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 9452 times)

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11779
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 07:54:37 AM
    • Gribblenation
Re: CA 99
« Reply #75 on: August 24, 2019, 07:54:42 PM »

The Klamath trip Iím assuming?  Iíll be curious to see what your take on 139 is, Iíve had that one on my to-do list for years.  With 99 I noticed that in almost every area that has been recently upgraded youíll see newer structures on frontage facilities as well.  Iíll have to keep my eye out the next time I drive through Goshen since that whole segment is essentially brand new. 

Yup. Today, because we were running a bit ahead, we did a bit on Old 99W, and then detoured into Williams, took 20 to Colusa, up 45 to Glenn, across 162 back to I-5 (and the Coffee Shop at the Willows Airport is great!), and then up I-5. We wanted to hit the outlets in Anderson, so we took 273 up, and we're staying tonight right where 273 and 44 come together. Tomorrow (assuming the fire near Sherman doesn't grow) we'll be going up I-5 and US 97 into Oregon. Over the week, we'll also be driving OR 66 to Ashland.

Don't forget to snag OR 273 (the old Syskiyou route for US 99). It is signed -- exactly once, as you start climbing south from OR 66. If you clinch it right, your turn around point will be exit 796 at Hilt.

I'm hoping to have enough time this go around to hit OR 66 and OR 273 but I'll have to see.  This is my Wife's first trip to Crater Lake so I'm looking to get some decent hiking in which might chew up more time than anticipated.  We're staying with a friend in Medford that night and we'll be departing from Weed.  My US 97 photos are absolutely terrible on the California side which is why I'm prioritizing it along with CA 161, the entries on Gribblenation need to be sorely updated.  Either way I think that I'll have a lot more opportunities to get the Oregon Caves and Cascade-Siskiyou National Monuments checked off my National Parks list.  But that bridgework alone on Old US 99/OR 273 seems to be worthwhile.
Logged

nexus73

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2028
  • Age: 64
  • Location: Coos Bay OR
  • Last Login: June 01, 2020, 06:35:13 PM
Re: CA 99
« Reply #76 on: August 24, 2019, 10:14:07 PM »

Max, when you get to Dorris CA, look for a Roaring Twenties style motel on the east side of US 97.  The last time I passed through Dorris revealed an unrestored piece of road trip history.  One can imagine Bonnie & Clyde parking their V-8 Ford in the garages which adjoin the rooms.  Hope it is still there for you to see!

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: 6802
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 05:25:55 AM
Re: CA 99
« Reply #77 on: August 25, 2019, 05:46:53 PM »

Max, when you get to Dorris CA, look for a Roaring Twenties style motel on the east side of US 97.  The last time I passed through Dorris revealed an unrestored piece of road trip history.  One can imagine Bonnie & Clyde parking their V-8 Ford in the garages which adjoin the rooms.  Hope it is still there for you to see!

Rick

If Bonnie & Clyde had hightailed it up to the CA/OR state line rather than sticking around NW LA, they might have lived considerably longer (who the F. would have looked for them up there?!).
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11779
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 07:54:37 AM
    • Gribblenation
Re: CA 99
« Reply #78 on: August 25, 2019, 06:21:33 PM »

Max, when you get to Dorris CA, look for a Roaring Twenties style motel on the east side of US 97.  The last time I passed through Dorris revealed an unrestored piece of road trip history.  One can imagine Bonnie & Clyde parking their V-8 Ford in the garages which adjoin the rooms.  Hope it is still there for you to see!

Rick

If Bonnie & Clyde had hightailed it up to the CA/OR state line rather than sticking around NW LA, they might have lived considerably longer (who the F. would have looked for them up there?!).

Youíd essentially be on the moon by the Mid-1930s and even youíre considerably off the radar even still in Dorris.  I do dig the old rail siding feel that US 97 with all the weird 90 degree jogs it pulls off through town.  Some of those older buildings are in really poor shape and make me wonder how they still are standing. 
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6802
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 05:25:55 AM
Re: CA 99
« Reply #79 on: August 26, 2019, 03:58:36 AM »

Max, when you get to Dorris CA, look for a Roaring Twenties style motel on the east side of US 97.  The last time I passed through Dorris revealed an unrestored piece of road trip history.  One can imagine Bonnie & Clyde parking their V-8 Ford in the garages which adjoin the rooms.  Hope it is still there for you to see!

