45 MPH speed limit was what Hammond had with one frontage road on the west side of US 51.

Rick