AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules for political content in signatures and user profiles. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: California  (Read 137091 times)

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12841
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 01:24:35 AM
    • Gribblenation
Re: California
« Reply #1025 on: October 17, 2020, 03:23:42 PM »

I recently finished up a trip to the northernmost counties in California.  That being the case I took the opportunity to cut some new photo albums for the Gribblenation blog series.  The existing articles will updated in the next couple months and there will be a lot of new ones as well.

Did you drive through the drive-through tree In Leggett?

Skipped the one on 271 but did the one on 169. 
Logged

kkt

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4825
  • Location: Seattle, Washington
  • Last Login: Today at 01:30:27 AM
Re: California
« Reply #1026 on: October 17, 2020, 03:43:55 PM »

I recently finished up a trip to the northernmost counties in California.  That being the case I took the opportunity to cut some new photo albums for the Gribblenation blog series.  The existing articles will updated in the next couple months and there will be a lot of new ones as well.

Did you drive through the drive-through tree In Leggett?

Skipped the one on 271 but did the one on 169. 

I'm the reverse.  Maybe next time I'll do the Klamath one.
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12841
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 01:24:35 AM
    • Gribblenation
Re: California
« Reply #1027 on: October 17, 2020, 04:20:28 PM »

I recently finished up a trip to the northernmost counties in California.  That being the case I took the opportunity to cut some new photo albums for the Gribblenation blog series.  The existing articles will updated in the next couple months and there will be a lot of new ones as well.

Did you drive through the drive-through tree In Leggett?

Skipped the one on 271 but did the one on 169. 

I'm the reverse.  Maybe next time I'll do the Klamath one.

I should have done them both and would have if I was thinking more clearly.  My wife actually asked me if we needed another tunnel tree,  l said no but the right answer was “yes.”

But man Klamath sure is a road side delight between three things; Trees of Mystery, the Tour Thru Tree, and the ruins of the Douglas Memorial Bridge.  I’ve tried to find foundations of the original Klamath but I’ve never had much luck. 
Logged

ClassicHasClass

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 317
  • 0-60 in 59.999997 years

  • Location: sunny So Cal
  • Last Login: October 29, 2020, 01:03:43 PM
    • Floodgap Roadgap
Re: California
« Reply #1028 on: October 17, 2020, 06:16:10 PM »

Haven't done the CA 169 one. The CA 271 one is always fun, though.
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12841
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 01:24:35 AM
    • Gribblenation
Re: California
« Reply #1029 on: October 17, 2020, 06:28:18 PM »

Unless I’m wrong I believe the one on 271 is the only tunnel tree that you can walk or drive through that I haven’t done.  I haven’t really seen a master list of Redwood Tunnel trees nor would I have described it as a stated goal.  Some of the had some pretty significant road and transportation lore attached to them such as the Wawona Tree (which has long fallen). 
Logged

nexus73

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2100
  • Age: 65
  • Location: Coos Bay OR
  • Last Login: October 29, 2020, 06:39:56 PM
Re: California
« Reply #1030 on: October 17, 2020, 08:21:22 PM »

I recently finished up a trip to the northernmost counties in California.  That being the case I took the opportunity to cut some new photo albums for the Gribblenation blog series.  The existing articles will updated in the next couple months and there will be a lot of new ones as well.

Did you drive through the drive-through tree In Leggett?

Skipped the one on 271 but did the one on 169. 

I'm the reverse.  Maybe next time I'll do the Klamath one.

I should have done them both and would have if I was thinking more clearly.  My wife actually asked me if we needed another tunnel tree,  l said no but the right answer was “yes.”

But man Klamath sure is a road side delight between three things; Trees of Mystery, the Tour Thru Tree, and the ruins of the Douglas Memorial Bridge.  I’ve tried to find foundations of the original Klamath but I’ve never had much luck. 

It is neat seeing the original bears on the south end of what was a bridge before the 1964 floods wiped it out.  Thankfully Caltrans made sure to put those bears on the replacement bridge, which would probably not happen in these times.

Rick
Logged
US 101 is THE backbone of the Pacific coast from Bandon OR to Willets CA.  Industry, tourism and local traffic would be gone or severely crippled without it being in functioning condition in BOTH states.