Rick

If Bonnie & Clyde had hightailed it up to the CA/OR state line rather than sticking around NW LA, they might have lived considerably longer (who the F. would have looked for them up there?!).

Youíd essentially be on the moon by the Mid-1930s and even youíre considerably off the radar even still in Dorris.  I do dig the old rail siding feel that US 97 with all the weird 90 degree jogs it pulls off through town.  Some of those older buildings are in really poor shape and make me wonder how they still are standing. 

That particular area has cold but surprisingly dry winters; sitting at about 4200 foot elevation, the Tulelake Basin is relatively isolated from winter storms coming in from the ocean; in a fashion similar to that of eastern WA, most moisture/precipitation is gone by the time the basin is reached.  I've gone through there in December and the most I've generally seen is snow up by Grass Lake between Weed and the basin, but that is reduced to a dusting by the time one is down the hill in Macdoel.  Once -- back around 1997 or so -- there was snow on the ground all the way up to Klamath and beyond -- but that's been the exception rather than the rule.  And cold & relative dryness is what's needed for the main root-veggie crops that dominate basin agricultural production (sugar beets, parsnips, and in particular horseradish -- the Dorris-Tulelake area is the principal horseradish producer in the entire nation!)  And that lack of moisture tends to aid in the preservation of wood-frame structures such as found in Dorris and the other regional towns; they may look like hell (not a lot of local $$ to spare for physical beauty) but they're generally structurally sound.   
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11779
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 07:54:37 AM
    • Gribblenation
Re: CA 99
« Reply #80 on: August 26, 2019, 11:57:20 AM »

Max, when you get to Dorris CA, look for a Roaring Twenties style motel on the east side of US 97.  The last time I passed through Dorris revealed an unrestored piece of road trip history.  One can imagine Bonnie & Clyde parking their V-8 Ford in the garages which adjoin the rooms.  Hope it is still there for you to see!

Rick

If Bonnie & Clyde had hightailed it up to the CA/OR state line rather than sticking around NW LA, they might have lived considerably longer (who the F. would have looked for them up there?!).

Youíd essentially be on the moon by the Mid-1930s and even youíre considerably off the radar even still in Dorris.  I do dig the old rail siding feel that US 97 with all the weird 90 degree jogs it pulls off through town.  Some of those older buildings are in really poor shape and make me wonder how they still are standing. 

That particular area has cold but surprisingly dry winters; sitting at about 4200 foot elevation, the Tulelake Basin is relatively isolated from winter storms coming in from the ocean; in a fashion similar to that of eastern WA, most moisture/precipitation is gone by the time the basin is reached.  I've gone through there in December and the most I've generally seen is snow up by Grass Lake between Weed and the basin, but that is reduced to a dusting by the time one is down the hill in Macdoel.  Once -- back around 1997 or so -- there was snow on the ground all the way up to Klamath and beyond -- but that's been the exception rather than the rule.  And cold & relative dryness is what's needed for the main root-veggie crops that dominate basin agricultural production (sugar beets, parsnips, and in particular horseradish -- the Dorris-Tulelake area is the principal horseradish producer in the entire nation!)  And that lack of moisture tends to aid in the preservation of wood-frame structures such as found in Dorris and the other regional towns; they may look like hell (not a lot of local $$ to spare for physical beauty) but they're generally structurally sound.   

The last time I was in the area was March of 2016.  It was fairly gloomy to the State Line but was absolutely beautiful in Klamath Falls at about 60F and partly cloudy.  I got poured on earlier in the day at Lava Beds National Monument and Tule Lake so the change was welcome.  Surprisingly it was also the calmest weather I've ever experienced at Crater Lake of all places, most winters there was a shroud of fog obstructing the view.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6802
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 05:25:55 AM
Re: CA 99
« Reply #81 on: January 02, 2020, 06:56:36 PM »

Since the OP/thread title concerns CA 99, this -- despite the 4+ month layoff, is where this news belongs:

Of the four original "over/under" RR crossings (one direction goes under the tracks on the original 2-lane underpass while the other direction, added later, bridges over the tracks) that CA 99 inherited from US 99 at the time the shields were swapped in mid-'66, two were gone by the mid-80's (south of CA 46/Famoso and the CA 198 interchange near Goshen) with two remaining:  Chowchilla and Elk Grove.  Well, it'll be down to one by the end of 2020; the crossing south of Grant Line Road in Elk Grove is being reconstructed as double bridges, with the SB underpass (which featured a low 14'5" clearance) bypassed by a new bridge adjacent to the existing NB bridge; at this point, the berms are being constructed with the actual bridge to follow.  Also, the NB 2-lane bridge is being widened to accommodate shoulders (the new SB bridge will be able to accommodate 3 lanes+ shoulders).  However, there are no immediate plans to widen or replace the series of older bridges immediately to the south crossing the Consumnes River floodplain.   Several miles to the south, the section through Galt has been rebuilt with some new bridges (the old CA 104 interchange remains the same, however); but the interim section, about 5-6 miles, will remain the same for the time being.   But the most egregious substandard structure (the old underpass) will be history.     
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11779
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 07:54:37 AM
    • Gribblenation
Re: CA 99
« Reply #82 on: January 03, 2020, 12:16:25 AM »

Is that what the present work zone on 99 near Chowchilla is about?  If so, any idea how long that older set of rail crossings is set to be around?
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6802
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 05:25:55 AM
Re: CA 99
« Reply #83 on: January 03, 2020, 01:29:03 AM »

Is that what the present work zone on 99 near Chowchilla is about?  If so, any idea how long that older set of rail crossings is set to be around?

At this point I'm unaware of any current project to replace the Chowchilla crossings.  If that were to be done, it's likely both the NB underpass and SB bridge would be replaced because of the sharp curve coming off the bridge and then passing under the NB 99>WB 152 LH ramp.  Since not only the SB mainline curvature but that of the ramp is problematic, the interchange and RR crossing may be done as one project -- but AFAIK nothing of that nature has been let yet; any Chowchilla-area work is likely spot fixes, including repaving as necessary (that's one old stretch of freeway, dating to the '50's).  I'll have to dig up the current STIP to make sure, but a full rebuild from south of 152 to the Merced county line is probably at least several years down the line.   
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11779
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 07:54:37 AM
    • Gribblenation
Re: CA 99
« Reply #84 on: January 03, 2020, 05:33:35 PM »

Is that what the present work zone on 99 near Chowchilla is about?  If so, any idea how long that older set of rail crossings is set to be around?

At this point I'm unaware of any current project to replace the Chowchilla crossings.  If that were to be done, it's likely both the NB underpass and SB bridge would be replaced because of the sharp curve coming off the bridge and then passing under the NB 99>WB 152 LH ramp.  Since not only the SB mainline curvature but that of the ramp is problematic, the interchange and RR crossing may be done as one project -- but AFAIK nothing of that nature has been let yet; any Chowchilla-area work is likely spot fixes, including repaving as necessary (that's one old stretch of freeway, dating to the '50's).  I'll have to dig up the current STIP to make sure, but a full rebuild from south of 152 to the Merced county line is probably at least several years down the line.   

Either way that crossing sure could use a rebuild.  On northbound 99 traffic is already in a bad position to expect that surprisingly sharp curve to the rail underpass after the left exit for CA 152.  I'm surprised that section of CA 99 is still signed as 70 MPH as opposed to 65 MPH.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6802
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 05:25:55 AM
Re: CA 99
« Reply #85 on: January 03, 2020, 06:46:36 PM »

Is that what the present work zone on 99 near Chowchilla is about?  If so, any idea how long that older set of rail crossings is set to be around?

At this point I'm unaware of any current project to replace the Chowchilla crossings.  If that were to be done, it's likely both the NB underpass and SB bridge would be replaced because of the sharp curve coming off the bridge and then passing under the NB 99>WB 152 LH ramp.  Since not only the SB mainline curvature but that of the ramp is problematic, the interchange and RR crossing may be done as one project -- but AFAIK nothing of that nature has been let yet; any Chowchilla-area work is likely spot fixes, including repaving as necessary (that's one old stretch of freeway, dating to the '50's).  I'll have to dig up the current STIP to make sure, but a full rebuild from south of 152 to the Merced county line is probably at least several years down the line.   

Either way that crossing sure could use a rebuild.  On northbound 99 traffic is already in a bad position to expect that surprisingly sharp curve to the rail underpass after the left exit for CA 152.  I'm surprised that section of CA 99 is still signed as 70 MPH as opposed to 65 MPH.

