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: CA 99  (Read 12305 times)

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13751
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 12:57:42 AM
    • Gribblenation
Re: CA 99
« Reply #100 on: January 11, 2020, 10:13:41 PM »

^^^^^^^^^^
Back in the spring of 1966, when the Kingsburg bypass was completed (at about the same time as signage on 99 switched from the US shields to the CA green spades), CH&PW, which had switched formats from a technically-oriented journal to one more aimed at releasing easy-to-digest public information about system updates (almost to the extent of being a "chamber-of-commerce"-type hack job), published a long article about being able to drive continuously from Orange County to Livingston without hitting a single traffic signal -- albeit with quite a few at-grade crossings on the expressway segments.  The article was from the POV of a northbound driver; it concluded with a late-night stop at Main St. in Livingston staring at a red signal aspect.  But the publication itself had only a few more editions before it was abruptly discontinued (not coincidentally with the ascent of the Reagan gubernatorial administration) after the first 1967 issue.   Sad that it was gone -- but the last year's issues were so far removed from the classic informational format that the loss was certainly a mixed bag!    And it's hard to believe that it took another 30 years to obviate that damn signal!  :poke:

Speaking of those California Highway and Public Works guides, Iíve heard tale they continued as an annual edition for awhile as the Division of Highways spun into itís eventual death spiral.  Is there any validity to those annual editions?...Iíve never actually seen one myself.   
Logged

Kniwt

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 690
  • Last Login: February 25, 2021, 08:05:51 PM
Re: CA 99
« Reply #101 on: January 12, 2020, 01:15:54 AM »

Speaking of those California Highway and Public Works guides, Iíve heard tale they continued as an annual edition for awhile as the Division of Highways spun into itís eventual death spiral.  Is there any validity to those annual editions?...Iíve never actually seen one myself.   

I've not seen any trace of CH&PW past 1967, and I just looked again to be sure, but my trail did lead me to this, which I didn't know about and which (as far as I can tell) has never been mentioned in the forum:

https://cdm16436.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16436coll1

Quote
Going Places was created in 1983 as an employee newsletter in an effort to inform Caltrans employees not only of new directions and important activities of the department, but also to highlight contributions of individual workers. Spanning 10 years, this publication offers a unique glimpse into both the institutional history and individual stories of the California Department of Transportation and its employees. Except for the first and last two years of its run, Going Places was published bi-monthly. This collection contains the entire run of the publication.

The first issue I picked at random included an "annual report," which might be the speck of truth in the rumor.

Overall, although an "employee newsletter," the content appears to be such that the public would be informed and/or entertained (not shocked) by it.
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13751
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 12:57:42 AM
    • Gribblenation
Re: CA 99
« Reply #102 on: January 12, 2020, 01:27:22 AM »

Speaking of those California Highway and Public Works guides, Iíve heard tale they continued as an annual edition for awhile as the Division of Highways spun into itís eventual death spiral.  Is there any validity to those annual editions?...Iíve never actually seen one myself.   

I've not seen any trace of CH&PW past 1967, and I just looked again to be sure, but my trail did lead me to this, which I didn't know about and which (as far as I can tell) has never been mentioned in the forum:

https://cdm16436.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16436coll1

Quote
Going Places was created in 1983 as an employee newsletter in an effort to inform Caltrans employees not only of new directions and important activities of the department, but also to highlight contributions of individual workers. Spanning 10 years, this publication offers a unique glimpse into both the institutional history and individual stories of the California Department of Transportation and its employees. Except for the first and last two years of its run, Going Places was published bi-monthly. This collection contains the entire run of the publication.

The first issue I picked at random included an "annual report," which might be the speck of truth in the rumor.

Overall, although an "employee newsletter," the content appears to be such that the public would be informed and/or entertained (not shocked) by it.

Flipping through a couple of those newsletters Iím pretty sure thatís what I was told about.  Either way thatís a solid find for the Post Division of Highways era before the internet became viable.   Too bad the 1970s essentially is a black hole of information. 
Logged

dbz77

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 65
  • Location: CA
  • Last Login: December 02, 2020, 10:51:49 PM
Re: CA 99
« Reply #103 on: January 12, 2020, 02:47:16 AM »

From what I have been able to deduce reading these articles, the plans to convert Highway 99 to a freeway all the way from the bottom of the Grapevine to Sacramento predated the 1950's. This article states that the Livingston section was planned in 1958.

https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Infamous-Blood-Alley-to-Disappear-New-bypass-2960729.php

The intersection was first signalized in the mid-1940's; I am guessing it was a span-wire installation.