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7338
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: October 29, 2020, 07:58:45 PM
Re: California
« Reply #1031 on: October 17, 2020, 08:32:43 PM »

I recently finished up a trip to the northernmost counties in California.  That being the case I took the opportunity to cut some new photo albums for the Gribblenation blog series.  The existing articles will updated in the next couple months and there will be a lot of new ones as well.

Did you drive through the drive-through tree In Leggett?

Skipped the one on 271 but did the one on 169. 

I'm the reverse.  Maybe next time I'll do the Klamath one.

I should have done them both and would have if I was thinking more clearly.  My wife actually asked me if we needed another tunnel tree,  l said no but the right answer was “yes.”

But man Klamath sure is a road side delight between three things; Trees of Mystery, the Tour Thru Tree, and the ruins of the Douglas Memorial Bridge.  I’ve tried to find foundations of the original Klamath but I’ve never had much luck. 

It is neat seeing the original bears on the south end of what was a bridge before the 1964 floods wiped it out.  Thankfully Caltrans made sure to put those bears on the replacement bridge, which would probably not happen in these times.

Rick

Those bears and how they were preserved and moved to the new 101 bridge were well documented in the early 1965 issues of CHPW, which focused on that winter's flooding in the NW corner of the state.  The abject destruction, particularly in the lower Eel River valley, was evident via both the articles and plentiful photos taken by both DOH personnel and locals.  The extensive use of deployable military-style truss/girder bridges was also covered in depth; it was not only US 101 but intersecting roads such as CA 36 as well as local facilities pressed into service as detours that got the temporary-structure treatment.  But in the midst of all that, the Ferndale bridge remained intact and in fact served, with the road on the west Eel bank, as the 101 detour for quite some time until bridges were replaced and washouts filled.  Starting with the Jan/Feb CHPW issue, the series continued in segments for most of 1965 -- coincidentally, the last year to retain the original engineering/informational format.  Definitely worth looking up and thoroughly reading.
Logged

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1376
  • Location: Los Angeles
  • Last Login: Today at 12:43:05 AM
Re: California
« Reply #1032 on: October 20, 2020, 04:58:54 PM »

So now the anti car crowd is at it again whining and moaning about the 605 widening which might require a couple hundred homes.

The 710 tunnel canceled. The HDC canceled. The 710 expansion canceled.

Over hundred billion dollars for transit with over 70 percent of it going to mass and active transit. But yet the RE/T cross is still oppressed. Give me a break.

Oh and Joe Linton decided to ban me from streetsblog for “repeated ad hominem attacks” yet he never gave me a single warning or can produce a shred of evidence where I did so. Go figure.

https://la.streetsblog.org/2020/10/17/metro-board-looks-to-rein-in-605-and-5-freeway-widening-home-demolitions/
Logged

SeriesE

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 146
  • Location: CA
  • Last Login: October 29, 2020, 08:46:21 PM
Re: California
« Reply #1033 on: October 21, 2020, 02:30:41 AM »

So now the anti car crowd is at it again whining and moaning about the 605 widening which might require a couple hundred homes.

The 710 tunnel canceled. The HDC canceled. The 710 expansion canceled.

Over hundred billion dollars for transit with over 70 percent of it going to mass and active transit. But yet the RE/T cross is still oppressed. Give me a break.

Oh and Joe Linton decided to ban me from streetsblog for “repeated ad hominem attacks” yet he never gave me a single warning or can produce a shred of evidence where I did so. Go figure.

https://la.streetsblog.org/2020/10/17/metro-board-looks-to-rein-in-605-and-5-freeway-widening-home-demolitions/

At the minimum, I-605 over I-5 should be widened by 2 lanes to match the number of through lanes beyond the interchange on both ends.
Logged

ClassicHasClass

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 317
  • 0-60 in 59.999997 years

  • Location: sunny So Cal
  • Last Login: October 29, 2020, 01:03:43 PM
    • Floodgap Roadgap
Re: California
« Reply #1034 on: October 24, 2020, 11:57:48 PM »

Agreed. That bottleneck's needed fixing for a very long time.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7338
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: October 29, 2020, 07:58:45 PM
Re: California
« Reply #1035 on: October 26, 2020, 02:14:05 AM »

Agreed. That bottleneck's needed fixing for a very long time.

