🚘 Headlines About California Highways – January 2026

[pderocco]

Adding an extra lane is something I would notice and capture on my page. So I just reviewed what I have. Right now, the lane addition was only one alternative under consideration. I've got a feeling they aren't going to do that: They are just going to convert the existing lane to HOT, and add a bit more buffer between the HOT lane and the general purpose lanes, as they did in Orange County, in order to better separate the lanes and provide space for a divider, with clearer entrances and exits for the tolling. As I noted, what they did in Orange County S of Route 22 is a prime example of what is most likely. The current page on the expresslanes, https://dot.ca.gov/caltrans-near-me/district-7/district-7-projects/d7-i405-sepulveda-expresslanes , says nothing about adding lanes.

I don't think what they did in OC is a good analog. From 2019-2023, they widened that whole straight diagnonal stretch from 10 to 14 lanes, and rebuilt most of the interchanges and crossings.

[cahwyguy]

Adding an extra lane is something I would notice and capture on my page. So I just reviewed what I have. Right now, the lane addition was only one alternative under consideration. I've got a feeling they aren't going to do that: They are just going to convert the existing lane to HOT, and add a bit more buffer between the HOT lane and the general purpose lanes, as they did in Orange County, in order to better separate the lanes and provide space for a divider, with clearer entrances and exits for the tolling. As I noted, what they did in Orange County S of Route 22 is a prime example of what is most likely. The current page on the expresslanes, https://dot.ca.gov/caltrans-near-me/district-7/district-7-projects/d7-i405-sepulveda-expresslanes , says nothing about adding lanes.

I don't think what they did in OC is a good analog. From 2019-2023, they widened that whole straight diagnonal stretch from 10 to 14 lanes, and rebuilt most of the interchanges and crossings.

I was referring primarily to how they separated the HOT lanes from the general purpose lanes, not the broader rebuild.

[jdbx]

And as for the asphalt thing I understand what their website says, but I drive this road every single day and they are definitely doing more work than just the two inner lanes. It looks like to me they're replacing at three maybe even four of the inner lanes with asphalt. Which is kind of weird because when they did the last expansion back in the 2010s they built the Outer lanes with concrete but left the inner lanes with asphalt.

It always bugs me when you have parallel lanes paved in a different material.  I can't cite any valid technical reason, I guess it's just aesthetics and maybe the slight lip that can sometimes form at the joint.  You see this up in the northern part of the state on the stretch of US-101 that was widened between Morgan Hill and San Jose about 25 years ago:  2 inside lanes were added in concrete, existing 2 outside lanes remain as asphalt.  On CA-242 in Concord it was the opposite:  existing outside lanes concrete, inside lanes and median paved with asphalt when added in the late 90's. Of course, the original Arroyo Seco parkway was paved that way on purpose, so... <shrug>

[FredAkbar]

On a portion of NB I-15 in Nevada (roughly between the Jean and Sloan exits, IIRC), the far right lane makes a high-pitched noise when you drive on it. I somewhat enjoy it and think of it as the "Vegas sound": it means I'm almost there!

[Quillz]

I had an issue last year where I nearly ran out of gas crossing Sherman Pass, and once I reached the Central Valley, nearly every gas station was closed. Finally came across one in Woodland just past midnight that was open, and I still had to travel to Fresno.

Maybe you meant Woody, or Woodville? Guessing you didn't drive 200 miles past Fresno to Woodland...

I actually meant Woodlake.

[Quillz]

I'm not trying to get political here,

Your entire post is political. Which is fine, doesn't seem to break any rules. But you don't need to hide.

I'm not trying to hide anything I support Trump. I'm just trying my best not to break the forum rules, but it gets into kind of a gray area when we start discussing road funding and where the state wants to allocate funding, it's getting from car drivers and certain agendas that our lawmakers have. I'm not hiding anything if you want to DM me and ask me what my beliefs are. I have no problem explaining to you what I believe. I'm simply stating that it's hard to separate the political nature of what I see happening with funding in California and the taxation that we ensure and what the use it for.