The routing of Interstate 5 on the west side of the valley, for faster road access between Los Angeles and San Francisco, most likely delayed the construction of the freeway around Livingston for at least twenty years.

I actually remember this stoplight on a family road trip going home from Reno via Interstate 80 to Highway 99, back in 1988. It was dark, so I could not see if there was a nearby freeway under construction at the time.
Logged

mrsman

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3264
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Silver Spring, MD
  • Last Login: February 26, 2021, 05:40:10 PM
Re: CA 99
« Reply #104 on: January 12, 2020, 08:42:51 AM »

The last signal on CA 99 in Livingston was removed in 1996.
The last signal on US 101 in Santa Barbara was removed in 1991.

LA-SF and LA-Sac traffic was absolutely prioritized to take I-5.  One solitary signal on both of those corridors would force endless delays.  If you were connecting big cities, you had I-5 and it was great.  But for those who needed to make connections in the Central Valley and Central Coast, those delays really did pile on.

The removal of the signals certainly helped balance some of the intrastate traffic around CA.
Logged

dbz77

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 65
  • Location: CA
  • Last Login: December 02, 2020, 10:51:49 PM
Re: CA 99
« Reply #105 on: January 12, 2020, 11:55:34 AM »

The last signal on CA 99 in Livingston was removed in 1996.
The last signal on US 101 in Santa Barbara was removed in 1991.

LA-SF and LA-Sac traffic was absolutely prioritized to take I-5.  One solitary signal on both of those corridors would force endless delays.  If you were connecting big cities, you had I-5 and it was great.  But for those who needed to make connections in the Central Valley and Central Coast, those delays really did pile on.

The removal of the signals certainly helped balance some of the intrastate traffic around CA.
I wish there was a picture of that signalized intersection in Livingston. I have not been able to find it online.


http://libraryarchives.metro.net/DPGTL/Californiahighways/chpw_1966_julaug.pdf
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13751
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 12:57:42 AM
    • Gribblenation
Re: CA 99
« Reply #106 on: January 12, 2020, 01:00:20 PM »

The last signal on CA 99 in Livingston was removed in 1996.
The last signal on US 101 in Santa Barbara was removed in 1991.

LA-SF and LA-Sac traffic was absolutely prioritized to take I-5.  One solitary signal on both of those corridors would force endless delays.  If you were connecting big cities, you had I-5 and it was great.  But for those who needed to make connections in the Central Valley and Central Coast, those delays really did pile on.

The removal of the signals certainly helped balance some of the intrastate traffic around CA.

US 101 between LA-SF has always been fascinating to me.  The corridor essentially engineered to the point where it free flowing but canít be improved upon any further unless specific segments are made full limited access.  I cannot think of another example anywhere in the country where a free flowing expressway (albeit with freeway segments) exists like it does with US 101.  Compared to I-5 and even CA 99 driving US 101 is always intriguing because there are so many varying design standards at play to keep traffic moving. 
Logged

mrsman

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3264
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Silver Spring, MD
  • Last Login: February 26, 2021, 05:40:10 PM
Re: CA 99
« Reply #107 on: January 12, 2020, 02:05:22 PM »

The last signal on CA 99 in Livingston was removed in 1996.
The last signal on US 101 in Santa Barbara was removed in 1991.

LA-SF and LA-Sac traffic was absolutely prioritized to take I-5.  One solitary signal on both of those corridors would force endless delays.  If you were connecting big cities, you had I-5 and it was great.  But for those who needed to make connections in the Central Valley and Central Coast, those delays really did pile on.

The removal of the signals certainly helped balance some of the intrastate traffic around CA.

US 101 between LA-SF has always been fascinating to me.  The corridor essentially engineered to the point where it free flowing but canít be improved upon any further unless specific segments are made full limited access.  I cannot think of another example anywhere in the country where a free flowing expressway (albeit with freeway segments) exists like it does with US 101.  Compared to I-5 and even CA 99 driving US 101 is always intriguing because there are so many varying design standards at play to keep traffic moving.

