Changes to the California Highway Pages covering August – October 2025

[cahwyguy]

Another three months, another highway page update cycle completed, finishing just after the October 2025 CTC meeting. This cycle, whose changes are detailed on the October 2025 Change Page with proper formatting, or just pasted below, covers August through October 2025. Enjoy, and as always, "ready, set, discuss".

Next up: Continuing work on the California Highways: Route by Route Season 4 episodes. I've written the episodes through 4.06, and recorded 4.01. So next is recording 4.02, writing 4.07, and doing the research for the rest of the season (on Route 12, Route 13, and Route 14).

Note that there's lots of good stuff buried in the CTC notes, including:

♠ (Oct) (3) Approval of Project for Future Consideration of Funding: 01-Men-1, PM 43.3/44.2. Albion River Bridge Project. Replace the Albion River Bridge on Route 1 in Mendocino County near Albion from 3.0 miles north of the Route 128 junction to 0.2 mile north of the Albion River. (FEIR) (PPNO 4490) (SHOPP)
(Related Items under Ref. 2.5b.(2) and 2.5b.(3))
♠ (Oct) (4) Approval of Project for Future Consideration of Funding: 03-Sacramento County. I Street Bridge Replacement Project. New two-lane bridge to replace existing two-lane vehicle crossing.  (FEIR) (PPNO 1809)  (LPP) [Note: This is former Sign Route 24]
♠ (Oct) (6) Approval of Project for Future Consideration of Funding: 07-LA-39, PM 40.0/44.4. California State Route 39 (San Gabriel Canyon Road) Reopening Project. Restore and reopen a segment of Route 39 as an evacuation route and for use by the Department, United States Forest Service, and emergency-response personnel. (FEIR) (PPNO 5381) (SHOPP)
(Related Item under Ref. 2.5b.(2))
♠ (Oct) (7) Approval of Project for Future Consideration of Funding: 10-Stanislaus County. 7th Street Bridge Project. Replace existing structurally deficient two-lane bridge with a four-lane bridge.  (FEIR) (PPNO 1809) (LPP) [Note: This is former US 99]

And, of course, all the financial allocations. It is worth reading through them.

On to the changelog:

On Cahighways, with nice formatting: https://www.cahighways.org/chg2025.html#2025-10
On My Blog: https://cahighways.org/wordpress/?p=17417

Ready, Set, Discuss

[Max Rockatansky]

I'm just surprised that there still has been stuff to discover with Route 180.  I still have two upcoming articles which tie into history of Panoche Road. 

[Quillz]

So with CA-39, is it going to be fully rebuilt and reopened, albeit just for emergency use? Because don't they already have like the shoulder or something maintained just enough to fit emergency vehicles?

I also just find it odd that if that does happen, it won't just support general traffic to begin with. But who knows, maybe in the future that will change.

[Max Rockatansky]

So with CA-39, is it going to be fully rebuilt and reopened, albeit just for emergency use? Because don't they already have like the shoulder or something maintained just enough to fit emergency vehicles?

I also just find it odd that if that does happen, it won't just support general traffic to begin with. But who knows, maybe in the future that will change.

Not likely so long as the state maintains the current stance on VMT reductions.

[Quillz]

I'm more curious about the former. Are we talking an actual full rebuilt and construction, or just maintain enough space to fit vehicles, so basically a one lane road?

[Max Rockatansky]

I'm more curious about the former. Are we talking an actual full rebuilt and construction, or just maintain enough space to fit vehicles, so basically a one lane road?

The latter.  Hence my joke about needing a forest fire to get a behind the wheel clinch.

[cahwyguy]

I'm more curious about the former. Are we talking an actual full rebuilt and construction, or just maintain enough space to fit vehicles, so basically a one lane road?

The latter.  Hence my joke about needing a forest fire to get a behind the wheel clinch.

