Observations Along the Road

Theatre Writeups, Musings on the News, Rants and Roadkill Along the Information Superhighway

Changes to the California Highways Website: Jan – May 2017

Written By: cahwyguy - Wed May 31, 2017 @ 8:49 pm PDT

Much as I tell myself that I won’t wait more than two months between updates, life gets away from me, my weekends get booked with theatre, and (boom) five months have passed. So it goes, I guess. Let’s start with the important numbers first: 40,818 songs on the iPod, up from 39,653 since Decmeber, with 582 songs on the “5 or Less” list (including two cast albums about Los Angeles, including one about Freeway Dreams), and about 6636 on the “10 or Less” list.

So far, in 2017, we’ve seen the passage of a gas tax proposal to fund roads (if it survives, hopefully), the inauguration of Donald Trump’s administration (which hopefully won’t survive), a proposal for a gazillion bajillion dollars — trust me, it’s yuge — in infrastructure funding in the administration’s spending proposal (which won’t survive in its present form, and would include more toll roads), and the seeming death of Route 1 due to actual weather, and Route 710 due to political weather — and when and whether either will return as a zombie is unknown. Depends on the brains available.

But this site does not work on political opinion. We work on facts: news reports, reports from the fields, legislative actions, transportation commission actions. But before I go into that, a question for those reading this on my website. At times I’ve had the urge to redo the website into something responsive, which would likely take a lot of time. I’ve also worried about the fact that I don’t serve everything via https://. But this is primarily an information site, that doesn’t handle any personal or sensitive data. Going responsive would require Javascript to resize and rearrange pages for phones, as opposed to full width web pages as in the current design. There’s no content management system to do this for me (although the blog is WordPress). My tools still generate hand-coded HTML, at some generation before HTML4 (pretty-much before CSS). I’m inclined not to change things if they work, but if you think I need to do the effort, please drop me a note.

Updates were made to the following highways, based on my reading of the papers (which are posted to the roadgeeking category at the “Observations Along The Road” and to the California Highways Facebook group) as well as any backed up email changes. I also reviewed the the AAroads forum. This resulted in changes on the following routes, with credit as indicated [my research(1), contributions of information or leads (via direct mail) from Max Rockatansky(2): Route 1(1), Route 4(1), I-5(1), I-8(1), Route 9(1), I-10(1), Route 12(1), Route 29(1), Route 35(1), Route 37(1), Route 39(1), Route 46(1), US 50(1), Route 55(1), Route 58(1), Route 65(1), Former US 66(1), Route 67(1), Route 74(1), Route 75(1), Route 76(1), Route 79(1), I-80(1), Route 84(1), Route 91(1), Route 94(1), Route 99(1), US 101(1), I-110(1), Route 121(1), Route 125(1), Route 142(1), Route 174(1), Route 190(1), I-210(1), Route 273(1), I-405(1), I-580(1), Route 710(1), I-805(1), I-980(1), County Route J1(2). Note: I was out of it, and didn’t pick up that much from AAroad (so folks there should just email me desired changes), and no one really emailed me anything during this change period.

Gribblenation.com supposedly closed as of the end of 2016, and Gribblenation.net actually closed as of January 2017. However, gribblenation.com still seems to be up. Per the discussion over on AAroads, a number of pieces will be moving to new sites as of January 2017. Those so identified have been updated. If you were at gibblenation.com or .net and have a new site, please mail me information on the corrected link. Otherwise, your entry has been deleted. As always, if you have a regional road page, please send me the link. If you had a page, please make sure I have the correct link.

Reviewed the Pending Legislation page, based on the new California Legislature site. As usual, I recommend to every Californian that they visit the legislative website regularly and see what their legis-critters are doing. Right now, we’re at the point everything for this legislative session has been sent to the Governor for signature. I noted the passage/veto of the following bills and resolutions (for some of these, I’ve highlighted key phrases in red):