Yeah -- when they overlaid that interchange over the original intersection circa 1958 or so, the state speed limit was still 55 -- so curvature such as that wouldn't have been uncommon.  What is interesting is that when that project was let (likely 1955-56) I-5 was still planned as using US 99 in the Valley -- and that section of the road would have been substandard even with the original more "lax" I-standards of the time.  My guess is that this was a "heritage" project intended as part of the original pre-Interstate plans to gradually remake 99 as a freeway, just like the remainder of the Chowchilla bypass.   Another interesting tidbit -- as of the last time I was on that stretch (a hair over a year ago) the BGS on NB 99 for the CA 152 exit still referenced San Francisco as a control city -- even though 99 north to 120 and thence west through Tracy and Livermore is a considerably shorter -- and all-freeway -- routing -- and one that doesn't feature a surface-street slog through Los  Banos!   San Jose would be a more appropriate control city from that exit. 
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11779
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 07:54:37 AM
    • Gribblenation
Re: CA 99
« Reply #86 on: January 03, 2020, 07:47:16 PM »

Is that what the present work zone on 99 near Chowchilla is about?  If so, any idea how long that older set of rail crossings is set to be around?

At this point I'm unaware of any current project to replace the Chowchilla crossings.  If that were to be done, it's likely both the NB underpass and SB bridge would be replaced because of the sharp curve coming off the bridge and then passing under the NB 99>WB 152 LH ramp.  Since not only the SB mainline curvature but that of the ramp is problematic, the interchange and RR crossing may be done as one project -- but AFAIK nothing of that nature has been let yet; any Chowchilla-area work is likely spot fixes, including repaving as necessary (that's one old stretch of freeway, dating to the '50's).  I'll have to dig up the current STIP to make sure, but a full rebuild from south of 152 to the Merced county line is probably at least several years down the line.   

Either way that crossing sure could use a rebuild.  On northbound 99 traffic is already in a bad position to expect that surprisingly sharp curve to the rail underpass after the left exit for CA 152.  I'm surprised that section of CA 99 is still signed as 70 MPH as opposed to 65 MPH.

Yeah -- when they overlaid that interchange over the original intersection circa 1958 or so, the state speed limit was still 55 -- so curvature such as that wouldn't have been uncommon.  What is interesting is that when that project was let (likely 1955-56) I-5 was still planned as using US 99 in the Valley -- and that section of the road would have been substandard even with the original more "lax" I-standards of the time.  My guess is that this was a "heritage" project intended as part of the original pre-Interstate plans to gradually remake 99 as a freeway, just like the remainder of the Chowchilla bypass.   Another interesting tidbit -- as of the last time I was on that stretch (a hair over a year ago) the BGS on NB 99 for the CA 152 exit still referenced San Francisco as a control city -- even though 99 north to 120 and thence west through Tracy and Livermore is a considerably shorter -- and all-freeway -- routing -- and one that doesn't feature a surface-street slog through Los  Banos!   San Jose would be a more appropriate control city from that exit.

I hit that interchange headed towards Monterey at least once every 45-60 days, it still says CA 152 west for San Francisco.  Even Gilroy would be a much more accurate control city over San Francisco.  Checking historicaerials the present northbound underpass can be seen as mainline US 99, the swing onto Chowchilla Boulevard looked like it was pretty sharp. 

Interestingly the underpass displays a date stamp of 1929.  That would seem to imply that very early US 99/LRN 4 was routed on Fairmead Boulevard at some point.

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.0882868,-120.2126725,3a,75y,358.75h,97.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAcF5rFcSiilqJ0SRqINa2g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
« Last Edit: January 03, 2020, 07:50:39 PM by Max Rockatansky »
Logged

mrsman

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2667
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Silver Spring, MD
  • Last Login: June 01, 2020, 08:55:10 PM
Re: CA 99
« Reply #87 on: January 04, 2020, 08:55:04 PM »

As I was following the conversation about CA 152's control, it may help others to see this, especially if you don't frequent driving 99:

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.0767126,-120.1995221,3a,75y,340h,86.26t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1scbs0-a99JyFb4JXDS_fhDw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

The BGS with San Francisco is a supplemental signage, that is located on a high sign BGS.  (Most of these typses of sign are typically ground mounted, the fact that is high is meant to really get attention.)

The actual sign at the exit does list Los Banos and Gilroy as the controls for 152.  I agree with others here that the SF sign should either be removed or replaced with San Jose.

