Caltrans To Spend $10M On Bridge That Will Allow Mountain Lions To Cross US-101

[bing101]

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014/07/26/caltrans-to-spend-2m-on-bridge-that-will-allow-mountain-lions-to-cross-101-freeway/

What's your take on this.

[sdmichael]

I'm all for the justification of motorist safety and all but what makes Caltrans think that Mountain Lions are just going to orderly decide to use a purpose built bridge?  Also the justification of due to Mountain Lion inbreeding concerns has to be pure Calfornianism written all over it.   

What exactly is... Californianism?

[sdmichael]

Why not add additional information rather than simplifying the report? The justification is the same either way. In this case, among them being killed crossing the highway, they are isolated and in danger of dying off as a result. Other states, other governments, will do the same thing... so why make it a "California" thing? The way we do exit numbers is indeed a "California" thing and I rather like it that way. Why not have it a bit different? We also have tighter controls on vehicle emissions than most states. We also have far more cars and people than any other state and some countries, so we have to do it differently. I'm quite happy with California as a state. We more or less do well despite adversity. It may not always be run well, but it still works. So... do us a favor and quit pissing on California.

[The High Plains Traveler]

Wildlife crossings are certainly not unique to California.

[DAL764]

Hey, at least those bridges are for animals that walk on land. Here in Germany, we are (forced to) start building more and more Green Bridges for friggin BATS. You know, those animals that FLY IN THE AIR and have their own natural build-in collision avoidance system? And those bridges tend to cost between 1.5 - 2 million € as well.

[on_wisconsin]

Wildlife crossings are certainly not unique to California.

Yeah, wildlife crossings are nothing new to highway design and are common around the world, especially in Europe.

[Arkansastravelguy]

I think wildlife has every bit as much of a right to be here as we do...the LEAST we can do is build things that accommodate them since we are taking away their habitat. I believe in progress but we can make a reasonable effort to protect our wildlife

[roadfro]

Nevada DOT has built a couple wildlife overpasses in the northeast part of the state--there's one somewhere on US 93, one recently completed on I-80 somewhere around Wells, and I believe a few more planned on US 93.

The first one they built on US 93 was put in after studying migration patterns of deer and noting a particular stretch of the highway that had several deer hits in a relatively short period. The overpass was built with native soil put on top to entice the deer to use it. The number of deer hits along that stretch dropped quite a bit, so it was pretty successful. The California project sounds very similar, just closer to an urban setting.

[Jardine]

State of Iowa is building taller fences to focus deer to cross I-80 at existing bridges for creeks and rivers.  The deer are not endangered but vehicle/deer collisions are becoming way too common.

Just had a fawn splattered in front of my house just a couple days ago.

[Roadrunner75]

Here's one in NJ on I-78:
https://www.google.com/maps?ll=40.693405,-74.374199&spn=0.001944,0.00327&t=k&z=19

[J N Winkler]

The context of this Caltrans project has a fair amount in common with efforts to preserve the Iberian lynx, which lives mainly in southern Andalusia and is the most endangered big cat species in the world:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/3667338/The-missing-lynx.html

Part of the reason conservation efforts have run into difficulty is that the lynx population has dropped so far both males and females are now seriously inbred, with low sperm counts and egg viability.

I actually have a few proyectos de construcción for lynx crossings on two-lane roads in and near the Doñana national park, which has the bulk of the surviving wild lynx population.  Generally they are routed under the highway by means of culverts, and there are speed reductions (70 km/h to 40 km/h staggered) with noise strips in the vicinity of each crossing.

[andy3175]

The first exposure I recall to a wildlife crossing was actually not in California; it was when they upgraded the Alligator Alley (Everglades Parkway) in Florida from two to four lanes and added the Interstate 75 designation in the early 1990s. A quick web search reveals that I-75 was not the first Florida highway to receive wildlife crossings:

http://www.icoet.net/downloads/96paper22.pdf

The first wildlife crossings for the (Florida Department of Transportation) were placed on SR-46A in the 1950s at two locations approximately a mile apart. These were box culverts measuring 8' high and 12' wide that were placed in the area for bears. There were no fences associated with these crossings so that their effectiveness is questionable.

As a result of the presence of public lands being managed for natural values along the Alligator Alley corridor (I-75) in Collier County and the presence of the endangered Florida Panther, the use of wildlife crossings was determined to be a structural alternative along the corridor. The Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission (FGFWFC) had ongoing studies of the Florida Panther in the area and had a number of cats collared with radio transmitters. The movement data obtained was superimposed over vegetation maps of the area and locations of crossing the corridor were identified using known crossing locations, known roadkill areas and habitat information obtained from the radio telemetry studies. ...