I view US 101 as a model for other national highways.  We can't put an interstate everywhere, but many areas can be reached with a solid highway built with similar characteristics.  No signals, minimum 4 lanes, medians/guard rails, limited access to businesses, occasional cross traffic.

I'd love to see this in other parts of the country as well.
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13751
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 12:57:42 AM
    • Gribblenation
Re: CA 99
« Reply #108 on: January 12, 2020, 02:21:23 PM »

The last signal on CA 99 in Livingston was removed in 1996.
The last signal on US 101 in Santa Barbara was removed in 1991.

LA-SF and LA-Sac traffic was absolutely prioritized to take I-5.  One solitary signal on both of those corridors would force endless delays.  If you were connecting big cities, you had I-5 and it was great.  But for those who needed to make connections in the Central Valley and Central Coast, those delays really did pile on.

The removal of the signals certainly helped balance some of the intrastate traffic around CA.

US 101 between LA-SF has always been fascinating to me.  The corridor essentially engineered to the point where it free flowing but canít be improved upon any further unless specific segments are made full limited access.  I cannot think of another example anywhere in the country where a free flowing expressway (albeit with freeway segments) exists like it does with US 101.  Compared to I-5 and even CA 99 driving US 101 is always intriguing because there are so many varying design standards at play to keep traffic moving.

I view US 101 as a model for other national highways.  We can't put an interstate everywhere, but many areas can be reached with a solid highway built with similar characteristics.  No signals, minimum 4 lanes, medians/guard rails, limited access to businesses, occasional cross traffic.

I'd love to see this in other parts of the country as well.

Most examples Iíve seen in other states usually donít have a fully limited access bypass of population centers like US 101 does.  US 27 south of I-4 has a similar feel to US 101 but lacks the bypass routes necessary to make it truly a fully free flowing expressway.  There are a couple smaller scale variants in California that have no lights like US 101.  One that comes to mind is CA 198 west of CA 99 to Naval Air Station Lemoore.  CA 58 has similar expressway segments East of CA 14 which are even more recent example.  Not every good road needs to be an Interstate regardless of what many in the road geek world might say or think. 
Logged

mrsman

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3264
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Silver Spring, MD
  • Last Login: February 26, 2021, 05:40:10 PM
Re: CA 99
« Reply #109 on: January 12, 2020, 04:22:14 PM »

The last signal on CA 99 in Livingston was removed in 1996.
The last signal on US 101 in Santa Barbara was removed in 1991.

LA-SF and LA-Sac traffic was absolutely prioritized to take I-5.  One solitary signal on both of those corridors would force endless delays.  If you were connecting big cities, you had I-5 and it was great.  But for those who needed to make connections in the Central Valley and Central Coast, those delays really did pile on.

The removal of the signals certainly helped balance some of the intrastate traffic around CA.

US 101 between LA-SF has always been fascinating to me.  The corridor essentially engineered to the point where it free flowing but canít be improved upon any further unless specific segments are made full limited access.  I cannot think of another example anywhere in the country where a free flowing expressway (albeit with freeway segments) exists like it does with US 101.  Compared to I-5 and even CA 99 driving US 101 is always intriguing because there are so many varying design standards at play to keep traffic moving.

I view US 101 as a model for other national highways.  We can't put an interstate everywhere, but many areas can be reached with a solid highway built with similar characteristics.  No signals, minimum 4 lanes, medians/guard rails, limited access to businesses, occasional cross traffic.

I'd love to see this in other parts of the country as well.

Most examples Iíve seen in other states usually donít have a fully limited access bypass of population centers like US 101 does.  US 27 south of I-4 has a similar feel to US 101 but lacks the bypass routes necessary to make it truly a fully free flowing expressway.  There are a couple smaller scale variants in California that have no lights like US 101.  One that comes to mind is CA 198 west of CA 99 to Naval Air Station Lemoore.  CA 58 has similar expressway segments East of CA 14 which are even more recent example.  Not every good road needs to be an Interstate regardless of what many in the road geek world might say or think.