Actually, neither. If you look on my route 39 page where I list all the options considered, a one-lane road was considered and discarded. I think it will be a minimal rebuild -- enough for 2 lane traffic but without a lot of niceties and turnouts and such that the full road would require; plus, they aren't doing the option of the roundabout at the intersection with Route 2, which was on the full reopening options.

As for why the minimal rebuild, it was in my other post, and again, is on my route 39 page: It has the least environmental impact, meaning the least additional cost in terms of environmental mitigation options. It also reduces the overall construction costs. Plus, the emergency use means they can close the road during the winter and in heavy rains, making things safer -- something they couldn't do with a full reopening.

[pderocco]

So with CA-39, is it going to be fully rebuilt and reopened, albeit just for emergency use? Because don't they already have like the shoulder or something maintained just enough to fit emergency vehicles?

I also just find it odd that if that does happen, it won't just support general traffic to begin with. But who knows, maybe in the future that will change.

Not likely so long as the state maintains the current stance on VMT reductions.

Yes, preventing all those cars from driving up CA-39 to CA-2. That'll save the climate.

[Max Rockatansky]

So with CA-39, is it going to be fully rebuilt and reopened, albeit just for emergency use? Because don't they already have like the shoulder or something maintained just enough to fit emergency vehicles?

I also just find it odd that if that does happen, it won't just support general traffic to begin with. But who knows, maybe in the future that will change.

Not likely so long as the state maintains the current stance on VMT reductions.

Yes, preventing all those cars from driving up CA-39 to CA-2. That'll save the climate.

Probably worth pointing out that I don't necessarily agree (I don't) with the logic being used for VMT reductions.

[Scott5114]

Is anything they're doing actually reducing VMT? Or is it holding steady while they just increase VAE (Vehicular Annoyance Experienced)?

[Quillz]

So with CA-39, is it going to be fully rebuilt and reopened, albeit just for emergency use? Because don't they already have like the shoulder or something maintained just enough to fit emergency vehicles?
I also just find it odd that if that does happen, it won't just support general traffic to begin with. But who knows, maybe in the future that will change.

Not likely so long as the state maintains the current stance on VMT reductions.

Yes, preventing all those cars from driving up CA-39 to CA-2. That'll save the climate.

The ironic thing is it would probably reduce vehicular emissions, since right now anyone in the Azusa area that wants to reach Mt. High/Wrightwood has to either go west to Angeles Crest Highway, or east to I-15 and then CA-138. Having CA-39 open as always intended would reduce the time spent driving considerably.

This is something that wouldn't make a difference for me since I already come from the west and could be using Angeles Crest Highway anyway, but there's a lot of people that could potentially make use of this. But I guess if it's not going to be fully opened, it's a moot point. Although I do wonder how this will be enforced, physical gates?

[Max Rockatansky]

Is anything they're doing actually reducing VMT? Or is it holding steady while they just increase VAE (Vehicular Annoyance Experienced)?

Caltrans actually has a page on it:

https://dot.ca.gov/programs/sustainability/sb-743

The foundational theory seems to be about induced demand.  I haven't read 2020 SB 743 to the letter but I believe Caltrans is the only DOT in the state beholden to it.

[cahwyguy]

Is anything they're doing actually reducing VMT? Or is it holding steady while they just increase VAE (Vehicular Annoyance Experienced)?

I can't quite answer that, but I do know that every entry in the SHOPP has performance measures. So, for example, if you look at the District 7 2024 SHOPP pages, https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/financial-programming/documents/shopp/2024-shopp/after-august-2025/d7_2024_shopp_after_august_2025_ctc_a11y.pdf , you'll see there is a performance measure for each project, and when you look in the minutes, you'll see the specifics. For, for example, this is the agenda item that was amending items into the SHOPP at the October meeting last week: https://catc.ca.gov/-/media/ctc-media/documents/ctc-meetings/2025/2025-10/69-2-1a1-a11y.pdf Look at item 29: Route 37, Near Novato, from 0.1 mile west to 1.0 mile east of Route 121. Improve traffic operations by modifying intersection and extending the lane merge in eastbound direction.  This shows the performance measures as:

Performance Measure
1,515.0 Daily person hour(s) of delay (DPHD)

I'm not sure they are going to VMT, but they are measuring something (and I'm sure if I dug deeper, I'd find VMT)

So I dug futher: They do appear to have a program where they are researching the VMT effects: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/research-innovation-system-information/documents/research-notes/task3695-rns-07-22-a11y.pdf LA Metro also has a VMT mitigation program https://www.metro.net/documents/2025/01/vmt-frequently-asked-questions-englishpdf/ . In fact, there's a whole mitigation playbook: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/sustainability/sb-743/-/media/8f4b7a70ee2a48dbaa1e93b7861544ed.ashx

[Quillz]

I can agree to induced demand. The more lanes you add, the more traffic it brings. Certainly been my experience. Places like the 101 that have been widened through Oxnard and the Santa Barbara area aren't any less crowded, if anything they are more crowded.

[Scott5114]

I can agree to induced demand. The more lanes you add, the more traffic it brings.

So why don't small towns build 900-lane streets to induce more traffic to visit their towns?

[cahwyguy]

The ironic thing is it would probably reduce vehicular emissions, since right now anyone in the Azusa area that wants to reach Mt. High/Wrightwood has to either go west to Angeles Crest Highway, or east to I-15 and then CA-138. Having CA-39 open as always intended would reduce the time spent driving considerably.

Well, that really depends on how much traffic is doing that, and I'd guess the number is relatively low. It also depends on the origin of the traffic and the ultimate destination (which is not the Route 2/Route 39). Lastly, the decision to make it an emergency road only was not based on a single factor. I'm guess that the key factors were more the cost of the environmental impact mitigations and the overall cost of construction in a budget constrained environment, plus the costs of maintenance and repair if the road is used significantly.

[Quillz]

The ironic thing is it would probably reduce vehicular emissions, since right now anyone in the Azusa area that wants to reach Mt. High/Wrightwood has to either go west to Angeles Crest Highway, or east to I-15 and then CA-138. Having CA-39 open as always intended would reduce the time spent driving considerably.

Well, that really depends on how much traffic is doing that, and I'd guess the number is relatively low. It also depends on the origin of the traffic and the ultimate destination (which is not the Route 2/Route 39). Lastly, the decision to make it an emergency road only was not based on a single factor. I'm guess that the key factors were more the cost of the environmental impact mitigations and the overall cost of construction in a budget constrained environment, plus the costs of maintenance and repair if the road is used significantly.

I'm looking mainly at the potential traffic that would want to go to Mt. High/Wrightwood, which are fairly popular winter destinations. As for the rest of the year, not sure how much traffic would be wanting to take it. The route does at least take you to a popular campground in the area, the final four miles that are closed didn't block off access to any known places.

[Max Rockatansky]

I can agree to induced demand. The more lanes you add, the more traffic it brings. Certainly been my experience. Places like the 101 that have been widened through Oxnard and the Santa Barbara area aren't any less crowded, if anything they are more crowded.

That area is at maximum carrying capacity as is.  The problems they have in a geographically landlocked area like shouldn't be applicable to the rest of the state.  Besides...the really sneaky way to get around Santa Barbara is on CA 192.

[Quillz]

I can agree to induced demand. The more lanes you add, the more traffic it brings. Certainly been my experience. Places like the 101 that have been widened through Oxnard and the Santa Barbara area aren't any less crowded, if anything they are more crowded.

That area is at maximum carrying capacity as is.  The problems they have in a geographically landlocked area like shouldn't be applicable to the rest of the state.  Besides...the really sneaky way to get around Santa Barbara is on CA 192.

I do go that way, it's also pretty slow. I have many times recreated the original CA-150 where you do CA-154 + CA-192 + CA-150.