  • AB 28 (Frazier) Department of Transportation: environmental review process: federal pilot program.
    Existing law gives the Department of Transportation full possession and control of the state highway system. Existing federal law requires the United States Secretary of Transportation to carry out a surface transportation project delivery pilot program, under which the participating states assume certain responsibilities for environmental review and clearance of transportation projects that would otherwise be the responsibility of the federal government. Existing law, until January 1, 2017, provided that the State of California consents to the jurisdiction of the federal courts with regard to the compliance, discharge, or enforcement of the responsibilities it assumed as a participant in the pilot program.This bill would reinstate the operation of the latter provision. The bill would repeal that provision on January 1, 2020.This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
    03/29/17 Chaptered by Secretary of State – Chapter 4, Statutes of 2017.
  • SB 1 (Beall) Transportation funding.
    (1) Existing law provides various sources of funding for transportation purposes, including funding for the state highway system and the local street and road system. These funding sources include, among others, fuel excise taxes, commercial vehicle weight fees, local transactions and use taxes, and federal funds. Existing law imposes certain registration fees on vehicles, with revenues from these fees deposited in the Motor Vehicle Account and used to fund the Department of Motor Vehicles and the Department of the California Highway Patrol. Existing law provides for the monthly transfer of excess balances in the Motor Vehicle Account to the State Highway Account.This bill would create the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program to address deferred maintenance on the state highway system and the local street and road system. The bill would require the California Transportation Commission to adopt performance criteria, consistent with a specified asset management plan, to ensure efficient use of certain funds available for the program. The bill would provide for the deposit of various funds for the program in the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account, which the bill would create in the State Transportation Fund, including revenues attributable to a $0.12 per gallon increase in the motor vehicle fuel (gasoline) tax imposed by the bill with an inflation adjustment, as provided, 50% of a $0.20 per gallon increase in the diesel excise tax, with an inflation adjustment, as provided, a portion of a new transportation improvement fee imposed under the Vehicle License Fee Law with a varying fee between $25 and $175 based on vehicle value and with an inflation adjustment, as provided, and a new $100 annual vehicle registration fee applicable only to zero-emission vehicles model year 2020 and later, with an inflation adjustment, as provided. The bill would provide that the fuel excise tax increases take effect on November 1, 2017, the transportation improvement fee takes effect on January 1, 2018, and the zero-emission vehicle registration fee takes effect on July 1, 2020.This bill would annually set aside $200,000,000 of the funds available for the program to fund road maintenance and rehabilitation purposes in counties that have sought and received voter approval of taxes or that have imposed fees, including uniform developer fees, as defined, which taxes or fees are dedicated solely to transportation improvements. These funds would be continuously appropriated for allocation pursuant to guidelines to be developed by the California Transportation Commission in consultation with local agencies. The bill would require $100,000,000 of the funds available for the program to be available annually for expenditure, upon appropriation by the Legislature, on the Active Transportation Program. The bill would require $400,000,000 of the funds available for the program to be available annually for expenditure, upon appropriation by the Legislature, on state highway bridge and culvert maintenance and rehabilitation. The bill would require $5,000,000 of the funds available for the program that are not restricted by Article XIX of the California Constitution to be appropriated each fiscal year to the California Workforce Development Board to assist local agencies to implement policies to promote preapprenticeship training programs to carry out specified projects funded by the account. The bill would require $25,000,000 of the funds available for the program to be annually transferred to the State Highway Account for expenditure on the freeway service patrol program. The bill would require $25,000,000 of the funds available for the program to be available annually for expenditure, upon appropriation by the Legislature, on local planning grants. The bill would authorize annual appropriations of $5,000,000 and $2,000,000 of the funds available for the program to the University of California and the California State University, respectively, for the purpose of conducting transportation research and transportation-related workforce education, training, and development, as specified. The bill would require the remaining funds available for the program to be allocated 50% for maintenance of the state highway system or to the state highway operation and protection program and 50% to cities and counties pursuant to a specified formula. The bill would impose various requirements on the department and agencies receiving these funds. The bill would authorize a city or county to spend its apportionment of funds under the program on transportation priorities other than those allowable pursuant to the program if the city’s or county’s average Pavement Condition Index meets or exceeds 80.

    (2) Existing law creates the Department of Transportation within the Transportation Agency.

    This bill would create the Independent Office of Audits and Investigations within the department, with specified powers and duties. The bill would provide for the Governor to appoint the director of the office for a 6-year term, subject to confirmation by the Senate, and would provide that the director, who would be known as the Inspector General, may not be removed from office during the term except for good cause. The bill would specify the duties and responsibilities of the Inspector General with respect to the department and local agencies receiving state and federal transportation funds through the department, and would require an annual report to the Legislature and Governor.