That is true.  Although the jaded view in me thinks that there are few true expressways here in the Northeast to force people to use toll roads and bridges.  Imagine if US 1 from Philly to Newark, NJ were designed like US 101 without traffic signals. It would mean less traffic on the NJTP.
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5182
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:10:01 AM
Re: CA 99
« Reply #110 on: January 12, 2020, 04:59:26 PM »

I cannot think of another example anywhere in the country where a free flowing expressway (albeit with freeway segments) exists like it does with US 101.
US-301 in Maryland. No traffic signals, limited-access expressway with intersections & interchanges about 40 miles long, and connecting freeways on either end.

In Texas, US-59 / US-77 between Houston and Refugio, 118 miles long, mix of non-limited-access and limited-access bypass segments, constant 75 mph speed limit, no traffic signals. Once bypasses are constructed of Odem and Refugio, this would be extended another 36 miles southwest towards I-37 connecting to Corpus Christi.
Logged

Techknow

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 131
  • Location: San Francisco, CA
  • Last Login: October 03, 2020, 03:58:40 AM
Re: CA 99
« Reply #111 on: January 12, 2020, 06:25:07 PM »

Most examples Iíve seen in other states usually donít have a fully limited access bypass of population centers like US 101 does.  US 27 south of I-4 has a similar feel to US 101 but lacks the bypass routes necessary to make it truly a fully free flowing expressway.  There are a couple smaller scale variants in California that have no lights like US 101.  One that comes to mind is CA 198 west of CA 99 to Naval Air Station Lemoore.  CA 58 has similar expressway segments East of CA 14 which are even more recent example.  Not every good road needs to be an Interstate regardless of what many in the road geek world might say or think.
US 50 from I-80 fits this description as well, freeway quality to Placerville and then expressway several miles towards Sly Park Road at Pollock Pines.
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13751
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 12:57:42 AM
    • Gribblenation
Re: CA 99
« Reply #112 on: January 12, 2020, 06:35:18 PM »

I cannot think of another example anywhere in the country where a free flowing expressway (albeit with freeway segments) exists like it does with US 101.
US-301 in Maryland. No traffic signals, limited-access expressway with intersections & interchanges about 40 miles long, and connecting freeways on either end.

In Texas, US-59 / US-77 between Houston and Refugio, 118 miles long, mix of non-limited-access and limited-access bypass segments, constant 75 mph speed limit, no traffic signals. Once bypasses are constructed of Odem and Refugio, this would be extended another 36 miles southwest towards I-37 connecting to Corpus Christi.

Another one that comes to mind that I didnít think of earlier is US 127 north of I-69 to US 10.  Even when US 27 was still the primary highway in the area it was always a really high class expressway north of St. Johnís.  The addition of a freeway segment north of I-69 made it a really handy alternate to I-75 heading to the Upper Peninsula. 

Back to California Iíve always found the expressway configuration of CA 70, CA 149, and CA 99 around Oroville/Chico to be really handy.  If CA 70 could ever get expanded and bypass Marysville that would be the ticket. 
Logged

dbz77

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 65
  • Location: CA
  • Last Login: December 02, 2020, 10:51:49 PM
Re: CA 99
« Reply #113 on: January 12, 2020, 08:16:05 PM »

The last signal on CA 99 in Livingston was removed in 1996.
The last signal on US 101 in Santa Barbara was removed in 1991.

LA-SF and LA-Sac traffic was absolutely prioritized to take I-5.  One solitary signal on both of those corridors would force endless delays.  If you were connecting big cities, you had I-5 and it was great.  But for those who needed to make connections in the Central Valley and Central Coast, those delays really did pile on.

The removal of the signals certainly helped balance some of the intrastate traffic around CA.

US 101 between LA-SF has always been fascinating to me.  The corridor essentially engineered to the point where it free flowing but canít be improved upon any further unless specific segments are made full limited access.  I cannot think of another example anywhere in the country where a free flowing expressway (albeit with freeway segments) exists like it does with US 101.  Compared to I-5 and even CA 99 driving US 101 is always intriguing because there are so many varying design standards at play to keep traffic moving.

I view US 101 as a model for other national highways.  We can't put an interstate everywhere, but many areas can be reached with a solid highway built with similar characteristics.  No signals, minimum 4 lanes, medians/guard rails, limited access to businesses, occasional cross traffic.

I'd love to see this in other parts of the country as well.
True.

a rule of thumb would be we only need a freeway upgrade if it is to bypass a population center greater than 100,000 people, or if there are population centers with 100,000 people within one hundred miles in both directions.