[cahwyguy]

The ironic thing is it would probably reduce vehicular emissions, since right now anyone in the Azusa area that wants to reach Mt. High/Wrightwood has to either go west to Angeles Crest Highway, or east to I-15 and then CA-138. Having CA-39 open as always intended would reduce the time spent driving considerably.

Well, that really depends on how much traffic is doing that, and I'd guess the number is relatively low. It also depends on the origin of the traffic and the ultimate destination (which is not the Route 2/Route 39). Lastly, the decision to make it an emergency road only was not based on a single factor. I'm guess that the key factors were more the cost of the environmental impact mitigations and the overall cost of construction in a budget constrained environment, plus the costs of maintenance and repair if the road is used significantly.

I'm looking mainly at the potential traffic that would want to go to Mt. High/Wrightwood, which are fairly popular winter destinations. As for the rest of the year, not sure how much traffic would be wanting to take it. The route does at least take you to a popular campground in the area, the final four miles that are closed didn't block off access to any known places.

But if you read that agenda item, you'll see that even if it was opened to all traffic, it would still be subject to winter closures. That wouldn't help with the winter destinations. There, they would want to keep the more reliable route open that is less subject to landslides, which would certainly be coming up from Route 138.

ETA: See my next comment for the links. In particular, wade through the linked 976 page EIR. It answers all these questions.

[cahwyguy]

And for the record, here's the relevant agenda item on Route 39:
https://catc.ca.gov/-/media/ctc-media/documents/ctc-meetings/2025/2025-10/74-2-2c6-a11y.pdf

And, from the linked environmental page:
SR-39 Reopening Notice of Determination (PDF) https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/district-7/documents/env-docs/sr-39-reopening-notice-of-determination.pdf

SR-39 Reopening Final EIR-EA-FONSI January 2025 (PDF)
https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/district-7/documents/env-docs/sr-39-reopening-final-eir-ea-fonsi-january-2025_a11y.pdf

I recommend folks wade through these documents. They will answer most of your questions. That's what I did.

[Max Rockatansky]

I can agree to induced demand. The more lanes you add, the more traffic it brings. Certainly been my experience. Places like the 101 that have been widened through Oxnard and the Santa Barbara area aren't any less crowded, if anything they are more crowded.

That area is at maximum carrying capacity as is.  The problems they have in a geographically landlocked area like shouldn't be applicable to the rest of the state.  Besides...the really sneaky way to get around Santa Barbara is on CA 192.

I do go that way, it's also pretty slow. I have many times recreated the original CA-150 where you do CA-154 + CA-192 + CA-150.

Slow progress is better than the no progress you get during commute hours on US 101.  Santa Barbara is a lot like Monterey in they you have to time your movements counter to commute traffic.  That or find a weird alternate that no normal person would take.

[SeriesE]

I can agree to induced demand. The more lanes you add, the more traffic it brings.

So why don't small towns build 900-lane streets to induce more traffic to visit their towns?

  indeed. For example, even if US-6 or US-50 in Nevada gets widened to an 8 lane freeway today, traffic counts aren't going to get higher than what they currently have as a 2 lane undivided highway.

[Scott5114]

I can agree to induced demand. The more lanes you add, the more traffic it brings.

So why don't small towns build 900-lane streets to induce more traffic to visit their towns?

  indeed. For example, even if US-6 or US-50 in Nevada gets widened to an 8 lane freeway today, traffic counts aren't going to get higher than what they currently have as a 2 lane undivided highway.

Interstate 11 will bring Goldfield back to life.

[Max Rockatansky]

I can agree to induced demand. The more lanes you add, the more traffic it brings.

So why don't small towns build 900-lane streets to induce more traffic to visit their towns?

  indeed. For example, even if US-6 or US-50 in Nevada gets widened to an 8 lane freeway today, traffic counts aren't going to get higher than what they currently have as a 2 lane undivided highway.

Interstate 11 will bring Goldfield back to life.

I prefer to have enhanced walkability between Goldfield and Tonopah thank you very much.