For the wildlife crossings on Alligator Alley, the resulting design was 8' height x 120' width bridges. The slope of the fill under the bridges resulted in an 80' to 90' effective opening for the animals moving under the crossings. The road fill section was elevated
to 10' to reach the elevation of the bridge and then brought back down at the other end of the bridge. The existing bridges were extended 40' to allow for a dry land crossing under the bridges. The combination of bridge extensions and wildlife crossing resulted in 36 opportunities for animals to cross under the highway for approximately 40 miles of Alligator Alley.

So I would not find the use of wildlife crossings to be a uniquely California thing, but rather something found all over the country as others had noted.

[doorknob60]

Wildlife crossing on the recently (probably in the last ~3 years) twinned section of US-97 near Sunriver (street view link): https://www.google.com/maps/@43.881466,-121.391251,3a,75y,10.24h,77.32t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sOko-LxvM2u58ujUSngOlUw!2e0?hl=en

If you look on the old 2 lane road, there was no bridge, or any barriers stopping wildlife from crossing this busy section of highway: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.88209,-121.39145,3a,75y,35.87h,67.36t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1scdO9kPRFgCQEHVpaSDNcig!2e0!5s2009-10?hl=en

[J N Winkler]

The way we do exit numbers is indeed a "California" thing and I rather like it that way. Why not have it a bit different? We also have tighter controls on vehicle emissions than most states. We also have far more cars and people than any other state and some countries, so we have to do it differently. I'm quite happy with California as a state. We more or less do well despite adversity. It may not always be run well, but it still works. So... do us a favor and quit pissing on California.

This is a little off-topic, but I wanted to address this specifically.  As a person born and raised in Kansas, who has watched the state legislature and governor promulgate some laws I profoundly disagree with (TRAP, voter photo ID, voter citizenship proof, regressive tax cuts), I think it is important to realize that "my state, right or wrong" is not a tenable position.

California has a persistent problem with policies that are sound (even commendable) in principle, but are often quite ragged in implementation.  For example, nobody would disagree that vehicle emissions standards should be rigorous enough to maintain a good quality of life, or that California has special challenges in this regard with a large metropolitan area in a very smog-prone basin.  But the current tailpipe emissions testing regime often forces DIY mechanics to expedients such as "cooking" brand-new catalytic converters over barbecue pits so that the car isn't failed with the dreaded T when it is brought in for testing with a new converter installed.

Another example:  if we start with the premise that all vehicles foreign to California should be inspected for agricultural pests, then there is no benefit to stopping vehicles that originate in California and have never left the state.  At most, it is a cost of doing business that is incurred by less-than-ideal location of an inspection station.  Yet, the Truckee inspection station used to be located west of the I-80/SR 89 interchange, which meant that anyone doing a Feather River Highway loop out of Sacramento got the third degree when he or she pulled into the Truckee station and quoted Sacramento as the point of origin.

Examples like this are legion and, to be fair, sometimes these problems of detail are addressed (I am assured, for example, that the Truckee station has moved).  But the incentives for doing so are weak because California has net inward migration, and the vested interests can usually count on the conveyor belt to carry disaffected residents to states in the intermountain West where they can live the life of Riley once they make their fortunes in California.

[sdmichael]

The way we do exit numbers is indeed a "California" thing and I rather like it that way. Why not have it a bit different? We also have tighter controls on vehicle emissions than most states. We also have far more cars and people than any other state and some countries, so we have to do it differently. I'm quite happy with California as a state. We more or less do well despite adversity. It may not always be run well, but it still works. So... do us a favor and quit pissing on California.

This is a little off-topic, but I wanted to address this specifically.  As a person born and raised in Kansas, who has watched the state legislature and governor promulgate some laws I profoundly disagree with (TRAP, voter photo ID, voter citizenship proof, regressive tax cuts), I think it is important to realize that "my state, right or wrong" is not a tenable position.

California has a persistent problem with policies that are sound (even commendable) in principle, but are often quite ragged in implementation.  For example, nobody would disagree that vehicle emissions standards should be rigorous enough to maintain a good quality of life, or that California has special challenges in this regard with a large metropolitan area in a very smog-prone basin.  But the current tailpipe emissions testing regime often forces DIY mechanics to expedients such as "cooking" brand-new catalytic converters over barbecue pits so that the car isn't failed with the dreaded T when it is brought in for testing with a new converter installed.

Another example:  if we start with the premise that all vehicles foreign to California should be inspected for agricultural pests, then there is no benefit to stopping vehicles that originate in California and have never left the state.  At most, it is a cost of doing business that is incurred by less-than-ideal location of an inspection station.  Yet, the Truckee inspection station used to be located west of the I-80/SR 89 interchange, which meant that anyone doing a Feather River Highway loop out of Sacramento got the third degree when he or she pulled into the Truckee station and quoted Sacramento as the point of origin.