This situation became true of the 99 between Grapevine and Sacramento by 1970.
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13751
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 12:57:42 AM
    • Gribblenation
Re: CA 99
« Reply #114 on: January 12, 2020, 08:23:35 PM »

The last signal on CA 99 in Livingston was removed in 1996.
The last signal on US 101 in Santa Barbara was removed in 1991.

LA-SF and LA-Sac traffic was absolutely prioritized to take I-5.  One solitary signal on both of those corridors would force endless delays.  If you were connecting big cities, you had I-5 and it was great.  But for those who needed to make connections in the Central Valley and Central Coast, those delays really did pile on.

The removal of the signals certainly helped balance some of the intrastate traffic around CA.

US 101 between LA-SF has always been fascinating to me.  The corridor essentially engineered to the point where it free flowing but canít be improved upon any further unless specific segments are made full limited access.  I cannot think of another example anywhere in the country where a free flowing expressway (albeit with freeway segments) exists like it does with US 101.  Compared to I-5 and even CA 99 driving US 101 is always intriguing because there are so many varying design standards at play to keep traffic moving.

I view US 101 as a model for other national highways.  We can't put an interstate everywhere, but many areas can be reached with a solid highway built with similar characteristics.  No signals, minimum 4 lanes, medians/guard rails, limited access to businesses, occasional cross traffic.

I'd love to see this in other parts of the country as well.
True.

a rule of thumb would be we only need a freeway upgrade if it is to bypass a population center greater than 100,000 people, or if there are population centers with 100,000 people within one hundred miles in both directions.

This situation became true of the 99 between Grapevine and Sacramento by 1970.

But thatís the thing with US 101, more often than not between SF-LA the highway bypasses towns mostly on freeway grades way under that population figure.  The majority of at grade intersections usually are in rural areas and many only allow traffic to go one direction.  Prunedale comes to mind as where this kind of configuration can be seen in regular usage.  US 101 bypasss Salinas on a freeway grade but has a ton of at grade intersections within gun Prunedale.  I want to say the only at grade intersections between CA 183 and CA 156 which allows traffic to turn both ways is Rocks Road. 
Logged

Kniwt

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 690
  • Last Login: February 25, 2021, 08:05:51 PM
Re: CA 99
« Reply #115 on: January 13, 2020, 10:59:12 PM »

https://cdm16436.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16436coll1

Flipping through a couple of those newsletters Iím pretty sure thatís what I was told about.  Either way thatís a solid find for the Post Division of Highways era before the internet became viable.   Too bad the 1970s essentially is a black hole of information. 

Now that I've had time to read a few more of these, they really do read like a feel-good version of CH&PW updated for the '80s, complete with the "cool" graphic design, but still with many photo-laden articles about the big (and small) projects of the era. About the only things missing are the pages of agate at the back listing contracts and other ephemera ... but those had been jettisoned by the end of CH&PW anyway.

And it turns out that Going Places was intended for public consumption -- a note on the contents page indicates that anyone could buy a subscription for a mere $9/year.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7643
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:51:14 AM
Re: CA 99
« Reply #116 on: January 14, 2020, 02:40:51 AM »

^^^^^^^^^^^
Even though the last year ('66) of CH&PW paled in comparison with the previous 40+, they still managed to list and describe any formal freeway adoptions alongside the "fluff".  It appears, at least to me, that the DOH was attempting to transition the publication into what eventually became "Going Places" (which dispensed with most technical content) in order to actually attract subscribers.  Of course, the whole thing became moot once the original publication was terminated the following year, only to re-emerge in the "GP" format a little more than a decade later.   But any reiterated acknowledgement that the revamped-as-Caltrans DOH still was engaged in highway development had to wait until the Gianturco agency leadership was in the rear view mirror ('83).   
Logged

doorknob60

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 849
  • Age: 27
  • Location: Boise, ID
  • Last Login: February 26, 2021, 04:14:24 PM
Re: CA 99
« Reply #117 on: January 15, 2020, 05:03:34 PM »

I cannot think of another example anywhere in the country where a free flowing expressway (albeit with freeway segments) exists like it does with US 101.
US-301 in Maryland. No traffic signals, limited-access expressway with intersections & interchanges about 40 miles long, and connecting freeways on either end.