I agree that given the current highway infrastructure, it is better to stay on 99 to 120.  If you do take 152, you are directed onto I-5 north for SF and to stay on 152 through Pacheco Pass for Gilroy and San Jose.

But in the not too distant past, 152 was the better way from Fresno to SF.  This was true while there was a traffic signal on 99 in Livingston up until 1996.  That signal caused so much backups that it was far better to force as much traffic as possible to take 5 instead.
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2133
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: June 01, 2020, 03:28:34 PM
Re: CA 99
« Reply #88 on: January 04, 2020, 09:55:14 PM »

The tall trees alongside NB CA-99 just North of the CA-152 left exit do a great job of hiding that upcoming curve and dip.

While the interchange with CA-99 & CA-152 is pretty outdated it's interesting a good chunk of CA-99 just North of that point leading up to Merced has been completely re-built as Interstate quality freeway.
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11779
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 07:54:37 AM
    • Gribblenation
Re: CA 99
« Reply #89 on: January 05, 2020, 12:40:39 AM »

The tall trees alongside NB CA-99 just North of the CA-152 left exit do a great job of hiding that upcoming curve and dip.

While the interchange with CA-99 & CA-152 is pretty outdated it's interesting a good chunk of CA-99 just North of that point leading up to Merced has been completely re-built as Interstate quality freeway.

I'd also add that the northbound approach on CA 99 to CA 152 is pretty modern until the actual junction itself.  Regarding using CA 152 versus CA 120 to reach the Bay Area I've kind of found it to be a wash.  The traffic is bad over Altamont Pass on I-580 just as it is on US 101 to San Jose.  I've often found it easier to take CA 152 over Pacheco Pass and use US 101/CA 85 to get to I-280 for a final run to San Francisco.  I'll admit though that using CA 92, I-880, and I-238 to get to I-580 usually goes fairly smoothly but it usually falls apart with traffic from there.
Logged

nexus73

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2028
  • Age: 64
  • Location: Coos Bay OR
  • Last Login: June 01, 2020, 06:35:13 PM
Re: CA 99
« Reply #90 on: January 05, 2020, 01:48:23 AM »

The tall trees alongside NB CA-99 just North of the CA-152 left exit do a great job of hiding that upcoming curve and dip.

While the interchange with CA-99 & CA-152 is pretty outdated it's interesting a good chunk of CA-99 just North of that point leading up to Merced has been completely re-built as Interstate quality freeway.

I'd also add that the northbound approach on CA 99 to CA 152 is pretty modern until the actual junction itself.  Regarding using CA 152 versus CA 120 to reach the Bay Area I've kind of found it to be a wash.  The traffic is bad over Altamont Pass on I-580 just as it is on US 101 to San Jose.  I've often found it easier to take CA 152 over Pacheco Pass and use US 101/CA 85 to get to I-280 for a final run to San Francisco.  I'll admit though that using CA 92, I-880, and I-238 to get to I-580 usually goes fairly smoothly but it usually falls apart with traffic from there.

It's fun knowing the traffic flows!  I loved freeway driving SoCal in the Seventies.  All sorts of stuff was going on at such a massive scale compared to anything in the PNW at that time.  I really dug the differences.  Back then one could still find several routings which were not totally hammered to get around the Southland.  Now it is much more of a slog.  At least the smog is mostly gone compared to then!

Back in 2013. on the return from SoCal, my friend and I came up 101, spent the night in Salinas with the next day's SF traffic being dreaded.  Guess what?  The morning hours past 9 AM saw smooth flow all the way to and through downtown SF!  I was so amazed. 

It will be interesting to see how traffic flows change 20 years from now.  If anyone will be around to post about it, it will be you for sure!

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: 6802
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 05:25:55 AM
Re: CA 99
« Reply #91 on: January 05, 2020, 02:32:10 AM »

The tall trees alongside NB CA-99 just North of the CA-152 left exit do a great job of hiding that upcoming curve and dip.

While the interchange with CA-99 & CA-152 is pretty outdated it's interesting a good chunk of CA-99 just North of that point leading up to Merced has been completely re-built as Interstate quality freeway.