    This bill would require the department to update the Highway Design Manual to incorporate the “complete streets” design concept by January 1, 2018. The bill would require the department to develop a plan by January 1, 2020, to increase by up to 100% the dollar value of contracts awarded to small businesses, disadvantaged business enterprises, and disabled veteran business enterprises, as specified.

    (3) Existing law provides for loans of revenues from various transportation funds and accounts to the General Fund, with various repayment dates specified.

    This bill would identify the amount of outstanding loans from certain transportation funds as $706,000,000. The bill would require the Department of Finance to prepare a loan repayment schedule and would require the outstanding loans to be repaid pursuant to that schedule, as prescribed. The bill would appropriate funds for that purpose from the Budget Stabilization Account. The bill would require the repaid funds to be transferred, pursuant to a specified formula, to various state and local transportation purposes.

    (4) The Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006 (Proposition 1B) created the Trade Corridors Improvement Fund and provided for allocation by the California Transportation Commission of $2 billion in bond funds for infrastructure improvements on highway and rail corridors that have a high volume of freight movement and for specified categories of projects eligible to receive these funds.

    This bill would deposit the revenues attributable to 50% of the $0.20 per gallon increase in the diesel fuel excise tax imposed by the bill into the Trade Corridor Enhancement Account, to be expended on corridor-based freight projects nominated by local agencies and the state.

    (5) Article XIX of the California Constitution requires gasoline excise tax revenues from motor vehicles traveling upon public streets and highways to be deposited in the Highway Users Tax Account, for allocation to city, county, and state transportation purposes. Existing law generally provides for statutory allocation of gasoline excise tax revenues attributable to other modes of transportation, including aviation, boats, agricultural vehicles, and off-highway vehicles, to particular accounts and funds for expenditure on purposes associated with those other modes, except that a specified portion of these gasoline excise tax revenues is deposited in the General Fund. Expenditure of the gasoline excise tax revenues attributable to those other modes is not restricted by Article XIX of the California Constitution.

    This bill, commencing November 1, 2017, would transfer the gasoline excise tax revenues attributable to boats and off-highway vehicles from the new $0.12 per gallon increase, and future inflation adjustments from that increase, to the State Parks and Recreation Fund, to be used for state parks, off-highway vehicle programs, or boating programs. The bill would allocate revenues from future inflation adjustments of the existing gasoline excise tax rate attributable to the nonhighway modes pursuant to existing law.

    (6) Existing law, as of July 1, 2011, increases the sales and use tax on diesel and decreases the excise tax, as provided. Existing law requires the State Board of Equalization to annually modify both the gasoline and diesel excise tax rates on a going-forward basis so that the various changes in the taxes imposed on gasoline and diesel are revenue neutral.

    This bill would eliminate, effective July 1, 2019, the annual rate adjustment to maintain revenue neutrality for the gasoline and diesel excise tax rates and would reimpose on that date the higher gasoline excise tax rate that was in effect on July 1, 2010, in addition to the increase in the rate described in (1) above that becomes effective on November 1, 2017.

    Existing law, beyond the sales and use tax rate generally applicable, imposes an additional sales and use tax on diesel fuel at the rate of 1.75%, subject to certain exemptions, and provides for the net revenues collected from the additional tax to be transferred to the Public Transportation Account. Existing law continuously appropriates these and other revenues in the account to the Controller for allocation by formula to transportation agencies for public transit purposes under the State Transit Assistance Program. Existing law provides for appropriation of other revenues in the account to the Department of Transportation for various other transportation purposes, including intercity rail purposes.

    This bill would increase the additional sales and use tax rate on diesel fuel by an additional 4%. The bill would continuously appropriate revenues attributable to the 3.5% rate increase to the Controller for allocation to transportation agencies for public transit purposes under the State Transit Assistance Program. The bill would require the revenues attributable to the remaining 0.5% rate increase to be continuously appropriated to the Transportation Agency for intercity rail and commuter rail purposes.

    The bill would also allocate portions of the revenue from the new transportation improvement fee to the State Transit Assistance Program and to the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program. The bill would restrict expenditures of the fee revenues made available to the State Transit Assistance Program to transit capital purposes and certain transit services, and would require a recipient transit agency to comply with various requirements, as specified.

    (7) Existing law provides for the state to receive certain compact assets, as defined, from designated tribal compacts relative to Indian gaming, and authorized the compact assets to be sold by the Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank to a special purpose trust in order to generate state revenues. Existing law designated certain of these revenues to be used to repay certain loans of transportation funds that were made to the General Fund.