This is a good road, I used it driving from NJ to Washington, DC and it worked great. Very little traffic until I hit US-50, and then it was still free flowing. My only complaint is the 55 MPH speed limit, make it 65 and I'd have no complaints. I was driving 65-70 the whole way regardless.

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5182
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:10:01 AM
Re: CA 99
« Reply #118 on: January 15, 2020, 06:05:59 PM »

I cannot think of another example anywhere in the country where a free flowing expressway (albeit with freeway segments) exists like it does with US 101.
US-301 in Maryland. No traffic signals, limited-access expressway with intersections & interchanges about 40 miles long, and connecting freeways on either end.

This is a good road, I used it driving from NJ to Washington, DC and it worked great. Very little traffic until I hit US-50, and then it was still free flowing. My only complaint is the 55 MPH speed limit, make it 65 and I'd have no complaints. I was driving 65-70 the whole way regardless.
Very nice bypass of the I-95 corridor and Baltimore. With the recently completed Middletown Bypass, the roadway becomes a 65 mph freeway upon entering Delaware and ties directly into the DE-1 freeway.

Agreed about the speed limit on the Maryland portion. Like any state in the northeast, because there's at-grade crossings, the whole roadway is restricted to a maximum limit of 55 mph despite the roadway having an interstate-standard cross section and is limited access. When I used it, I had my cruise control set at 70 mph the entire way without any issues. I was passed multiple times by traffic doing up to 80 mph, and only passed a few vehicles myself. With the exception of those at-grade crossings, the roadway practically is a 70 mph interstate highway.
Logged

Kniwt

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 690
  • Last Login: February 25, 2021, 08:05:51 PM
Re: CA 99
« Reply #119 on: January 15, 2020, 08:13:16 PM »

Speaking of those California Highway and Public Works guides, I’ve heard tale they continued as an annual edition for awhile as the Division of Highways spun into it’s eventual death spiral.  Is there any validity to those annual editions?...I’ve never actually seen one myself.   

I've not seen any trace of CH&PW past 1967, and I just looked again to be sure, but my trail did lead me to this, which I didn't know about and which (as far as I can tell) has never been mentioned in the forum:

https://cdm16436.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16436coll1

Flipping through a couple of those newsletters I’m pretty sure that’s what I was told about.  Either way that’s a solid find for the Post Division of Highways era before the internet became viable.   Too bad the 1970s essentially is a black hole of information. 

Here's an interesting tidbit found in the January-February 1990 (post-earthquake) edition of Going Places, which seems to suggest there might actually be something from the '70s:
https://cdm16436.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16436coll1/id/712/rec/37

Quote
... Those words, by Wendall Pond, the department's chief bridge engineer in the south state, were included in the California Highways magazine following the 1971 San Francisco earthquake.

I've looked and looked for some evidence of this, but I still can't find anything to indicate that CH(&PW?) was published past 1967, but this is intriguing to say the least.
Logged

skluth

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1128
  • Age: 64
  • Location: Palm Springs, CA
  • Last Login: February 26, 2021, 01:25:37 PM
Re: CA 99
« Reply #120 on: January 15, 2020, 08:27:11 PM »

A good non-stop expressway is WI 29 in Wisconsin. You can go from I-94 west of Eau Claire to Green Bay with no stops. There are bypasses at Chip Falls, Abbotsford, Wausau, Wittenburg, and Shawano/ Bonduel. US 67 south of MO 110 to Poplar Bluff, MO is also a four-lane non-stop expressway. I'm sure there are others I've traveled. But I've taken these two a few times and they're great highways.
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13751
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 12:57:42 AM
    • Gribblenation
Re: CA 99
« Reply #121 on: January 15, 2020, 11:56:18 PM »

Speaking of those California Highway and Public Works guides, Iíve heard tale they continued as an annual edition for awhile as the Division of Highways spun into itís eventual death spiral.  Is there any validity to those annual editions?...Iíve never actually seen one myself.   

I've not seen any trace of CH&PW past 1967, and I just looked again to be sure, but my trail did lead me to this, which I didn't know about and which (as far as I can tell) has never been mentioned in the forum:

https://cdm16436.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16436coll1

Flipping through a couple of those newsletters Iím pretty sure thatís what I was told about.  Either way thatís a solid find for the Post Division of Highways era before the internet became viable.   Too bad the 1970s essentially is a black hole of information. 