Examples like this are legion and, to be fair, sometimes these problems of detail are addressed (I am assured, for example, that the Truckee station has moved).  But the incentives for doing so are weak because California has net inward migration, and the vested interests can usually count on the conveyor belt to carry disaffected residents to states in the intermountain West where they can live the life of Riley once they make their fortunes in California.

Glad to see that spreading the rant against inspection stations is going well. You misread what I stated as "my state, right or wrong". Isn't the case. My issue with the poster was how he was calling some of the reasons given for the wildlife crossing a "Californianism", something to which I took issue with. Too often this happens and is uncalled for. BBQing catalytic converters? Sounds like a vehicle that may have failed regardless and somewhat defeats the purpose of the emissions test in the first place. Either way, it has NOTHING to do with a wildlife crossing on US 101 in Los Angeles County.

[J N Winkler]

BBQing catalytic converters? Sounds like a vehicle that may have failed regardless and somewhat defeats the purpose of the emissions test in the first place.

It is a real-life example reported on a Saturn enthusiasts' forum.  In this particular case no issue was raised about the emissions.  The converter was simply considered "too new" to pass the visual inspection.

Either way, it has NOTHING to do with a wildlife crossing on US 101 in Los Angeles County.

For what it is worth, I didn't really agree with the suggestion that concern about inbreeding was an example of the preciousness labelled as "Californiaism," so I posted upthread to explain why that particular issue had also surfaced in southern Spain.  On the other hand, I can see where DesertDog is coming from.

In your previous post, you mentioned exit numbering.  I have been part of this community for a while (initially as a MTR regular), so I can remember what it was like before Caltrans introduced exit numbering in 2002 and many California-based posters on MTR defended the lack of exit numbers, while out-of-staters criticized it, the principal critic being an Angeleno transplanted from New York.

Now that Caltrans has its own version of exit numbering, the split in opinion has progressed to confection of the tabs, with California-based posters tending to defend the bitten-out and strip-style tabs, while out-of-staters criticize them as unconvincing dodges to avoid structural work that typically result in off-center, inelegant sign layouts.  (An out-of-stater can cite California precedent and stand on firm ground by noting that sign panels with exit tabs bodged onto them don't come close to the clean design of the G-series specs that emerged from the Great Redrawing of 1971 and, as it happens, included spec sheets for exit tabs.)

In regard to guide signing more generally, I can even remember a MTR flamewar about the excess durability of porcelain enamel, in which you noted that such panels can easily last for more than 50 years as long as they are cleaned regularly.  This was more than 10 years ago.  Would you still argue that the porcelain enamel panels are superior to the fully retroreflective panels Caltrans is now installing, and has been for at least a decade now?

My point is really this:  the urge to defend is strong, if not entirely conscious.

[sdmichael]

In regard to guide signing more generally, I can even remember a MTR flamewar about the excess durability of porcelain enamel, in which you noted that such panels can easily last for more than 50 years as long as they are cleaned regularly.  This was more than 10 years ago.  Would you still argue that the porcelain enamel panels are superior to the fully retroreflective panels Caltrans is now installing, and has been for at least a decade now?

Yeah, I still think those porcelain enamel signs are superior. The color doesn't fade as much and many are still in place from the 1960's, still quite functional. Many need a good cleaning/scrubbing. The newer signs simply do not last as long. Either way, what difference would it make if I changed my mind ten years later? What is your point?

Additionally, most new cars (since the late 1990's), haven't had to get emissions tests until six years after they were made... so the emissions system at that point wouldn't be very new (therefore not "too new to pass").

[J N Winkler]

Additionally, most new cars (since the late 1990's), haven't had to get emissions tests until six years after they were made... so the emissions system at that point wouldn't be very new (therefore not "too new to pass").

The car in question was a 1995 Saturn, with a replacement catalytic converter installed in 2013, brought in for a smog test last month.  The thread linked to describes some of the paperwork hoops that have to be jumped through to head off suspicion of tampering.

[agentsteel53]

failed with the dreaded T

what does this mean? 

[agentsteel53]

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014/07/26/caltrans-to-spend-2m-on-bridge-that-will-allow-mountain-lions-to-cross-101-freeway/

What's your take on this.

a friend of mine hunts mountain lions in New Mexico.  maybe he can be commissioned to trap a few and bring them into Los Angeles county.

[J N Winkler]

failed with the dreaded T

what does this mean?

"T" is for tampering.  AIUI, a vehicle that receives this designation cannot be resubmitted for an ordinary smog test and instead has to be taken to a special smog referee who determines exactly what has been changed and whether the changes can be approved (as an example, putting an older engine in a newer car is not permitted).