When you make a political post and open it with "not trying to be political, but..." it's akin to people who make racist posts and say "I'm not racist, but..." There is nothing wrong with being political. You don't need to preface your posts by pretending you aren't going to say something political. That's all I meant. Your post wasn't removed because it wasn't breaking any rules.

[Plutonic Panda]

I'm not trying to get political here,

Your entire post is political. Which is fine, doesn't seem to break any rules. But you don't need to hide.

I'm not trying to hide anything I support Trump. I'm just trying my best not to break the forum rules, but it gets into kind of a gray area when we start discussing road funding and where the state wants to allocate funding, it's getting from car drivers and certain agendas that our lawmakers have. I'm not hiding anything if you want to DM me and ask me what my beliefs are. I have no problem explaining to you what I believe. I'm simply stating that it's hard to separate the political nature of what I see happening with funding in California and the taxation that we ensure and what the use it for.

When you make a political post and open it with "not trying to be political, but..." it's akin to people who make racist posts and say "I'm not racist, but..." There is nothing wrong with being political. You don't need to preface your posts by pretending you aren't going to say something political. That's all I meant. Your post wasn't removed because it wasn't breaking any rules.

I said I'm not trying to be political. I didn't say I wasn't being political nor was I trying to hide anything which is what you said I did. We were talking about taxes and paying taxes and from there if you're driving a car and paying fees and taxes to drive that car, where does that money get allocated to? Well generally, our politicians we elect decide that. So that's what I mean when I say I'm not trying to be political, but yes, I'm gonna go ahead and be a little bit political here because it's almost impossible to keep that subject completely free of politics.

That's a little different than someone saying something like "I'm not racist" and then proceeds to say something racist. Not sure why we need to go there but OK.

[Plutonic Panda]

Now this is the kind of bill that I want to see pass. Ban all automated traffic enforcement with a few exceptions maybe like in school zones and work zones.

https://www.roadsbridges.com/road-traffic-safety/news/55355034/usdot-moves-to-restrict-federal-funding-for-automated-traffic-enforcement-cameras

[cahwyguy]

Now this is the kind of bill that I want to see pass. Ban all automated traffic enforcement with a few exceptions maybe like in school zones and work zones.

https://www.roadsbridges.com/road-traffic-safety/news/55355034/usdot-moves-to-restrict-federal-funding-for-automated-traffic-enforcement-cameras

It's at the Federal level. Do most cities, for city streets, use federal funds for traffic enforcement cameras? It seems to me that this is performative legislation -- appeals to the masses that don't understand things, but is likely to have little real effect.

[Max Rockatansky]

Now this is the kind of bill that I want to see pass. Ban all automated traffic enforcement with a few exceptions maybe like in school zones and work zones.

https://www.roadsbridges.com/road-traffic-safety/news/55355034/usdot-moves-to-restrict-federal-funding-for-automated-traffic-enforcement-cameras

It's at the Federal level. Do most cities, for city streets, use federal funds for traffic enforcement cameras? It seems to me that this is performative legislation -- appeals to the masses that don't understand things, but is likely to have little real effect.

Most don't, even still I don't have a particular issue with them being barred from future Federal Aid programs. 

Me personally I have lots of negative opinions about automated enforcement from my Arizona years, especially with the city of Scottsdale.  Those trail periods by Scottsdale were highly contentious and even received backlash from DPS.  Me personally, I rather enforcement be conducted by a human rather than a speed trap set to 11 MPH over the posted limit.  If "safety" is an actual angle to enforcement then mailing out photo radar tickets doesn't really cut it.

[cahwyguy]

Now this is the kind of bill that I want to see pass. Ban all automated traffic enforcement with a few exceptions maybe like in school zones and work zones.

https://www.roadsbridges.com/road-traffic-safety/news/55355034/usdot-moves-to-restrict-federal-funding-for-automated-traffic-enforcement-cameras

It's at the Federal level. Do most cities, for city streets, use federal funds for traffic enforcement cameras? It seems to me that this is performative legislation -- appeals to the masses that don't understand things, but is likely to have little real effect.

Most don't, even still I don't have a particular issue with them being barred from future Federal Aid programs. 

Me personally I have lots of negative opinions about automated enforcement from my Arizona years, especially with the city of Scottsdale.  Those trail periods by Scottsdale were highly contentious and even received backlash from DPS.  Me personally, I rather enforcement be conducted by a human rather than a speed trap set to 11 MPH over the posted limit.  If "safety" is an actual angle to enforcement then mailing out photo radar tickets doesn't really cut it.

I saw a FB post today ( https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=1211193014540750&set=a.570118928648165 ) with something automated enforcement related, but I haven't yet been able to find an article to confirm it. Evidently, the 91 Express Lane authority has cameras that can detect if cars in the express lanes are driving solo, by looking through the windshield. They compare that with the transponder setting, and if they don't agree, a ticket is sent.

I did a google search on "91 solo", but nothing came up that was relevant. I'd love to find an article on this for the February headline post.

[FredAkbar]

I saw a FB post today ( https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=1211193014540750&set=a.570118928648165 ) with something automated enforcement related, but I haven't yet been able to find an article to confirm it. Evidently, the 91 Express Lane authority has cameras that can detect if cars in the express lanes are driving solo, by looking through the windshield. They compare that with the transponder setting, and if they don't agree, a ticket is sent.

I did a google search on "91 solo", but nothing came up that was relevant. I'd love to find an article on this for the February headline post.

https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/news/91-freeway-carpool-cameras-riverside-county/

https://www.audacy.com/kroq/news/cameras-on-the-91-express-lanes-now-peek-inside-your-car

[cahwyguy]

I saw a FB post today ( https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=1211193014540750&set=a.570118928648165 ) with something automated enforcement related, but I haven't yet been able to find an article to confirm it. Evidently, the 91 Express Lane authority has cameras that can detect if cars in the express lanes are driving solo, by looking through the windshield. They compare that with the transponder setting, and if they don't agree, a ticket is sent.

I did a google search on "91 solo", but nothing came up that was relevant. I'd love to find an article on this for the February headline post.

https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/news/91-freeway-carpool-cameras-riverside-county/

https://www.audacy.com/kroq/news/cameras-on-the-91-express-lanes-now-peek-inside-your-car

Thanks. Saved for the Feb Headlines post, with a hat/tip to you.

[Max Rockatansky]

HOV and Express lane violations are something I'd be more agreeable on as an application for photo enforcement. 

[FredAkbar]

My guess is that most opposition to speed cameras comes from the cultural (and quasi-legal) acceptance of speeding. Cops might let it slide if traffic is moving smoothly at 10-15 over, but a camera wouldn't. (Would every single person get a camera ticket in that scenario?) It'd be like if they gave automated camera tickets for jaywalking.

The same lenience doesn't extend to HOV rules. Carpool lane cheating is seen as a "dick move" in a way that going 13 over isn't.

[Plutonic Panda]

I don't know, but in Los Angeles pretty much anything goes. Drive however you want to do 100 and a 35. People will say oh he just must be in a hurry. In Oklahoma, if he flew past someone that fast and they caught up with you to stoplight, they would stare you down and be like what the fuck is your problem asshole. But out here no one really seemed to give a shit so it's cool.

[jdbx]

My guess is that most opposition to speed cameras comes from the cultural (and quasi-legal) acceptance of speeding. Cops might let it slide if traffic is moving smoothly at 10-15 over, but a camera wouldn't. (Would every single person get a camera ticket in that scenario?) It'd be like if they gave automated camera tickets for jaywalking.

The same lenience doesn't extend to HOV rules. Carpool lane cheating is seen as a "dick move" in a way that going 13 over isn't.

I think automated enforcement makes sense in places where the risk to others from speeding is particularly high, such as *active* construction zones where nothing stands between workers an errant vehicles, within school zones, or other areas with a large number of pedestrians crossing the street.  I think deploying them on high-speed roadways otherwise is just a cash grab, which is exactly what the Scottsdale example on Loop 101 was.  Red light cameras that ticket people for making rolling right turns on red are also bogus, red light cameras should be for people blatantly blowing a light across conflicting traffic, which is where the real hazard is with running red lights.  My concern with HOV enforcement is in the case that you have a person in the back seat who may not be visible to the camera.  I am not sure how you would even appeal that.

[ClassicHasClass]

Now this is the kind of bill that I want to see pass. Ban all automated traffic enforcement with a few exceptions maybe like in school zones and work zones.

https://www.roadsbridges.com/road-traffic-safety/news/55355034/usdot-moves-to-restrict-federal-funding-for-automated-traffic-enforcement-cameras

It's at the Federal level. Do most cities, for city streets, use federal funds for traffic enforcement cameras? It seems to me that this is performative legislation -- appeals to the masses that don't understand things, but is likely to have little real effect.

Most don't, even still I don't have a particular issue with them being barred from future Federal Aid programs. 

Me personally I have lots of negative opinions about automated enforcement from my Arizona years, especially with the city of Scottsdale.  Those trail periods by Scottsdale were highly contentious and even received backlash from DPS.  Me personally, I rather enforcement be conducted by a human rather than a speed trap set to 11 MPH over the posted limit.  If "safety" is an actual angle to enforcement then mailing out photo radar tickets doesn't really cut it.

Never go to Australia. It's lousy with cameras - average speed cameras now monitor all point-to-point traffic, not just trucks - and traffic cops with nothing better to do. My favourite vandalized sign (sadly no picture) said "NSW Police: Helping to reduce the road toll" which someone crossed out "reduce" on and wrote "collect."

[Max Rockatansky]

Now this is the kind of bill that I want to see pass. Ban all automated traffic enforcement with a few exceptions maybe like in school zones and work zones.

https://www.roadsbridges.com/road-traffic-safety/news/55355034/usdot-moves-to-restrict-federal-funding-for-automated-traffic-enforcement-cameras

It's at the Federal level. Do most cities, for city streets, use federal funds for traffic enforcement cameras? It seems to me that this is performative legislation -- appeals to the masses that don't understand things, but is likely to have little real effect.

Most don't, even still I don't have a particular issue with them being barred from future Federal Aid programs. 

Me personally I have lots of negative opinions about automated enforcement from my Arizona years, especially with the city of Scottsdale.  Those trail periods by Scottsdale were highly contentious and even received backlash from DPS.  Me personally, I rather enforcement be conducted by a human rather than a speed trap set to 11 MPH over the posted limit.  If "safety" is an actual angle to enforcement then mailing out photo radar tickets doesn't really cut it.

Never go to Australia. It's lousy with cameras - average speed cameras now monitor all point-to-point traffic, not just trucks - and traffic cops with nothing better to do. My favourite vandalized sign (sadly no picture) said "NSW Police: Helping to reduce the road toll" which someone crossed out "reduce" on and wrote "collect."

I wasn't aware of how much authoritarianism existed in Australia regarding traffic laws until a couple years ago.  It was kind of surprising given the preexisting perception I had of Australia from car shows and media like Mad Max. 

[pderocco]

I got three $50 tickets on the same road in Pawtucket RI within the space of two minutes. If they had more closely spaced cameras, perhaps I would have gotten five or six.

[Plutonic Panda]

I see yeah sorry for not being clear enough about that. I am generalizing it in a sense that I don't mind paying higher taxes or taxes at all really but I want to see improvements. This might just be me but overall, I don't think the state highway system is all that bad. But then again I spend most of the time driving on the state highway systems and areas where we pretty much have a mild climate year-round and that's a pretty big advantage those roads get. It's also frustrating to see the 405 in the Sepulveda pass be paved over with asphalt, which is replacing cement.

Moving this away from the politics: Most of the state does have a mild climate, meaning we don't have the freeze cycles of back east, but we do have expensive mudslides and fires (and although a road might survive a fire, it might still be faced with greater land movement without the ground cover). You also don't see results as quickly for anything but resurfacing projects, simply because of the state processes, and the fact that non-government organizations, as well as cities and counties, often have a major role in slowing down projects (a prime example of this are the issues related to utility relocation). There are also engineering issues often discovered during the planning, and even construction process. Most folks don't see those. I see them (and put them on my pages) when I'm looking at the CTC agenda items explaining why there is an increase in cost. What I don't put on my pages (because my pages care less about schedule and I have limited time) are the agenda items related to needing to extend the schedule for a project. So people don't see the results quickly, and therefore they *think* government isn't doing anything. This all goes back to the fact that most folks have no idea how state government actually works, how contracting processes work, how engineering and design processes work. They think that because they can go to Home Depot, by the pieces for a project, and put it up over a weekend, that's how the government can do things.