Here's an interesting tidbit found in the January-February 1990 (post-earthquake) edition of Going Places, which seems to suggest there might actually be something from the '70s:
https://cdm16436.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16436coll1/id/712/rec/37

Quote
... Those words, by Wendall Pond, the department's chief bridge engineer in the south state, were included in the California Highways magazine following the 1971 San Francisco earthquake.

I've looked and looked for some evidence of this, but I still can't find anything to indicate that CH(&PW?) was published past 1967, but this is intriguing to say the least.

It certainly sounds like there was something published during those years leading up to the Division of Highways being scrapped in favor Caltrans.  If something from the 1970s is out there I certainly hope it gets recovered and scanned online.  I tend to think that there might be a couple documents out there, it seems that Caltrans regularly published semi-annual State Highway Maps starting in 1975.  The last Division of Highways State Map I can find is from 1970, that five year gap has left a ton of open mysteries on project time frames on Gribblenation. 
Logged

mgk920

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3972
  • Location: Appleton, WI USA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:03:25 AM
Re: CA 99
« Reply #122 on: January 16, 2020, 12:13:50 PM »

A good non-stop expressway is WI 29 in Wisconsin. You can go from I-94 west of Eau Claire to Green Bay with no stops. There are bypasses at Chip Falls, Abbotsford, Wausau, Wittenburg, and Shawano/ Bonduel. US 67 south of MO 110 to Poplar Bluff, MO is also a four-lane non-stop expressway. I'm sure there are others I've traveled. But I've taken these two a few times and they're great highways.

Also, outside of Madison, WI, all of US 151 in Wisconsin west of Fond du Lac, WI is also four lanes/free-flowing.

Mike
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7643
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:51:14 AM
Re: CA 99
« Reply #123 on: January 16, 2020, 04:59:55 PM »

The principal difference between CA 99 and US 101 in terms of development is that the 99 corridor has the "master plan", finalized circa 2006, that provides a schematic for the various upgrades that have been deployed and are yet to come, with the final goal being a minimum-6-lane facility (it's already full freeway) with even 8+ lanes in some more urbanized areas.  The upgrades, which have been almost continuous for well over 20 years now, are intended to bite off relatively small chunks at a time, which tends to make them fit into the overall agency budget quite well.  In contrast, US 101 has no such overall plan; any upgrades are decided by the various districts through which it travels -- in some locales in conjunction with the Coastal Commission, which has veto/edit powers regarding facilities close to the ocean -- quite a bit of the overall length.  And unlike I-5 and CA 99, US 101, although de facto a commercial artery, isn't being "groomed" as is CA 99 for long-term and long-distance commercial activity.  It's being done more on the basis of "if it isn't broke, don't fix it!"  And the current mixture of freeway and sporadic expressway segments seems to be working out just fine for the time being -- and if the recent modifications in the Rincon and Prunedale areas -- clearing up cross-traffic safety and congestion issues but hardly approaching Interstate-grade configurations -- are any indication, the various Caltrans districts approach US 101 improvements on a more "customized" basis -- rather than simply applying standards more appropriate for the archetypal 70 mph freeway.   It's likely that 30 or so years down the line CA 99 will resemble the model outlined in its master plan; it's just as likely that US 101 will still be the amalgalm of full freeway and rural expressway it presently is. 
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2399
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: February 26, 2021, 09:00:54 PM
Re: CA 99
« Reply #124 on: January 16, 2020, 09:16:49 PM »

I think 30 or so years from now California could be a very different place if the state doesn't start waking up to some dysfunctional realities that could screw its real estate industry and overall economy for a really long time. Young, American-born residents are leaving the state in droves due to the insane living costs. Combine that with America's current anti-immigrant, borderline nationalist vibe. That sours potential foreign buyers from wanting to snap up over-priced real estate properties along the coast when the American owners are getting really old and wanting to cash out. There's going to be a lot of people who paid huge for their homes and possibly very few people wanting to buy. Lots of other big urban markets around the US are headed in this direction.

Anyway, the elites in California just need to enjoy that bubble economy while it lasts.

30 years from now CA-99 will be a fully Interstate-class facility, whether it carries an Interstate designation or not. It probably won't. At the same time the town fathers along or near the coast who blocked various US-101 upgrades in the past could be crying out for them in earnest as a means of trying to spur local economic development.
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.