And it got much worse after I-105 was completed in 1993, which deposited considerably more traffic on NB I-605 in order to access I-5. 
Logged

heynow415

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 20
  • Location: San Rafael, CA
  • Last Login: October 29, 2020, 11:24:08 AM
Re: California
« Reply #1036 on: October 26, 2020, 12:40:04 PM »

Agreed. That bottleneck's needed fixing for a very long time.

And it got much worse after I-105 was completed in 1993, which deposited considerably more traffic on NB I-605 in order to access I-5.

I know the 105 was very controversial overall but it still baffles me that it was not extended to I-5.  Perhaps at the time when 5 was still mostly six lanes that would have been nuts to add the 105 flow into it but subsequent widenings don't seem to make any accommodation for a future connection, such as at the Firestone/Rosecrans interchange.  So close, yet so far . . .
Logged

jdbx

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 63
  • Location: Pleasant Hill, CA
  • Last Login: October 29, 2020, 05:08:02 PM
Re: California
« Reply #1037 on: October 26, 2020, 04:53:19 PM »

Agreed. That bottleneck's needed fixing for a very long time.

And it got much worse after I-105 was completed in 1993, which deposited considerably more traffic on NB I-605 in order to access I-5.

I know the 105 was very controversial overall but it still baffles me that it was not extended to I-5.  Perhaps at the time when 5 was still mostly six lanes that would have been nuts to add the 105 flow into it but subsequent widenings don't seem to make any accommodation for a future connection, such as at the Firestone/Rosecrans interchange.  So close, yet so far . . .

And it got much worse after I-105 was completed in 1993, which deposited considerably more traffic on NB I-605 in order to access I-5.
[/quote]

I know the 105 was very controversial overall but it still baffles me that it was not extended to I-5.  Perhaps at the time when 5 was still mostly six lanes that would have been nuts to add the 105 flow into it but subsequent widenings don't seem to make any accommodation for a future connection, such as at the Firestone/Rosecrans interchange.  So close, yet so far . . .
[/quote]

I think you hit the nail on the head regarding controversy.  My understanding is that the people of Norwalk were *very* opposed to extending I-105 through town to I-5, and unlike a lot of LA neighborhoods that were cut through by I-105, they had quite a bit more clout and were able to get it truncated to I-605.

Logged

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12118
  • U/Wash | GIS & Urban Design

  • Age: 24
  • Location: Seattle and Tacoma, WA Vancouver, BC | Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:14:58 AM
    • LinkedIn
Re: California
« Reply #1038 on: October 26, 2020, 06:46:12 PM »

Rather than plowing through Norwalk, could additional capacity not be added to the 605 and 91? I don't see why traffic on the 105, trying to continue south/east into Orange County, wouldn't go south on 605 towards the 91. The connection between the 91 and 5 is already very high capacity. Certainly much higher than the equivalent movement between the 5 and 605. There is a loop ramp between the southbound 605 and eastbound 91 freeways, but it's two lanes and there is room for a flyover.
Logged
My comments do not reflect that of the University of Washington, anyone employed by the University of Washington, nor any other students of the University of Washington. All comments are my own.

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7338
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: October 29, 2020, 07:58:45 PM
Re: California
« Reply #1039 on: October 27, 2020, 04:49:01 AM »

Agreed. That bottleneck's needed fixing for a very long time.

And it got much worse after I-105 was completed in 1993, which deposited considerably more traffic on NB I-605 in order to access I-5.

I know the 105 was very controversial overall but it still baffles me that it was not extended to I-5.  Perhaps at the time when 5 was still mostly six lanes that would have been nuts to add the 105 flow into it but subsequent widenings don't seem to make any accommodation for a future connection, such as at the Firestone/Rosecrans interchange.  So close, yet so far . . .
I think you hit the nail on the head regarding controversy.  My understanding is that the people of Norwalk were *very* opposed to extending I-105 through town to I-5, and unlike a lot of LA neighborhoods that were cut through by I-105, they had quite a bit more clout and were able to get it truncated to I-605.


Two factors mitigated against any I-105 extension through Norwalk:  the substandard status of I-5 (the original narrow 3+3 lanes) in the area -- several STIP's before the actual plans now on the ground were under consideration.  The second was, as speculated above, opposition within Norwalk to any large-scale property acquisition for the necessary ROW.  At the time I-105 fully opened to traffic in '93, Caltrans had just gone through 20+ years of litigation, settlements, and the subsequent cost overruns imposed by mandated mitigation regarding the I-105 project in general, and had zero intention of revisiting those circumstances a second time.   Thus I-105 ends at I-605 for the foreseeable future (although periodically a "Green Line" LR extension to Santa Fe Springs is brought up). 
Logged

mrsman

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3143
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Silver Spring, MD
  • Last Login: October 29, 2020, 08:15:23 AM
Re: California
« Reply #1040 on: October 27, 2020, 07:10:09 AM »

Agreed. That bottleneck's needed fixing for a very long time.

And it got much worse after I-105 was completed in 1993, which deposited considerably more traffic on NB I-605 in order to access I-5.

I know the 105 was very controversial overall but it still baffles me that it was not extended to I-5.  Perhaps at the time when 5 was still mostly six lanes that would have been nuts to add the 105 flow into it but subsequent widenings don't seem to make any accommodation for a future connection, such as at the Firestone/Rosecrans interchange.  So close, yet so far . . .
I think you hit the nail on the head regarding controversy.  My understanding is that the people of Norwalk were *very* opposed to extending I-105 through town to I-5, and unlike a lot of LA neighborhoods that were cut through by I-105, they had quite a bit more clout and were able to get it truncated to I-605.


Two factors mitigated against any I-105 extension through Norwalk:  the substandard status of I-5 (the original narrow 3+3 lanes) in the area -- several STIP's before the actual plans now on the ground were under consideration.  The second was, as speculated above, opposition within Norwalk to any large-scale property acquisition for the necessary ROW.  At the time I-105 fully opened to traffic in '93, Caltrans had just gone through 20+ years of litigation, settlements, and the subsequent cost overruns imposed by mandated mitigation regarding the I-105 project in general, and had zero intention of revisiting those circumstances a second time.   Thus I-105 ends at I-605 for the foreseeable future (although periodically a "Green Line" LR extension to Santa Fe Springs is brought up).

The 105 traffic seems to split relatively evenly between 605 south to 91 and 405 and 605 north to 5, 60, and possibly even further north.  605 is not strictly a N-S highway, it does angle enough that it does seem like SB goes a little bit in the SE direction and NB goes significantly in the NE direction with the westernmost point along the highway being basically at the 105 interchange.

That being said, spot-widening of the 605 between Whittier Blvd and the 91 would better accommodate the infusion of traffic from the 105 and should have been done when the 105 was built.  At the very least, the lane drop by I-5 should have been eliminated.

Green line extension makes sense as a way of allowing for a transfer from the OC and 91 Metrolink commuter rail lines toward LAX and El Segundo.  As the ROW is narrower, fewer homes would need to be taken than if a freeway were planned along the corridor.  I imagine that the easiest way to accomplish this would be an elevated line along Imperial Highway.  [I hope it is elevated, surface level light rail would just get stuck in traffic.]

CA is in such a state in its politics that we are unlikely to see new freeways at all.  Even the High Desert corridor, which can alleviate a lot of traffic in LA Basin and Inland Empire, and with very few homes along the ROW, was voted down.  There is no appetite for any project that would demolish homes, even if it is worthy from a traffic standpoint.
Logged

gonealookin

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 404
  • Location: Lake Tahoe - NV side
  • Last Login: October 29, 2020, 01:26:23 PM
Re: California
« Reply #1041 on: October 27, 2020, 04:08:24 PM »

Dept. of What On Earth Took So Long:

In Kings Beach, CA, on the north shore of Lake Tahoe, the north-south streets are named for animals (Wolf Street, Deer Street, Bear Street, etc.).

Sadly, one of them is "Coon Street".  Every time I drive by there I shake my head.  :no:  It even has a Caltrans sign at its intersection with CA 28.