As for the asphalt over cement: I can hazard some guesses here. Look to the I-5 rebuild in LA County that added all those bridges and widened things. Think of how long that took, and how expensive it was with all the additional rebar, plus the downtime of closing the lanes to rebuild the pieces. I had to drive the 405 this weekend between Northridge and Santa Monica to get to a show at McCabes, and it took 90+ minutes! The public wouldn't stand for such a closure (nor would the EIR for the project). Then think about the fact that much of the lanes actually had their concrete replaced when the most recent widening occurred in the early 2000s for the HOV lanes. So here you're not dealing with 60 year old concrete -- it is perhaps 15 years old. A good layer of asphalt should protect the concrete underneath, and likely be more self-sealing over time.

It's a weird project. It seems like they're only working on three lanes at some points but pavement on the number four lane is being replaced in some areas as well. More closures to come as per this article.

https://westsidetoday.com/2026/02/11/weekend-closures-to-continue-on-i-405-between-van-nuys-and-westwood/?fbclid=IwdGRleAP6CSBleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZAo2NjI4NTY4Mzc5AAEe1ZhrKwgL6Eoz3EGtFJCzJ7TYOmk1xcK67iKaOqKNS1LBt4quyZRzIZq1kTA_aem_Yd7YROh9kPTOM2nmkzUa1A

Once again, I'm not an engineer, but if they're considering adding HO/T lanes, especially if they go with the alternative which will increase the number of lanes on the road itself, I don't see why they couldn't just hold off until then and just rebuild the whole thing with concrete. They certainly haven't said anything about any sort of substantial or eminent failures with the road bed just that it was a project to make the road surface smoother.

[cahwyguy]

Once again, I'm not an engineer, but if they're considering adding HO/T lanes, especially if they go with the alternative which will increase the number of lanes on the road itself, I don't see why they couldn't just hold off until then and just rebuild the whole thing with concrete. They certainly haven't said anything about any sort of substantial or eminent failures with the road bed just that it was a project to make the road surface smoother.

Why they couldn't wait is probably a funding issue. There's probably not the full funding for the HOT lanes yet, except perhaps for the design phase. So construction is way down the road. On the other hand, the SB1 funding for lane rehabilitation is available, and if they didn't do it now, they likely wouldn't have the funds later. Government funding is odd that way -- sometimes it is very time limited. That might also explain why they are doing the asphalt now.

[Plutonic Panda]

Once again, I'm not an engineer, but if they're considering adding HO/T lanes, especially if they go with the alternative which will increase the number of lanes on the road itself, I don't see why they couldn't just hold off until then and just rebuild the whole thing with concrete. They certainly haven't said anything about any sort of substantial or eminent failures with the road bed just that it was a project to make the road surface smoother.

Why they couldn't wait is probably a funding issue. There's probably not the full funding for the HOT lanes yet, except perhaps for the design phase. So construction is way down the road. On the other hand, the SB1 funding for lane rehabilitation is available, and if they didn't do it now, they likely wouldn't have the funds later. Government funding is odd that way -- sometimes it is very time limited. That might also explain why they are doing the asphalt now.

But this implies that they're doing a complete rebuild of one section of the freeway, including the road bed. I've seen ODOT temporarily repave freeways for major reconstruction. Most recently I-35. But that just seems to be a simple resurfacing.

If they come through and add these toll lanes, it seems like if they choose the alternative where it is two toll lanes each way they will definitely reconstruct it with concrete as it'll last longer. Then there's a possibility of taking the other side of the freeway some of which is concrete, which was constructed during the expansion of the last Sepulveda pass improvement project, and then they would switch that to asphalt. That is so bizarre to me.