    This bill would delete the references to the special purpose trust and revise payments to various transportation accounts to be made from compact assets. The bill would repeal various other related provisions.

    (8) Existing law creates the Traffic Congestion Relief Program and identifies various specific projects eligible to receive funding.

    This bill would deem the Traffic Congestion Relief Program to be complete and final as of June 30, 2017, and would provide that projects without approved applications are no longer eligible for funding.

    (9) Existing law requires the Department of Transportation to prepare a state highway operation and protection program every other year for the expenditure of transportation capital improvement funds for projects that are necessary to preserve and protect the state highway system, excluding projects that add new traffic lanes. The program is required to be based on an asset management plan, as specified. Existing law requires the department to specify, for each project in the program the capital and support budget and projected delivery date for various components of the project. Existing law provides for the California Transportation Commission to review and adopt the program, and authorizes the commission to decline and adopt the program if it determines that the program is not sufficiently consistent with the asset management plan.

    This bill would require the commission, as part of its review of the program, to hold at least one hearing in northern California and one hearing in southern California regarding the proposed program. The bill would require the department to submit any change to a programmed project as an amendment to the commission for its approval.

    This bill, on and after July 1, 2017, would also require the commission to make an allocation of capital outlay support resources by project phase for each project in the program, and would require the department to submit a supplemental project allocation request to the commission for each project that experiences cost increases above the amounts in its allocation. The bill would require the commission to establish guidelines to provide exceptions to the requirement for a supplemental project allocation requirement that the commission determines are necessary to ensure that projects are not unnecessarily delayed.

    (10) Existing law generally provides for transportation capital improvement projects to be nominated and programmed through the state highway operation and protection program, relative to state highway rehabilitation and similar projects, or through the state transportation improvement program, relative to capacity enhancements and other capital projects.

    This bill would create the Solutions for Congested Corridors Program, with funding appropriated for the program from a portion of the new transportation improvement fee to be allocated by the California Transportation Commission to projects designed to achieve a balanced set of transportation, environmental, and community access improvements within highly congested travel corridors throughout the state and that are part of a comprehensive corridor plan. The bill would provide for regional transportation agencies and the Department of Transportation to nominate projects, with preference to be given to projects that demonstrate collaboration between the regional agencies and the department.

    (11) The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of, an environmental impact report on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the environment.

    This bill would establish the Advance Mitigation Program in the Department of Transportation to enhance communications between the department and stakeholders to, among other things, protect natural resources and accelerate project delivery. The bill would require the department to set aside not less than $30,000,000 annually for 4 years for the program from capital outlay revenues.

    (12) Existing law imposes various limitations on emissions of air contaminants for the control of air pollution from vehicular and nonvehicular sources. Existing law generally designates the State Air Resources Board as the state agency with the primary responsibility for the control of vehicular air pollution.

    This bill would prohibit, except as specified, the requiring of the retirement, replacement, retrofit, or repower of a self-propelled commercial motor vehicle during a specified period. The bill would require the state board to, by January 1, 2025, evaluate the impact of these provisions on state and local clean air efforts to meet state and local clean air goals, as provided.

    (13) Existing law prohibits a person from driving, moving, or leaving standing upon a highway any motor vehicle, as defined, that has been registered in violation of provisions regulating vehicle emissions.

    This bill, effective January 1, 2020, would require the Department of Motor Vehicles to confirm, prior to the initial registration or the transfer of ownership and registration of a diesel-fueled vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 14,000 pounds, that the vehicle is compliant with, or exempt from, applicable air pollution control technology requirements, pursuant to specified provisions. The bill would require the department to refuse registration, or renewal or transfer of registration, for certain diesel-fueled vehicles, based on weight and model year, that are subject to specified provisions relating to the reduction of emissions of diesel particulate matter, oxides of nitrogen, and other criteria pollutants from in-use diesel-fueled vehicles. The bill would authorize the department to allow registration, or renewal or transfer of registration, for any diesel-fueled vehicle that has been reported to the State Air Resources Board, and is using an approved exemption, or is compliant with applicable air pollution control technology requirements, pursuant to specified provisions.