But now there's good news!  The Placer County Board of Supervisors has voted to change the name of "Coon Street" to "Raccoon Street". It's about time.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2020, 04:16:24 PM by gonealookin »
Logged

skluth

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1042
  • Age: 64
  • Location: Palm Springs, CA
  • Last Login: October 29, 2020, 03:13:03 PM
Re: California
« Reply #1042 on: October 27, 2020, 04:22:54 PM »

Agreed. That bottleneck's needed fixing for a very long time.

And it got much worse after I-105 was completed in 1993, which deposited considerably more traffic on NB I-605 in order to access I-5.

I know the 105 was very controversial overall but it still baffles me that it was not extended to I-5.  Perhaps at the time when 5 was still mostly six lanes that would have been nuts to add the 105 flow into it but subsequent widenings don't seem to make any accommodation for a future connection, such as at the Firestone/Rosecrans interchange.  So close, yet so far . . .
I think you hit the nail on the head regarding controversy.  My understanding is that the people of Norwalk were *very* opposed to extending I-105 through town to I-5, and unlike a lot of LA neighborhoods that were cut through by I-105, they had quite a bit more clout and were able to get it truncated to I-605.


Two factors mitigated against any I-105 extension through Norwalk:  the substandard status of I-5 (the original narrow 3+3 lanes) in the area -- several STIP's before the actual plans now on the ground were under consideration.  The second was, as speculated above, opposition within Norwalk to any large-scale property acquisition for the necessary ROW.  At the time I-105 fully opened to traffic in '93, Caltrans had just gone through 20+ years of litigation, settlements, and the subsequent cost overruns imposed by mandated mitigation regarding the I-105 project in general, and had zero intention of revisiting those circumstances a second time.   Thus I-105 ends at I-605 for the foreseeable future (although periodically a "Green Line" LR extension to Santa Fe Springs is brought up).

The 105 traffic seems to split relatively evenly between 605 south to 91 and 405 and 605 north to 5, 60, and possibly even further north.  605 is not strictly a N-S highway, it does angle enough that it does seem like SB goes a little bit in the SE direction and NB goes significantly in the NE direction with the westernmost point along the highway being basically at the 105 interchange.

That being said, spot-widening of the 605 between Whittier Blvd and the 91 would better accommodate the infusion of traffic from the 105 and should have been done when the 105 was built.  At the very least, the lane drop by I-5 should have been eliminated.

Green line extension makes sense as a way of allowing for a transfer from the OC and 91 Metrolink commuter rail lines toward LAX and El Segundo.  As the ROW is narrower, fewer homes would need to be taken than if a freeway were planned along the corridor.  I imagine that the easiest way to accomplish this would be an elevated line along Imperial Highway.  [I hope it is elevated, surface level light rail would just get stuck in traffic.]

CA is in such a state in its politics that we are unlikely to see new freeways at all.  Even the High Desert corridor, which can alleviate a lot of traffic in LA Basin and Inland Empire, and with very few homes along the ROW, was voted down.  There is no appetite for any project that would demolish homes, even if it is worthy from a traffic standpoint.

The east end of the Green Line looks to be planned to continue underground from the imagery. The tracks stay at the same elevation while the highway elevates to the Studebaker Road exit. I don't know if there would be a need to continue it past the Norwalk/ Santa Fe Springs train station, but I don't see one.

I'm not typically in favor of new highways, but the HDC should have been built. The highway would give the area a focus for development rather than the haphazard development we currently see between Palmdale and Victorville. It also would have provided a high-speed transit corridor between the area's access points on CA 14 and I-15, speeding commuters to the LA Basin and Inland Empire. It would have been a great beginning to an integrated transportation system for the High Desert.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7338
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: October 29, 2020, 07:58:45 PM
Re: California
« Reply #1043 on: October 27, 2020, 08:59:38 PM »

Agreed. That bottleneck's needed fixing for a very long time.

And it got much worse after I-105 was completed in 1993, which deposited considerably more traffic on NB I-605 in order to access I-5.

I know the 105 was very controversial overall but it still baffles me that it was not extended to I-5.  Perhaps at the time when 5 was still mostly six lanes that would have been nuts to add the 105 flow into it but subsequent widenings don't seem to make any accommodation for a future connection, such as at the Firestone/Rosecrans interchange.  So close, yet so far . . .
I think you hit the nail on the head regarding controversy.  My understanding is that the people of Norwalk were *very* opposed to extending I-105 through town to I-5, and unlike a lot of LA neighborhoods that were cut through by I-105, they had quite a bit more clout and were able to get it truncated to I-605.


Two factors mitigated against any I-105 extension through Norwalk:  the substandard status of I-5 (the original narrow 3+3 lanes) in the area -- several STIP's before the actual plans now on the ground were under consideration.  The second was, as speculated above, opposition within Norwalk to any large-scale property acquisition for the necessary ROW.  At the time I-105 fully opened to traffic in '93, Caltrans had just gone through 20+ years of litigation, settlements, and the subsequent cost overruns imposed by mandated mitigation regarding the I-105 project in general, and had zero intention of revisiting those circumstances a second time.   Thus I-105 ends at I-605 for the foreseeable future (although periodically a "Green Line" LR extension to Santa Fe Springs is brought up).

The 105 traffic seems to split relatively evenly between 605 south to 91 and 405 and 605 north to 5, 60, and possibly even further north.  605 is not strictly a N-S highway, it does angle enough that it does seem like SB goes a little bit in the SE direction and NB goes significantly in the NE direction with the westernmost point along the highway being basically at the 105 interchange.

That being said, spot-widening of the 605 between Whittier Blvd and the 91 would better accommodate the infusion of traffic from the 105 and should have been done when the 105 was built.  At the very least, the lane drop by I-5 should have been eliminated.

Green line extension makes sense as a way of allowing for a transfer from the OC and 91 Metrolink commuter rail lines toward LAX and El Segundo.  As the ROW is narrower, fewer homes would need to be taken than if a freeway were planned along the corridor.  I imagine that the easiest way to accomplish this would be an elevated line along Imperial Highway.  [I hope it is elevated, surface level light rail would just get stuck in traffic.]

CA is in such a state in its politics that we are unlikely to see new freeways at all.  Even the High Desert corridor, which can alleviate a lot of traffic in LA Basin and Inland Empire, and with very few homes along the ROW, was voted down.  There is no appetite for any project that would demolish homes, even if it is worthy from a traffic standpoint.

The east end of the Green Line looks to be planned to continue underground from the imagery. The tracks stay at the same elevation while the highway elevates to the Studebaker Road exit. I don't know if there would be a need to continue it past the Norwalk/ Santa Fe Springs train station, but I don't see one.

I'm not typically in favor of new highways, but the HDC should have been built. The highway would give the area a focus for development rather than the haphazard development we currently see between Palmdale and Victorville. It also would have provided a high-speed transit corridor between the area's access points on CA 14 and I-15, speeding commuters to the LA Basin and Inland Empire. It would have been a great beginning to an integrated transportation system for the High Desert.

One of the issues regarding the High Desert can be boiled down to one thing -- the L.A./S.B. county line which bisects the desert area between Palmdale/Lancaster and the Victorville region.  Two counties, two metro planning agencies, two vastly differing sets of priorities.  Some L.A. county planners seem intent on extending the L.A. basin's effective "freeway moratorium" out into the desert -- hence the push to delete the tollway from the HDC's near-term plans.  L.A. County-initiated policies are inured to the "induced demand" concept, coupled with the "if you build it, it will cause sprawl" credo.  Not so much out in San Bernardino County; what they've been doing in west Victorville and Adelanto, which would be the areas affected by the HDC's presence, is to build the outer tracts initially and then infill eastward back to US 395 and I-15; in that way, they initially cater to those who are seeking relative suburban isolation and then following that up with folks who would rather be closer to the amenities found along the arterials.  The other thing on the S.B. side is that most of the High Desert cities are stretched to the max regarding service provision, including municipal utilities, policing, sewers, etc. (hard to sell a tract home without a sewage system -- few new residents want their shit processed on-site!).  So authorizing more outlying tracts to the west isn't considered a practical option in any case.  Also, the way the HDC was configured when it featured the tollway was with only one interchange between Avenue 50 on the east side of Palmdale and US 395 (about a 35-mile stretch); that interchange was to service Lake Los Angeles, a largely retirement community along the corridor that is already extensively developed.   The HDC was specifically designed to not promote development along its length -- but L.A. planners put the kibosh on it anyway -- which seems more a symbolic gesture than getting rid of a potential conduit for sprawl. 

Also, there is precious little "cross-hatch" action regarding commutes from the Palmdale/Lancaster/CA 14 corridor and the Victorville/Hesperia/I-15 area;  the level of commute from the former to the Inland Empire is vanishingly miniscule, as is the analogous commute from the I-15 desert corridor to central/west L.A.  Most of the E-W traffic, even on CA 138 and CA 18, is either commercial or sporadic/incidental rather than part of a consistent and repeating pattern.  Part of that is the lack of extensive employment centers in either area save Edwards AFB and the SoCal Wal-Mart distribution center off I-15 north of Victorville.  Inter-county commute travel just doesn't exist at any appreciable level in the high desert area -- another obstacle to "sprawl" between the regions.  Any "haphazard" development in that interim area are simply self-isolated desert residences; something that's been there for at least a century.     
Logged

pderocco

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 101
  • Age: 67
  • Location: Pacific Palisades, CA
  • Last Login: October 28, 2020, 03:38:37 AM
Re: California
« Reply #1044 on: October 27, 2020, 11:52:01 PM »

Archived article about the background of Sepulevda Tunnel in the LA Times:

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-feb-05-me-surround5_-story.html

Quote
Francisco Sepulveda became wealthy as one of the founding inhabitants of the Pueblo de Los Angeles in 1781. But his offspring had difficulty continuing in his path.

These days, his namesake Sepulveda Boulevard is Los Angeles’ longest city street. And motorists trying to travel its length find that isn’t easy to do either.

Stretching 40 miles between Long Beach and the San Fernando Valley’s Mission Hills, Sepulveda Boulevard also is considered the longest street in the county.


It's not. Sierra Highway is almost 70 miles, 55 of which are in LA county. And Foothill Blvd is roughly the same, with about 50 in LA county, although it has a few gaps in it.

Oddly, the ends of Sierra and Foothill are only about 250 yards apart, and Sepulveda comes within 400 yards of Foothill.
Logged
Ciao,
Paul

gonealookin

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 404
  • Location: Lake Tahoe - NV side
  • Last Login: October 29, 2020, 01:26:23 PM
Re: California
« Reply #1045 on: October 29, 2020, 01:25:15 PM »

Final cleanup work on the Echo Summit bridge replacement project was completed yesterday.  Here's a photo of the finished product from the Caltrans District 3 Twitter feed:

Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12841
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 01:24:35 AM
    • Gribblenation
Re: California
« Reply #1046 on: October 29, 2020, 01:29:32 PM »

Final cleanup work on the Echo Summit bridge replacement project was completed yesterday.  Here's a photo of the finished product from the Caltrans District 3 Twitter feed:



Weather permitting I’ll be by on November 5th to see it for myself (and hopefully Johnson Pass Road).
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7338
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: October 29, 2020, 07:58:45 PM
Re: California
« Reply #1047 on: October 29, 2020, 04:36:25 PM »

Final cleanup work on the Echo Summit bridge replacement project was completed yesterday.  Here's a photo of the finished product from the Caltrans District 3 Twitter feed:



That's some of the most attractive stonework I've seen on a public project in some time!  That official D3 pic might be the only chance a lot of folks (without binoculars from down on CA 89!) have to see the whole structure, since most of them will be driving atop it, of course. 
Logged

fungus

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14
  • Location: CA
  • Last Login: October 29, 2020, 09:45:28 PM
Re: California
« Reply #1048 on: October 29, 2020, 09:10:37 PM »

There is an update on the I-5 widening from Streetsblog. You may not like the commentary, but the timeline and the documents are informative: https://la.streetsblog.org/2020/10/29/documents-show-metro-drastically-increased-605-5-freeway-widening/
Logged

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.