The Interstate-grade freeway is in Merced County while the Chowchilla bypass and the CA 152 interchange are in Madera County.   Normally that wouldn't make much of a difference; projects often cross county lines  (in this case the Chowchilla River floodplain) -- but Merced County is part of District 10, while Madera is in District 6 -- and projects rarely cross district boundaries.  The Merced County section was expedited because it was the last section of CA 99 from its southern terminus to Sacramento that hadn't been upgraded to a full freeway -- and Interstate standards have been applied on all upgrades (with the exception of some low bridge clearances between Goshen and Kingsburg) since the Turlock bypass in 1973.  Right now D6's priorities with CA 99 are the section between the Fresno county line (San Joaquin River crossing) and the city of Madera; the section from Madera to just south of CA 152 was itself upgraded over the last 10 years.  But the 152 junction and the adjacent Chowchilla bypass is among the oldest full-freeway sections of 99 (Atwater and Manteca are the others of similar vintage) north of Fresno; no doubt it will be upgraded, but not immediately by any means; other district projects, such as the extension of the CA 180 freeway/expressway east of Fresno as well as what seems to be a never-ending expansion project through Kingsburg and Selma (they were working on that back about '97!).  Complicating D6/99 issues:  the adjacent HSR project, which has affected CA 99 from Fowler north to Madera.     
Logged

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3819
  • Last Login: June 01, 2020, 02:13:18 AM
Re: CA 99
« Reply #92 on: January 05, 2020, 01:05:56 PM »


Back in 2013. on the return from SoCal, my friend and I came up 101, spent the night in Salinas with the next day's SF traffic being dreaded.  Guess what?  The morning hours past 9 AM saw smooth flow all the way to and through downtown SF!  I was so amazed. 

I've always wondered how much of the SF commute has been changed over due to people now driving south from SF to tech jobs (or taking the Google buses et al.).  At the same time, the outbound rush hour from SF to Oakland starts around 1:30 PM and doesn't let up most weekdays until 7:30!
Logged
Chris Sampang

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6802
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 05:25:55 AM
Re: CA 99
« Reply #93 on: January 05, 2020, 11:51:00 PM »


Back in 2013. on the return from SoCal, my friend and I came up 101, spent the night in Salinas with the next day's SF traffic being dreaded.  Guess what?  The morning hours past 9 AM saw smooth flow all the way to and through downtown SF!  I was so amazed. 

I've always wondered how much of the SF commute has been changed over due to people now driving south from SF to tech jobs (or taking the Google buses et al.).  At the same time, the outbound rush hour from SF to Oakland starts around 1:30 PM and doesn't let up most weekdays until 7:30!

The northbound commute out of San Jose seems to, at present, start at about 2:30 on 680 and usually a half-hour later on 880, when traffic from 237 begins to add to the mix.  880 seems to let up a bit earlier, though (a bit before 7pm), while on weekdays 680 traffic peaks between 4:30 and 5:30 and doesn't thin out until a bit before 8pm -- with Friday's outbound congestion often lasting a half-hour to an hour later.  One of the ways some workers with homes in the Valley are handling the commute is for a number of workers -- usually from the same firm or at least the same employment locale -- to rent an apartment or condo (Milpitas or Fremont are favored locations, since rents are a bit cheaper than in the San Jose-Palo Alto corridor) during the week (and move in extra beds or futons) -- and go back to their Valley homes on Friday afternoon, returning to their Silicon Valley employment early Monday morning.   Not an inviting -- or tenable -- arrangement for those with kids, but something of an alternative for less-tethered folks who still want to retain a permanent home somewhere.   
Logged

mrsman

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2667
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Silver Spring, MD
  • Last Login: June 01, 2020, 08:55:10 PM
Re: CA 99
« Reply #94 on: January 07, 2020, 07:03:24 PM »


Back in 2013. on the return from SoCal, my friend and I came up 101, spent the night in Salinas with the next day's SF traffic being dreaded.  Guess what?  The morning hours past 9 AM saw smooth flow all the way to and through downtown SF!  I was so amazed. 

I've always wondered how much of the SF commute has been changed over due to people now driving south from SF to tech jobs (or taking the Google buses et al.).  At the same time, the outbound rush hour from SF to Oakland starts around 1:30 PM and doesn't let up most weekdays until 7:30!

The northbound commute out of San Jose seems to, at present, start at about 2:30 on 680 and usually a half-hour later on 880, when traffic from 237 begins to add to the mix.  880 seems to let up a bit earlier, though (a bit before 7pm), while on weekdays 680 traffic peaks between 4:30 and 5:30 and doesn't thin out until a bit before 8pm -- with Friday's outbound congestion often lasting a half-hour to an hour later.  One of the ways some workers with homes in the Valley are handling the commute is for a number of workers -- usually from the same firm or at least the same employment locale -- to rent an apartment or condo (Milpitas or Fremont are favored locations, since rents are a bit cheaper than in the San Jose-Palo Alto corridor) during the week (and move in extra beds or futons) -- and go back to their Valley homes on Friday afternoon, returning to their Silicon Valley employment early Monday morning.   Not an inviting -- or tenable -- arrangement for those with kids, but something of an alternative for less-tethered folks who still want to retain a permanent home somewhere.   

That type of arrangement is sad but somewhat familiar.

About 20 years ago, I knew someone who was a student at UCLA who shared an apartment with several other students in Westwood and on the weekends would go home to Orange County.    This wasn't a single 19 year old college student, but rather a 36 year old adult (with wife and kids in OC) who was going back to school for a B.S. in engineering.  He made an amazing sacrifice, IMO, but it seemed to be the only way that he could get ahead.  Granted, the arrangement was temporary, only for the 4 years that he needed his degree.

I can't imagine somebody doing that in an open-ended way.
Logged

kkt

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4630
  • Location: Seattle, Washington
  • Last Login: Today at 02:18:22 AM
Re: CA 99
« Reply #95 on: January 09, 2020, 11:17:17 PM »

My uncle lived in San Diego but taught in a community college in El Centro from the late 1970s to mid 1990s.  To make it work, he did much the same thing:  had a roommate with a cheap apartment in El Centro and stayed there three nights a week.  He was able to arrange his courses so he taught just 4 days a week.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6802
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 05:25:55 AM
Re: CA 99
« Reply #96 on: January 10, 2020, 02:10:08 AM »

My uncle lived in San Diego but taught in a community college in El Centro from the late 1970s to mid 1990s.  To make it work, he did much the same thing:  had a roommate with a cheap apartment in El Centro and stayed there three nights a week.  He was able to arrange his courses so he taught just 4 days a week.


Not so unusual -- except for intro lower-division classes, holding classes on Friday tends to be assiduously avoided by faculty and students alike.  Profs, at least in my experience (a total of 12 years in undergrad/postgrad programs) often keep office hours on Friday morning, but arrange any appointments so they can be on their merry way by lunchtime.   Getting home or to alternate destinations well before peak commutes is as desirable in the academic arena as anywhere else (and the ability to do so is de facto a perk of tenure).  So a 4-day effective work week is often the rule rather than the exception.  And given the fact that the average CA community college is woefully underfunded -- and faculty is often paid by the class taught rather than a regular salary -- not having to provide certain services on Fridays is considered a positive thing rather than a problem.       
Logged

dbz77

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 62
  • Location: CA
  • Last Login: March 03, 2020, 11:29:47 PM
Re: CA 99
« Reply #97 on: January 11, 2020, 07:25:58 PM »


But in the not too distant past, 152 was the better way from Fresno to SF.  This was true while there was a traffic signal on 99 in Livingston up until 1996.  That signal caused so much backups that it was far better to force as much traffic as possible to take 5 instead.
Just by looking at the map, the 99 seems to have been routed on what is now Campbell Boulevard, and the traffic signal was an the intersection with Hammatt Avenue.

Can anyone verify this?
Logged

mrsman

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2667
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Silver Spring, MD
  • Last Login: June 01, 2020, 08:55:10 PM
Re: CA 99
« Reply #98 on: January 11, 2020, 09:28:56 PM »


But in the not too distant past, 152 was the better way from Fresno to SF.  This was true while there was a traffic signal on 99 in Livingston up until 1996.  That signal caused so much backups that it was far better to force as much traffic as possible to take 5 instead.
Just by looking at the map, the 99 seems to have been routed on what is now Campbell Boulevard, and the traffic signal was an the intersection with Hammatt Avenue.

Can anyone verify this?

According to this website, 99 was indeed on Campbell, but the last signal was a little to the north at Main, also known as Livingston-Cressey.

A long time ago, I remember a Foster Farms commercial that aired that compared their home town, Livingston, to the big city and ended with a catch phrase that they also have a morning rush hour (in a joke fashion).  Now, that I know that they had this signal, the commercial may have rung true.


https://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM9N2W_Last_Stop_Light_on_99_Livingston_CA
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6802
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 05:25:55 AM
Re: CA 99
« Reply #99 on: January 11, 2020, 09:47:16 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:
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.