    Existing law authorizes the department, in its discretion, to issue a temporary permit to operate a vehicle when a payment of fees has been accepted in an amount to be determined by the department and paid to the department by the owner or other person in lawful possession of the vehicle.

    This bill would additionally authorize the department to issue a temporary permit to operate a vehicle for which registration is otherwise required to be refused under the provisions of the bill, as prescribed.

    (14) The bill would enact other related provisions.

    (15) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
    04/28/17 Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 5, Statutes of 2017.

I checked the CTC Liaison page for the results of the CTC meetings from December 2016 through June 2017 (i.e., January, March, and May 2017). The following items were of interest (note: ° indicates items that were below the level of detail for updating the specific route pages) :

2.1a. STIP Program/Project Amendments

*** (Jan) (1) °Request to: (a) Add 15 new projects into the 2016 SHOPP. Click here for details. [Approved, as modified.]

*** (Mar) (1) Request to: (a) Add 63 new projects into the 2016 SHOPP; (b) Revise 15 projects currently programmed in the 2016 SHOPP; and (c) Develop 1 Long Lead project.°Most of these were storm or other damage repairs or minor projects, highway safety, rumble strips, bridge replacement in place, and so on; click here for the details on those. Larger projects of interest (generally, those that went beyond cleaning the damage, drain repair, retaining walls and slope stabilization, and roadway reconstruction to the level of geotechnical investigations, which indicate significant damage and reconstruction or rerouting will be required) were on the following routes: Route 175, Route 9 [Approved, as modified.]

*** (May) (1) Request to: (a) Add 132 new projects into the 2016 SHOPP; (b) Revise 49 projects currently programmed in the 2016 SHOPP; and (c) Develop 2 Long Lead projects. Again, most of these were storm damage and minor repairs — you can see the details here and here. [Approved, as modified.]

*** (May) (2) STIP Amendment for Approval: The Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) and the Department, propose to revise the implementing agency from CCTA to the Department for the Right-of-Way phase on the I-680/Route 4 Interchange – Widen Route 4 (Phase 3) project (PPNO 0298E) in Contra Costa County. [Approved]

2.1b. STIP Program/Project Amendments/Approvals for Notice

*** (Mar) STIP Amendment for Notice: The Department and the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) propose revising the implementing agency for the Right-of-Way phase of the I-680/Route 4 Interchange – Widen Route 4 (Phase 3) project in Contra Costa County, from CCTA to the Department. (PPNO 0298E) [Information only.]

*** (May) (6) The Department and the Tehama County Transportation Commission propose unprogramming the Los Molinos – Phase III project (PPNO 2528) and delaying PS&E from FY 18-19 to FY 19-20 and construction from FY 19-20 to FY 20-21 and also updating the project scope and funding plan for Route 99W from Gyle Road to I-5 project (PPNO 2569) in Tehama County. [Information only]

*** (May) (11) The Department and the Riverside County Transportation Commission propose delaying $31,555,000 in RIP construction and construction support funds from FY 2017-18 to FY 2018-19 for the Route 60 Truck Climbing/Descending Lanes project, in Riverside County. (PPNO 0046J) [Information only]

2.2a. Submittal of Notice of Preparation for Comments

No Items / No Items of Interest in the Review Period.No Items / No Items of Interest in the Review Period.

2.2b. Submittal of Notice of Documents Available for Comment (DEIRs)

No Items / No Items of Interest in the Review Period.No Items / No Items of Interest in the Review Period.

2.2c. Approval of Projects for New Public Road Connection / Future Consideration of Funding

*** (Jan) (1) Approval of Project for Future Consideration of Funding: [Approved]

  1. °01-Lak-20, PM 1.07/46.24, 01-Lak-29, PM 25.16/48.74 Lake Route 20/Route 29 Culvert Rehabilitation Project: Construct drainage repairs on portions of Route 20 and Route 29 in Lake County. (MND) (PPNO 3047B) (SHOPP)
  2. 02-Tri-36, PM 26.7/27.1 Ditch Gulch Curve Improvement Project: Construct roadway improvements on a portion of Route 36 in Trinity County. (MND) (PPNO 3526) (SHOPP)
  3. 04-Ala-680, PM 0.0/21.9 Freeway Performance Initiative I-680 in Alameda County Project: Install ramp metering systems at on-ramps/connectors along a portion of I-680 in Alameda County. (MND) (PPNO 0521M) (SHOPP)
  4. 10-SJ-99, PM 0.0/0.5, 10-Sta-99, PM 24.3/24.8 Ripon Bridge Rehabilitation Project: Replace an existing bridge on Route 99 in San Joaquin and Stanislaus Counties. (MND) (PPNO 0321) (SHOPP)

*** (Jan) (2) Approval of Project for Future Consideration of Funding and Route Adoption: 01-Lak-29, PM 23.6/31.6 Lake 29 Improvement Project: Construct roadway improvements including lane additions in each direction on a portion of Route 29 in Lake County. (FEIR) (PPNO 3099 & 3100) (SHOPP & STIP) [Note: This included confirmation of Lake Country Road 502 as Route 281] [The Commission approved the environmental document, Finding of Facts, and approved the project for funding]

*** (Jan) (3) Approval of Project for Future Consideration of Funding: 02-Sis-96, PM 103.00/103.6, 02-Sis-263, PM 56.7/57.2 Klamath River Bridge Project: Replace existing bridge on Route 263 (near the intersection with Route 96) in Siskiyou County. (FEIR) (PPNO 3242) (SHOPP) [The Commission approved the environmental document, Finding of Facts, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and approved the project for funding.]

*** (Mar) (1) Approval of Projects for Future Consideration of Funding: [Approved]

  1. 03-ED-50/89, PM 70.62 Meyers Intersection Improvements at US 50 and Route 89 Project: Construct a roundabout at the intersection of US 50 and Route
  2. 03-Sut-20, PM 5.0/11.3 Sutter Bypass Widening and Rehabilitation Project: Rehabilitate a portion of Route 20 to meet current design standards in Sutter County (MND) (PPNO 8132) (SHOPP)
  3. °03-Yub-20, PM 1.29 Caltrans District 3 Parking Lot Expansion Project: Expand an existing Caltrans parking lot into adjacent property in Yuba County (ND) (EA 03-1H350) (SHOPP)
  4. 05-SBt-25, PM 25.9/26.3 La Gloria Road Curve Correction: Realign a portion of Route 25 in San Benito County (MND) (PPNO 2379) (SHOPP)
  5. °06-Mad-41, PM 36.3/40.8 Oakhurst Pavement Preservation Project: Resurface a portion of Route 41 in Madera County (MND) (PPNO 6716) (SHOPP)

*** (May) (1) Approval of Projects for Future Consideration of Funding: [Approved]

  1. 02-Mod-299, PM 0.5, 1.0 Butte & Ash Creek Bridge Replacement Project: Replace two existing bridges on Route 299 in Modoc County.(MND) (PPNO 3484) (SHOPP)
  2. 03-Pla-80, PM 0.1-6.0 I-80 Auxiliary Lanes Project: Construct additional lanes on portions of I-80 in Placer County. (MND) (EA 03-3F230) (Local)
  3. 04-Sol-12, PM 19.2 Route 12/Route 113 Intersection Improvement Project: Construct safety improvements to the intersection of Route 12 and Route 113 in Solano County. (MND) (PPNO 8060A) (SHOPP)
  4. °04-Son-101, PM 17.9/18.6 US 101/Hearn Avenue Interchange Project: Construct improvements to the existing interchange on US 101 at Hearn Avenue in Sonoma County. (ND) (EA 04-4A130) (Local)
  5. °05-SB-225, PM 1.5 Las Positas Retaining Wall Project: Construct improvements to an existing retaining wall on Route 225 in Santa Barbara County. (MND) (PPNO 05-1C1900) (Minor)
  6. 06-Fre-99, PM 22.74/28.1 Ramp Metering and Mixed Flow Lanes Project: Install Ramp metering and construct mixed flow lanes at locations on Route 99 in Fresno County. (MND) (PPNO 6744) (SHOPP)
  7. °06-Kin-41, PM R40.6/R41.1 Bush Street Replacement Planting Project: Install replacement planting and irrigation on a portion of Route 41 in Kings County. (ND) (EA 06-41601) (Minor)
  8. °09-Iny-395, 117.30/117.31 North See Vee Signal: Install a new traffic signal on U.S. 395 and See Vee Lane in Inyo County. (MND) (EA 09-35680) (Minor)
  9. 11-SD-8, PM R0.1/2.0 I 8 Safety Improvement Project: Widen and construct safety improvements on a portion of I-8 in San Diego County. (MND) (PPNO 1068) (SHOPP) [Note: This uncovered the fact that the postmiles for the first segment, former Route 109, are L postmiles distinct from the postmiles for I-8 E of I-5.]

*** (May) (2) Approval of Projects for Future Consideration of Funding: 01-Hum-101, PM 79.9/86.3 Eureka-Arcata Route 101 Corridor Improvement Project Construct roadway improvements on a portion of US 101 in Humboldt County. (FEIR) (PPNO 0072) (SHOPP/STIP) [The Commission approved the environmental document, Statement of Overriding Considerations, Finding of Facts and approved the project for funding]

2.3a. Route Adoptions

*** (Jan) One Route Adoption: [Approved]

  1. A Route Adoption as a Freeway at 01-Lak-29 PM 23.6/31.6 On Route 29 from 0.1 mile south of Diener Drive to 0.6 mile north of Route 175, in the county of Lake.

2.3b. New Public Road Connection

No Items / No Items of Interest in the Review Period.

2.3c. Relinquishments

*** (Jan) Six Relinquishment Resolutions: [Approved]

  1. 04-SF-101-PM T4.6/6.7 Right of way along Route 101 (Van Ness Avenue) between Plum Street and Lombard Street, in the city and county of San Francisco.
  2. 05-Mon-101-PM R91.6/98.8 Right of way along Route 101 between Russell Road and Echo Valley Road, in the county of Monterey.
  3. 08-Riv-215-PM R38.0/R43.5 Right of way along Route 215 from River Crest Drive to Strong Street, in the city of Riverside.
  4. 10-Mer-140-PM-36.8/37.2 Right of way along Route 140 on Baker Drive, in the city of Merced.
  5. 10-Sta-219-PM 2.35/4.86 Right of way along Route 219 from American Avenue to Route 108, in the county of Stanislaus.
  6. 10-Mer-140-PM-37.1/37.4 Right of way along Route 140 on Baker Drive and Santa Fe Avenue, in the county of Merced.

*** (Mar) Four Relinquishment Resolutions: [Approved]

  1. 10-Mer-99 PM 1.2/R10.5 Right of way along Route 99 from 0.3 miles south of South Vista Avenue to 0.3 miles north of McHenry Road, in the county of Merced
  2. 10-SJ-99 PM 8.8/9.2 Right of way along Route 99 at Main Street and West Lathrop Road, in the city of Manteca
  3. 08-Riv-74 PM 17.35/19.62 Right of way on Route 74 from Dexter Avenue to the easterly city limits, in the city of Lake Elsinore
  4. 08-Riv-74 PM 17.72/25.76 Right of way on Route 74 from the Lake Elsinore city limits to the Perris city limits, in the county of Riverside

*** (May) Four Relinquishment Resolutions: [Removed from the consent calendar and approved after Tab 58.]

  1. 07-LA-19 PM 5.5/8.4 Right of way on Route 19 (Lakewood Boulevard) from the south city limits near Rose Street to the north city limits at Gardendale Street, in the city of Bellflower.
  2. 08-SBd-210 PM 14.19/15.18 Right of way along Route 210 on Oleander Avenue and Sierra Lakes Parkway (Casmalia Street), in the city of Fontana.
  3. 08-Riv-91 PM 19.92/20.37 Right of way along Route 91 on Mulberry Street and Lime Street, in the city of Riverside.
  4. 10-SJ-132 PM 2.2/2.6 Right of way along Route 132 on Bird Road and Vernalis Road, in the county of San Joaquin.

2.3d. Vacation Resolutions

No Items / No Items of Interest in the Review Period.

2.5a Minor Projects

*** (May) SHOPP Program Minor Program Allocations: Request of $470,000 for the US 50 at Ray Lawyer Drive Minor project, in El Dorado County. (EA 37281) [Approved]

2.5b. Financial Allocations for SHOPP Projects / Federal Discretionary Grant Funds

*** (Jan) (1) Request of $46,870,000 for 13 SHOPP projects. °Most of these projects did not reach the level of interest for the pages (being efforts such as pedestrian curb ramps, pavement rehabilitation, worker safety areas, landscape restoration, environmental mitigation, and bridge preventative maintenance); click here for the details. Updates were made to Route 46 for a bridge replacement at Route 99. [Approved, as modified]

*** (Mar) (1) Request of $102,397,000 for 13 SHOPP projects. °None of these projects reached the level of interest for which page changes were necessary; click here for the details. [Approved]

*** (Mar) (3) Request of $8,000,000 for two SHOPP projects. These projects were the financial contributions associated with relinquishment of Route 74 in Lake Elsinore and the unincorporation portion in Riverside County between Lake Elsinore and Perris. [Approved]

*** (May) (1) SHOPP Allocations: Request of $189,237,000 for 25 SHOPP projects.°None of these projects reached the level of interest for which page changes were necessary; click here for the details. [Approved, as modified]

2.5c Financial Allocations for STIP Projects

*** (Mar) (2) Advance – STIP Allocation: Request of $3,000,000 for the locally administered STIP Route 1 Operational Improvements project, in Monterey County. (PPNO 1814) [Approved]

*** (May) (2) Request of $550,000 for the locally administered STIP Route 60 Truck Climbing/Descending Lanes project in Riverside County, on the State Highway System. (PPNO 0046J) [Approved]

2.5d Allocations for Projects with Costs that Exceed 20 Percent of the Programmed Amount

*** (May) (2) Request of $4,500,000 to relinquish Route 19/Lakewood Boulevard in Los Angeles County. This is an adjustment of 54.6 percent over the original programmed amount. (PPNO 4485) [Approved]

2.5e Supplemental Fund Allocations

*** (Mar) (2) Request for additional programming in the amount of $1,255,000 for the Plans, Specifications and Estimate phase for a Safety SHOPP project on I-8 in San Diego County. (PPNO 1068) [Approved]

*** (May) (2) Request for an additional $1,779,000 in Construction Support to complete construction of the STIP Operational Improvement project on Route 246 in Santa Barbara County. (PPNO 6400) [Approved]

2.5f Financial Allocations for SHOPP

*** (Jan) Informational Reports on Allocations Under Delegated Authority Click here for the details. [Information only]

  • °Emergency G-11 Allocations (2.5f.(1)): $ 8,225,000 for seven projects.
  • °SHOPP Safety Sub-Allocations (2.5f.(3)): $1,495,000 for two projects.
  • °Minor G-05-16 Allocations (2.5f.(4)): $1,791,000 for two projects.

*** (Mar) Informational Reports on Allocations Under Delegated Authority. Click here for the details. At this point, much of this was storm damage from Winter 2017, of which there were significant items for Route 1 near Westport (01-Men-1 78.0/83.5), Route 1 near Leggett (01-Men-1 104.4); Route 20 near Willits (01-Men-20 20.8); Route 299 near Big French Creek (02-Tri-299 23.3). I didn’t put all of these in, but reading through these emergency allocations really gives you an idea of the scope of the Winter 2017 storms. [Information only.]

  • °Emergency G-11 Allocations (2.5f.(1)): $99,383,500 for 54 projects.
  • °SHOPP Safety Sub-Allocations (2.5f.(3)): $11,725,000 for seven projects.
  • °Minor G-05-16 Allocations (2.5f.(4)): $4,496,000 for five projects.

*** (May) Informational Reports on Allocations Under Delegated Authority. Click here for the details. Again, much of this was storm damage, and I was looking primarily for those projects that would become truly major projects because of significant geologic instability. Changes were made to the following routes: Route 36, US 101, Route 299. There’s loads of storm damage (as you can tell by 126 projects), and it makes for interesting reading. [Information only.]

  • °Emergency G-11 Allocations (2.5f.(1)): $325,227,000 for 126 projects.
  • °SHOPP Safety Sub-Allocations:(2.5f.(3)): $13,276,000 for seven projects.
  • °Minor G-05-16 Allocations (2.5f.(4)): $11,126,000 for 15 projects.

2.5g Prop 1B Project Allocations

No Items / No Items of Interest in the Review Period.

2.5t Traffic Congestion Relief Program (TCRP) Allocations

*** (Mar) (2a) Traffic Congestion Relief Program (TCRP) TCRP Tier 2 – Allocations: Request of $395,000 in Tier 2 TCRP funding for the State administered Project: Route 71 Expressway to Freeway Conversion (Route 10 to Route 60) in Los Angeles County, on the State Highway System. (PPNO 2741) [Approved]

4. TCIF and Aeronautic Program Updates / Policy Matters

No Items / No Items of Interest in the Review Period.

Share

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *