This is a floating closed javascript menu.
Menu

Site Change Log
2020 Changes

December 2020:

And with that, 2020 comes to a close. What a year it has been. We started out thinking this was going to be a somewhat normal election year. What we ended up with was a dumpster fire: a year consumed by a pandemic, with far too many deaths, far too many trips curtailed, and an election that seems to never want to end. There are some things you don't want to see in your rear view mirror, such as a CHP cruiser with red lights flashing. But there are somethings that are best in the rear view, receding away. 2020 is in that latter group.

But as we enter 2021, we can take some comfort in that we've been rebuilding the roadbed, and that rebuilt foundation should be strong. We need to watch out for the fringes of the road. If they continue to deteriorate, they can weaken the stability of the entire road. But if we take care to not let the fringes (on either side) overwhelm us, and if we follow both the written and unwritten rules of the road, we should be able to travel safe. May 2021 see us all arrive at our destinations safely, and see us back on the roads and byways of this great land.

On to the updates.

Updates were made to the following highways, based on my reading of the papers from October through December (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 (Ꜳ). This resulted in changes on the following routes, with credit as indicated [my research(1), contributions of information or leads (via direct mail or ꜲRoads) from Michael Ballard(2), Nathaniel B(3), Mark Dierking/Metro.Net(4), Tom Fearer(5), Andy Field(6), Kurumi(7), John Lumea(8), Scott Parker(9), Joe Rouse(10), Chris Sampang(11), Joel Windmiller(12): Route 1(1), Route 3(5,9), Route 4(1), I-5(1,5,2), Route 11(1), Route 12(1), Route 20(1), Route 25(1), Route 29(1), Route 33(11,9), Route 36(5), Route 38(1), I-40(1), US 48(5), Route 49(1,5), US 50(1), Route 51(12), Route 52(1), Route 55(1), Route 57(1), Route 58(1), Route 60(1), Route 71(1), Route 74(1), Route 76(1), Route 78(1), I-80(1,3,8), Route 91(1,5), Route 92(1), Route 96(1), US 97(5), US 99(2,5,12), US 101(1), I-105(1), Route 108(1,5), Route 120(1,5), Route 125(1), Route 140(1), Route 156(1), Route 172(5), Route 180(5), Route 219(5), Route 221(1), Route 254(5),  Route 262(11), Route 263(5), Route 265(5), Route 271(5), I-280(7,9), US 395(1), I-405(1), I-580(1), I-605(1), I-680(1), I-710(1,4), Route 740(1), I-880(1), Route 905(1), County Sign Route A12(5), County Sign Route A28(5), County Sign Route G15(5), County Sign Route S21(1).

Added a link for the newly created Historic Highway 99 Association of California to all the appropriate places. Added a page on the US Bicycle Route System, as County Sign Route S21 was about to be designated as part of USBRS Route 95. Added a link to the 1935 State Highway Map(5). Update the page on exit numbering(6,10).

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. As many people are unfamiliar with how the legislature operates (and why there are so many "non-substantive changes" and "gut and amend" bills), I've added the legislative calendar to the end of the Pending Legislation page. A new legislative session started after the November elections; all of the 2019-2020 bills are dead. For the 2021-2022 legislative session, this is extremely early in the session and there were very few bills to review, and even fewer related to transportation.

I checked California Transportation Commission page for the results of the California Transportation Commission meetings from October through December 2020. As always, note that I tend not to track items that do not impact these pages -- i.e., pavement rehabilitation or replacement, landscaping, drainage, culverts, roadside facilities, charging stations, or other things that do not impact the routing or history, unless they are really significant. As such, the following items were of interest:

[ Note: ° indicates items that were below the level of detail for updating the specific route pages; ♠ is an indicator used to keep track of what has been added to the pages; ❧  indicates the results from the meeting, if the meeting minutes were available. ]

2.1a. STIP/SHOPP Program/Project Amendments

♠ (Oct) (1) SHOPP Amendments for Approval: ❧ Approved
Request to: (SHOPP Amendment 20H-003) (Related Items under Ref. 2.5b.(1), 2.5b.(2) and 2.5d.(5))

Of these, the following projects/allocation were at the level of interest for the highway pages (general, these are significant new structures or changes, as opposed to repair or rehabilitation in place; additions of bike paths, pedestrian, or complete street elements; or non-visible changes):

♠ (Dec) (1) SHOPP Amendments for Approval: Request to: (Related Items under Ref., 2.3a.(1), 2.3a.(2), 2.3c.(2), 2.5b.(1), and 2.5b.(4))

Of these, the following projects/allocation were at the level of interest for the highway pages (general, these are significant new structures or changes, as opposed to repair or rehabilitation in place; additions of bike paths, pedestrian, or complete street elements; or non-visible changes):

Although they did not rise to the level of interest for the pages, a large number of items were related to damage from the summer and fall fires. Here are some examples:

I don't think I've ever seen a fire season like this. The impact on the highways of California has been significant.

♠  (Dec) (2) STIP Amendment for Action: The Department proposes to amend the US 395 – Olancha-Cartago 4-lane expressway (PPNO 0170) project in Inyo County, to split a portion of scope to construct the Olancha and Cartago Expressway Desert Tortoise Exclusion fence. (PPNO 0170B) STIP Amendment 20S-03 (Related Item under Ref. 2.5c.(5))

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

♠  (Oct) (1) STIP Amendment for Notice: The Department proposes to amend the US 395 – Olancha-Cartago 4-lane expressway (PPNO 0170) in Inyo County, to separate out the Desert Tortoise mitigation identified as the Olancha and Cartago Expressway Desert Tortoise Exclusion Fence Project (PPNO 0170B) (STIP Amendment 20S-03) ❧ Information Only

♠  (Dec) /28 (1) STIP Amendment for Notice: The Department proposes to amend the Route 138 Widen Conventional Highway (Segment 4) project to delay construction by one year from Fiscal Year 2021-22 to 2022-23 and to amend the project limits, in Los Angeles County. (PPNO 4353). STIP Amendment 20S-04.

2.1c. TCIF Baseline Amendments

There were no items of interest for this agenda item in the reviewed minutes.

2.1s. TCEP Baseline Amendments

There were no items of interest for this agenda item in the reviewed minutes.

2.2a. Submittal of Notice of Preparation for Comments

There were no items of interest for this agenda item in the reviewed minutes.

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

There were no items of interest for this agenda item in the reviewed minutes.

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

♠  (Oct) (1) Approval of Projects for Future Consideration of Funding: Projects indicated with ° were not at the level of interest for the highway pages:  ❧ Approved

♠  (Oct) (2) Approval of Project for Route Adoption: 05-SLO-46, 54.0/57.8 State Route 46 Corridor Improvement Project. Construct a four-lane, access controlled, divided Expressway in San Luis Obispo County. (FEIR) (PPNO 0226K) (STIP) Resolution E-20-100 (Related Item under Ref. 2.3a.(2)) ❧ Approved

♠  (Oct) (3) Approval of Project for Future Consideration of Funding:  05-SB-101, PM 1.4/12.3 South Coast 101 HOV Lanes Project Add HOV Lanes to a portion of US 101 in Santa Barbara County.  (FREIR) (PPNO 7101) (STIP) (SHOPP) (LPP) (TCEP) (SCCP) Resolution E-20-101 (Related Item under Ref. 2.5s.(4)) ❧ Approved

♠  (Oct) (4) Approval of Project for Future Consideration of Funding: 08-SBd-215, PM 11.35/11.95 I-215/University Parkway Interchange Improvement Project. Replace the existing University Parkway tight diamond interchange configuration on I-215 in San Bernardino County. (ND) (EA 0E420) (Local funds) Resolution E-20-94. ❧ Approved

♠  (Oct) (5) Approval of Projects for Future Consideration of Funding and Route Adoption: 06-Mad-41, PM 1.15/7.6 Madera 41 South Expressway. Construct a divided four-lane expressway on Route 41 in Madera County.  (FEIR) (PPNO 0R040) Resolution E-20-104 (Related Item under Ref. 2.3a.(1)) ❧ Approved

♠  (Oct) (10) Approval of Project for Future Consideration of Funding: 05 – San Luis Obispo County. Avila Beach Drive at US 101 Interchange Improvements Project. Construct roundabouts, ramps and multimodal access improvement. (MND) (PPNO 2830) (SCCP) Resolution E-20-109 (Related Item under Ref. 2.5c.(2)) ❧ Approved

♠  (Dec) (1) Approval of Projects for Future Consideration of Funding: Projects indicated with ° were not at the level of interest for the highway pages:

♠  (Dec) (5) Approval of Projects for Future Consideration of Funding: 03-Yub-70, PM 16.2/25.8. Yuba 70 Continuous Passing Lanes Project. Construct a 12-foot lane with an 8-foot shoulder in each direction on Route 70 in Yuba County.  (FEIR) (PPNO 9824) (STIP) Resolution E-20-127

♠  (Dec) (7) Approval of Projects for Future Consideration of Funding: 10-Sta-108, PM 27.5/44.5 • 10-Sta-219, PM 3.7/4.8 • 10-Sta-120, PM 6.9/11.6. North County Corridor. New Route 108 Project and Route Adoption. Construct a new freeway east of the City of Oakdale in Stanislaus County, adjusting Route 108, Route 120, and Route 219. (FEIR) (PPNO 0228) (STIP) Resolution E-20-129

2.3a. Route Adoptions

♠  (Oct) (1) One Route Adoption as a freeway:  06-Mad-41-PM 3.5/7.6 On State Route 41 from 0.3 mile north of Avenue 12 to 1.4 mile north of Avenue 15, in the county of Madera. Resolution HRA 20-01 (Related Item under Ref. 2.2c.(5)) ❧ Approved

♠  (Oct) (2) One Route Adoption as a freeway: 05-SLO-46-PM 54.0/56.5 On State Route 46 from 0.7 mile west of Cholame Creek Bridge to 1.8 miles west of Antelope Road, in the county of San Luis Obispo. Resolution HRA 20-02. (Related Items under Ref. 2.2c.(2) and 2.3a.(3)) ❧ Approved

♠  (Oct) (3) One Route Adoption as a controlled access highway: 05-SLO-41-PM 44.5/45.3 On State Route 41 from the State Route 41/Route 46 Separation to 0.8 miles north of the State Route 41/Route 46 Separation, in the county of San Luis Obispo Resolution HRA 20-03 (Related Item under Ref. 2.3a.(2)) ❧ Approved

♠  (Dec) (1) One Route Adoption as a State Highway 06-Ker-58 PM R34.4T/R48.8. Route 58 existing alignment from I-5 to Route 99 through the county of Kern and the city of Bakersfield to a new alignment along Stockdale Highway and Westside Parkway from I-5 to Coffee Road through the county of Kern and the city of Bakersfield. Resolution HRA 20-04. (Related Items under Ref. 2.1a.(1), 2.3a.(2), 2.3c.(2) and 2.5b.(4)) ❧ Note: This is the adoption of the Western Segment - Stockdale Highway as Route 58

♠  (Dec) (2) One Route Adoption as a Freeway 06-Ker-58 PM R43.6/R48.8. Route 58 from Heath Road to Coffee Road, in the city of Bakersfield. Resolution HRA 20-05. (Related Items under Ref. 2.1a.(1), 2.3a.(1), 2.3c.(2) and 2.5b.(4)) ❧ Note: This is the adoption of the Westside Parkway as Route 58

2.3b. New Public Road Connection

There were no items of interest for this agenda item in the reviewed minutes.

2.3c. Relinquishments

♠  (Oct) Five Relinquishment Resolutions:  ❧ Approved

  1. 04-Ala-238-R14.8/15.0 Right of way along Route 238 on 172nd Avenue (San Pedro Avenue), Rogerio Street (Rogerio Avenue) and 173rd Avenue (San Remo Avenue), and Esteban Street (Esteban Avenue), in the county of Alameda. Resolution R-4050
  2. 05-SLO-101-PM 25.90/25.91 Right of way along US 101 on Los Osos Valley Road, in the city of San Luis Obispo. Resolution R-4051
  3. 06-Tul-65-PM 15.6/17.1 Right of way along Route 65 on Avenue 124, West Teapot Dome Road (Avenue 128), and West Scranton Avenue (Avenue 136), in the county of Tulare. Resolution R-4052
  4. 06-Tul-65-PM 16.1/17.1 Right of way along Route 65 on West Teapot Dome Road (Avenue 128) and West Scranton Avenue (Avenue 136), in the city of Porterville. Resolution R-4053
  5. 11-Imp-111-PM 0.1/0.2 Right of way along Route 111 south of Second Street, in the city of Calexico Resolution R-4054

♠  (Dec) (1) Four Relinquishment Resolutions:

  1. 03-Pla-28-PM 9.2/10.3 Right of way along Route 28 (North Lake Boulevard) between Route 267 (North Shore Boulevard) and Chipmunk Street, in the county of Placer. Resolution R-4055
  2. 06-Fre-99-PM 23.7/26.2 Right of way along Route 99 between West Weldon Avenue and Swift Avenue, in the city of Fresno. Resolution R-4059
  3. 06-Ker-155-PM R1.46 Right of way along Route 155 on Browning Road, in the county of Kern. Resolution R-4060
  4. 11-SD-125-PM 6.9/9.0 Right of way along Route 125 on San Miguel Road, Summit Meadow Road, Quarry Road, Sweetwater Road, and Worthington Street in the county of San Diego. Resolution R-4061

♠  (Dec) (2) Three Relinquishment Resolutions: (Related Items under Ref. 2.1a.(1), 2.3a.(1), and 2.3a.(2) and 2.5b.(4))

  1. 06-Ker-58-PM 45.5/46.0 Right of way along Route 58 from Jenkins Road to Van Buren Place, in the city of Bakersfield. Resolution R-4056
  2. 06-Ker-58-PM 40.1/45.7 Right of way along Route 58 from 0.1 miles east of Route 43 (Enos Lane) to 0.2 miles east of Jenkins Road, in the county of Kern. Resolution R-4057
  3. 06-Ker-58-PM 31.8/39.9 Right of way along Route 58 from Tracy Avenue to 0.1 miles west of Route 43 (Enos Lane), in the county of Kern. Resolution R-4058

2.3d. Vacations

♠  (Dec) One Vacation Resolution 10-Mer-165-PM 29.8/30.3 Right of way along State Route 165 on Westside Blvd in the county of Merced. Resolution A914

2.5a Minor Projects

There were no items of interest for this agenda item in the reviewed minutes.

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

♠  (Oct) (1) Request $487,303,000 $484,940,000 for 28 27 SHOPP projects in construction phases.  The following allocations were of interest to the highway pages:  (Related Items under Ref. 2.1a.(1), 2.2c.(1), 2.5s.(4) and 2.5s.(6)) ❧ Approved as amended

♠  (Oct) (2) Request of $102,700,000 for 92 2020 SHOPP preconstruction project phases for environmental, design and R/W support.  (2a) - SHOPP Support. (2b) - SHOPP SB1 Support. Resolution FP-20-22. Related Items under Ref. 2.1a.(1) and 2.2c.(1)). The following allocations were of interest to the highway pages: ❧ Approved

♠  (Oct) (4) Request $17,509,000 for the bridge replacement along Guernsey Avenue to Trancas Canyon Road/Broad Beach Road project (07-LA-1 PM 56.5/56.9), in Los Angeles County. (PPNO 4498)  Resolution FP-20-29. ❧ Approved, as amended

♠  (Dec) (1) Request $106,751,000 for 15 SHOPP construction phase projects. Resolution FP-20-32 (Related Item under Ref. 2.1a.(1)) The following allocations were of interest to the highway pages:

♠  (Dec) (2) Request of $54,410,000 for 58 2020 SHOPP preconstruction project phases for environmental, design and R/W support. (2a) - SHOPP Support. (2b) - SHOPP SB1 Support. Resolution FP-20-22. Resolution FP-20-33. The following allocations were of interest to the highway pages:

♠  (Dec) (4) Request $10,650,000 for the SHOPP Rehabilitation project from State Route 43 to 0.1 mile west of Allen Road, in Kern County. (PPNO 6756) Resolution FP-20-41. (Related Items under Ref. 2.1a.(1), 2.3a.(1), 2.3a.(2), 2.3c.(2))

2.5c Financial Allocations for STIP Projects

♠  (Oct) (2) Request of $700,000 for the locally-administered STIP US 101 Avila Beach Drive Interchange project, on the State Highway System, in San Luis Obispo County. (PPNO 2830)  Resolution FP-20-23. (Related Item under Ref. 2.2c.(10)) ❧ Approved

♠  (Dec) (1) Request of $72,010,000 for two State-Administered projects, on the State Highway System. Resolution FP-20-35:

♠  (Dec) (4) AB 3090 Reimbursement Allocations: Request of $4,000,000 for the locally administered STIP AB 3090 Reimbursement project, on the State Highway System, in San Mateo County (US 101/Willow Road). (PPNO 0690B) Resolution FP-20-39

♠  (Dec) (5) Request of $3,058,000 for the State-Administered STIP Olancha and Cartago Expressway Desert Tortoise Exclusion Fence project, on US 395 on the State Highway System, in Inyo County, programmed Fiscal Year 2021-22. (PPNO 0170B ProjID 0914000036 EA 21341) (INY 29.200/41.800) Resolution FP-20-38 (Related Item under Ref. 2.1a.(2))

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

♠  (Oct) (1) Request for an allocation of $20,498,000 (66.7 percent increase) in Construction Capital and $4,300,000 (65.4 percent increase) in Construction Support for the SHOPP Bridge Preservation project on Interstate 80/State Route 29 in Solano County. (PPNO 1452F)  Resolution FP-20-15. ❧ Approved

2.5e Supplemental Fund Allocations

♠  (Oct) (10) Request for an additional $1,495,000 (23 percent increase) in Construction Capital and $0 (0 percent increase) in Construction Support for the TCEP/SHOPP Roadway Widening and ADA Curb Ramps project on State Route 98 in Imperial County. Contributions from SHOPP are $450,000 and the remaining $1,045,000 from TCEP. (PPNO 1258) Resolution FA-20-17 ❧ Approved
Resolution TCEP-A-2021-06S

2.5f Financial Allocations for SHOPP

♠  (Oct) Informational Reports on Allocations Under Delegated Authority  ❧ Information Only

Of these, the following were of interest for the highway pages:

♠  (Dec) Informational Reports on Allocations Under Delegated Authority

There were no items that rose to the level of interest for the highway pages.

2.5g Prop 1B Project Allocations

There were no items of interest for this agenda item in the reviewed minutes.

2.5s Senate Bill 1 Programs Project Allocations Local Partnership Program (LPP) Allocations

♠  (Oct) /102 (4) Request of $47,000,000 for the State-Administered multi-funded SCCP/STIP South Coast 101 HOV- Summerland (Segment 4C) project, on the State Highway System, in Santa Barbara County. (PPNO 7101E)  Resolution SCCP-A-2021-02 Resolution FP-20-26 (Related Item under Ref. 2.2c.(3) & 2.5b.(1).) ❧ Approved as amended

♠  (Dec) (4) Trade Corridor Enhancement Program (TCEP) Allocations: Request of $16,800,000 for the locally administered TCEP Route 60 Truck Safety and Efficiency Project – Phase 1A project, on the State Highway System, in Riverside County. (PPNO 3010T) Resolution TCEP-A-2021-07

2.5t Traffic Congestion Relief Program (TCRP) Allocations

There were no items of interest for this agenda item in the reviewed minutes.

2.6g Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP) Allocations

♠  (Dec) (1) Request of $81,173,000 for six TIRCP projects. Resolution TIRCP-2021-09. There was one allocation of interest to the highway pages:

4. TCIF and Aeronautic Program Updates / Policy Matters

There were no items of interest for this agenda item in the reviewed minutes.

Other Matters/Public Comment

There were no items of interest for this agenda item in the reviewed minutes.

October 2020:

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 (Ꜳ). This resulted in changes on the following routes, with credit as indicated [my research(1), contributions of information or leads (via direct mail or ꜲRoads) from Ted Cabeen(2), Tom Fearer(3), Mark Harrigan(4): Route 1(1), Route 2(1), Route 4(3), I-5(1), I-8(1), Route 9(3), I-10(1), Route 14(1), Route 22(1), Route 23(1), Route 24(1), Route 29(1), Route 36(1), Route 44(3), US 50(1), Route 55(1),  Route 60(1), Route 64(1), Route 75(1), I-80(1), Route 84(1), Route 85(1), Route 91(1), Route 99(1,3), US 101(1), I-105(1), Route 118(1), Route 120(1,3), Route 121(1), Route 125(1), Route 138/HDC(1), Route 151(3), Route 152(1), Route 154(1), Route 168(2), Route 170(1), Route 175(3), Route 180(3), Route 187(1), Route 190(3), Route 192(1), Route 197(1), Route 198(1), US 199(1), Route 207(3), Route 216(1), Route 236(3), Route 252(1), Route 253(1,3), Route 273(3), I-405(1), Route 440(3), Route 480(1), I-580(1), I-605(1), I-680(1,4), I-710(1), I-805(1), I-880(1), County Sign Route A27(1).

Added Carolina Crossroads to the Regional Routes pages. Updated information on the Trails section top page about the history of the National Old Trails Road. Added more information on Scenic Highway designations to the State Highway Types page. Added links to the AASHTO Route Numbering Archive to the Interstate History, US Highway Numbering, and Interstate Highway numbering pages.

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. As many people are unfamiliar with how the legislature operates (and why there are so many "non-substantive changes" and "gut and amend" bills), I've added the legislative calendar to the end of the Pending Legislation page. Noted the passage (or took particular notice) of the following bills:

I checked California Transportation Commission page for the results of the California Transportation Commission meetings from August through September 2020. As always, note that I tend not to track items that do not impact these pages -- i.e., pavement rehabilitation or replacement, landscaping, drainage, culverts, roadside facilities, charging stations, or other things that do not impact the routing or history, unless they are really significant. As such, the following items were of interest (note: ° indicates items that were below the level of detail for updating the specific route pages; ♠ is an indicator used to keep track of what has been added to the pages):

2.1a. STIP/SHOPP Program/Project Amendments

♠ (1) SHOPP Amendments for Approval: Request to: (SHOPP Amendment 18H-019) (Related Item under 2.5b.(1)) [Approved as revised]

Of these, the following projects/allocation were at the level of interest for the highway pages (general, these are significant new structures or changes, as opposed to repair or rehabilitation in place or non-visible changes):

♠ (2) SHOPP Amendments for Approval: Request to: (SHOPP Amendment 20H-002) (Related Items under 2.5b.(1) and 2.5b.(2)) [Approved as revised]

  1. (2a) Add 12 new projects into the 2020 SHOPP.(2.1a.(1a))
  2. (2d) Revise 14 projects currently programmed in the 2020 SHOPP. (2.1a.(1d)

Of these, the following projects/allocation were at the level of interest for the highway pages (general, these are significant new structures or changes, as opposed to repair or rehabilitation in place or non-visible changes):

♠ (3) STIP Amendment for Approval: The Solano Transportation Authority and the Department propose to reprogram $16,700,000 RIP funds from the Solano-80 Managed Lanes project (PPNO 0658L) to the I-80/I-680/Route 12 Interchange Package 2A project (PPNO 5301X) in Solano County. STIP Amendment 20S-01 (Related Item under Ref. 2.5s.(5)) [Approved]

♠ (4) STIP Amendment for Approval: Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission proposes to delete Mira Vista (PPNO 1968) and transfer scope and $6,779,000 RIP funds to State Park Bay Porter (PPNO 0073C) on State Route 1 in Santa Cruz County. STIP Amendment 20S-02 [Approved]

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

There were no items of interest for this agenda item in the reviewed minutes.

2.1c. TCIF Baseline Amendments

There were no items of interest for this agenda item in the reviewed minutes.

2.1s. TCEP Baseline Amendments

♠ (1) Solutions for Congested Corridors Program (SCCP) Project Amendment: The Department and Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG) proposes to amend the Cycle 1 SCCP – Multi Modal Corridor in Santa Barbara County and transfer savings from Santa Monica Road Via Real Intersection Improvement (PPNO 2985) to South Coast 101 High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes Summerland (Segment 4C) (PPNO 7101E) and update funding plan and split out landscape (PPNO 7103Y) and monitoring (PPNO 7103X). Resolution SCCP-P-2021-01 (Related Item under Ref. 2.5s.(4)) [Approved]

2.2a. Submittal of Notice of Preparation for Comments

There were no items of interest for this agenda item in the reviewed minutes.

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

There were no items of interest for this agenda item in the reviewed minutes.

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

♠ (1) Approval of Projects for Future Consideration of Funding: Projects indicated with ° were not at the level of interest for the highway pages: [Approved]

2.3a. Route Adoptions

There were no items of interest for this agenda item in the reviewed minutes.

2.3b. New Public Road Connection

There were no items of interest for this agenda item in the reviewed minutes.

2.3c. Relinquishments

♠ Five Six Relinquishment Resolutions: [Approved as revised]

2.3d. Vacations

There were no items of interest for this agenda item in the reviewed minutes.

2.5a Minor Projects

There were no items of interest for this agenda item in the reviewed minutes.

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

♠ (1) Request $1,262,150,000 for 53 52 SHOPP projects. Resolution FP-20-02. (Related Items under Ref. 2.1a.(1), 2.1a.(2), 2.2c.(1) and 2.5s.(4)). The following allocations were of interest to the highway pages: [Approved as revised]

♠ (2) Request of $85,383,000 for 85 2020 SHOPP preconstruction project phases for environmental, design and R/W support. Resolution FP-20-09 (Related Items under 2.1a.(2) and 2.2c.(1)) The following allocations were of interest to the highway pages: ((2a): SHOPP Support Phases; (2b) SHOPP SB1 Support Phases) [Approved]

2.5c Financial Allocations for STIP Projects

♠ (1) Request of $94,967,000 for three State-Administered STIP projects, on the State Highway System. Resolution FP-20-04 (Related Item under Ref. 2.5w.(1)) The following allocations were of interest to the highway pages: [Approved as revised]

♠ (5) Approval of Project for Future Consideration of Funding: 07 – Route 710. Los Angeles County Shoemaker Bridge Replacement Project. Replace bridge and other improvements. (FEIR) (PPNO 4071) (STIP)  Resolution E-20-81 [Approved]

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

♠ (2) Request for an allocation of $4,353,000 (67.8 percent increase) in Construction Capital and $1,103,000 (no increase) in Support for the SHOPP Roadside Safety Improvement project on Route 299 in Humboldt County. (PPNO 2434) Resolution FP-20-11 [Approved]

2.5e Supplemental Fund Allocations

There were no items of interest for this agenda item in the reviewed minutes.

2.5f Financial Allocations for SHOPP

♠ Informational Reports on Allocations Under Delegated Authority [Information Only]

Of these, the following were of interest for the highway pages:

2.5g Prop 1B Project Allocations

There were no items of interest for this agenda item in the reviewed minutes.

2.5s Senate Bill 1 Programs Project Allocations Local Partnership Program (LPP) Allocations

♠ (1) Request of $4,000,000 for the State-Administered LPP Formulaic State Routes 94/125 Connector project, on the State Highway System, in San Diego County. (PPNO 0356) Resolution LPP-A-2021-01 (Related Item under Ref. 4.19) [Approved]

☓ (4) Request of $47,533,000 for the State-Administered multi-funded SCCP/STIP South Coast 101 HOV-Summerland (Segment 4C) project, on the State Highway System, in Santa Barbara County. (PPNO 7101E) Resolution FP-20-07 Resolution SCCP-A-2021-01 (Related Items under Ref. 2.1s.(1) and 2.5b.(1)) [Withdrawn]

♠ (5) Request of $69,900,000 for the State-Administered multi-funded TCEP/STIP I-80/I-680/Route 12 Interchange Package 2A project (PPNO 5301X), on the State Highway System, in Solano County, the STIP funds are programmed in FY 2021-22. (PPNO 5301X) Resolution FP-20-08 Resolution TCEP-A-2021-02 (Related Item under Ref. 2.1a.(3)) [Approved]

2.5t Traffic Congestion Relief Program (TCRP) Allocations

There were no items of interest for this agenda item in the reviewed minutes.

4. TCIF and Aeronautic Program Updates / Policy Matters

♠ 4.3. Update on the Last Chance Grade Project Located on US 101 in Del Norte County [Information Only]

Other Matters/Public Comment

There were no items of interest for this agenda item in the reviewed minutes.

August 2020:

Now that we are past the site rework, we can return to the normal round of updates: going through the headlines, email, and AARoads; what the legislature did; and the CTC minutes. A few final rework notes: I've discovered that the site works much better on mobile devices if you use it in LANDSCAPE mode; I haven't yet found a way to make it scale right automatically in portrait mode. Suggestions are welcome on that. Also, if for some reason you're still seeing the old site, clear your cache! Lastly, if you referred to hwystart.html, change that reference to ROUTE001.html. The page hwystart.html (which was just a copy of 001-008.html) was a kludge to reflect the fact that I couldn't predict aforetime what the first highway grouping would be. Now I can.

One additional introductory note: As I was working on this update, a few kerfuffles occurred on the Facebook groups Freeways of Los Angeles and Historic US Highway 99, as a result of people sharing pictures from Michael Ballard's excellent site without giving credit to Michael's site (something those of us with long-time sites are sensitive to, as many in the "Internet generation" believe that if something is posted on the net, it is there for the taking)*. Related to this is the disappearance of the FB group California's Historic Highways** and the self-ghosting of Joel Windmiller. I don't want to open up the credit debate -- credit should always be given, and hopefully I'm getting better on that (and if I err, let me know and I'll correct); further, with appropriate credit, I believe much of our use is fair use and educational, especially when only a focused portion of an image is used or a segment or summary of text from a site is used with credit and a pointer. Here's the real question in all of this ⇒ Facebook would allow me to create a group to go along with the page I already have for California Highways. Should I? I would ensure there is moderation that insists on credit and no political discussions; I would attempt to recruit some co-administrators that also have pages on the net, are roadgeeks of long-standing, and who understand the issue. However, having experienced attempting to moderate a FB group in another area (I attempted to move my Mail.Liberal-Judaism Mailing List to a FB group), I know their moderation system is not to my liking (for example, you can't moderate those leaving comments, and you can't easily send mail back with the message requesting specific changes). Moderation also takes a fair amount of time (which will be an issue when the world returns to normal), and opens one up to liability issues largely due to the cluelessness or carelessness of others. Please let me know your thoughts via email to webmaster@cahighways.org; and as always when you post on FB or elsewhere, credit your sources.
----------------------------
[*: Note that these were not formal copyright complaints, and that no one is looking for payment or planning to involve the legal system. That's why I didn't use "free for the taking", as I'm not looking for payment. This is, in a sense, like the Gnu Copyleft, only the basic term is: give credit to the original source. ❚ **: Or at least I can't see it, which means I was kicked out with no message or reason, which is equally problematic]

Related to the above, and seeing that Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur are in mid-September this year, possibly before the next big round of updates: If I have used material from your website or a post, and have neither credited you at the point of use or recognized your contribution on my sources page, I sincerely apologize and want to make things right. Please let me know the occurrence, and I'll make sure that credit is given, or remove or rework the offending material. If you have lifted material from my website, don't worry. I won't be coming after you. All I ask is that you credit (by name, and by URL link) to the original source so that readers can investigate my site for the most up-to-date information.

With that said, now on to the updates:

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 (Ꜳ). This resulted in changes on the following routes, with credit as indicated [my research(1), contributions of information or leads (via direct mail or ꜲRoads) from : StevAshe(2), Michael Ballard(3), Concrete_Bob(4), Tom Fearer/Max_Rockatansky(5), Andy Field/andy3175(6), Fungus(7), Occidental Tourist(8), Scott Parker/SParker(9), PDERocco(10), Chris Sampang/thestranger(11), Don Williams/Don1991(12): Route 1(5), LRN 2(1), I-5(1), US 6(3), I-8(1,3), I-15(1), Route 18(1), Route 20(1), Route 25(1), Route 26(3), Route 29(1,5), Route 36(1), Route 37(1), Route 39(1), I-40(1), Route 41(5), Route 47(1), Route 53(5, 9), Route 55(1), Route 57(1), Route 58(10), Route 75(1), LRN 79(1), I-80(1,3), Route 99(1), US 101(1,3,9,5), Route 103(1), I-105(1), Route 108(9), I-110(1), Route 116(1), Route 120(1), Route 121(1), Route 126(1), Route 142(1), Route 148(6, 11, 9, 4), Route 162(1), Route 164(9,8), Route 170(3), Route 174(1), LRN 174(1), LRN 177(1), LRN 180(1), LRN 182(1), LRN 184(1), Route 197(5), Route 200(5), Route 210(1), Route 211(5,9), Route 213(9), Route 221(1), Route 222(5), Route 250(1), Route 255(5), Route 282(1), Route 283(5), Route 284(5), Route 285(5), US 395(9), I-405(1), I-605(1), I-710(1,7), I-880(1).

I also added a link to the Golden State Highways and California Travel Directory(5), as a placeholder for the Gribblenation Blog, to the regional page of the links directory. Consider this a plea: Please take a look at the regional directory. If you are aware of regional sites that have gone away or have moved, please let me know. If you are aware of regional sites (other than Wikipedia pages) that I am missing, please let me know. We have moved into the era of corporate sites, and those of us who do the independent highway pages need to band together. I'd suggest a webring, but no one remembers those these days.

Added a link to Freeways for the Region, effectively the master plan for the freeways from 1943, to the first page of the Southern California Map discussion pages(12). Thanks to Don Williams/Don1991 for finding the link. Updated the exit numbering statistics on the Exit Numbering page(2). Corrected some name references to reflect the preferences of the authors with respect to the name used.

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. As many people are unfamiliar with how the legislature operates (and why there are so many "non-substantive changes" and "gut and amend" bills), I've added the legislative calendar to the end of the Pending Legislation page. Noted the passage (or took particular notice) of the following bills:

I checked the CTC Liaison page (post AB 434 link) for the results of the California Transportation Commission meetings from May through July 2020. However, that page is also caught up in the AB 434 rework, meaning that none of the agendas and all of the background was unavailable. However, the California Transportation Commission does a better job of having its act together, and the agendas and minutes and backgrounds are available there. As always, note that I tend not to track items that do not impact these pages -- i.e., pavement rehabilitation or replacement, landscaping, drainage, culverts, roadside facilities, charging stations, or other things that do not impact the routing or history, unless they are really significant. As such, the following items were of interest (note: ° indicates items that were below the level of detail for updating the specific route pages; ♠ is an indicator used to keep track of what has been added to the pages):

2.1a. STIP/SHOPP Program/Project Amendments

♠ (May) (1) SHOPP Amendments for Approval: Request to: [Approved]

Of these, the following projects/allocation were at the level of interest for the highway pages (general, these are significant new structures or changes, as opposed to repair or rehabilitation in place or non-visible changes):

♠ (May) (2) SHOPP Amendments for Approval: Request to: [Approved, as revised, but those revisions were incorporated into the 2020 SHOPP]

Of these, for the projects that were of interest, the amendments were to the 2018 SHOPP, and thus the revised numbers propagated into the 2020 SHOPP updates already made.

♠ (Jun) (1) SHOPP Amendments for Approval: Request to:

Of these, the following projects/allocation were at the level of interest for the highway pages (general, these are significant new structures or changes, as opposed to repair or rehabilitation in place or non-visible changes):

♠ (Jun) (2) STIP Amendment for Approval: The Department proposes to program $12,200,000 of Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STBGP) – Coordinated Border Infrastructure Program (CBI) funds for three new projects. One project in Imperial County (PPNO 1411) and two projects in San Diego County. (PPNO 1416 and PPNO 1417). Of these, the following was of interest for the highway pages:

♠ (Jun) (5) SHOPP Amendments for Approval: Request to:

Of these, the following projects/allocation were at the level of interest for the highway pages (general, these are significant new structures or changes, as opposed to repair or rehabilitation in place or non-visible changes):

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

♠ (May) (1) STIP Amendment for Notice: The Department proposes to program $12,200,000 of  Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STBGP) – Coordinated Border Infrastructure Program (CBI) funds for 3 new projects. 1 project in Imperial County (PPNO 1411) and 2 projects in San Diego County. (PPNO 1416 and PPNO 1417). The following project included in this amendment impacted the highway pages: [Information Only]

♠ (Jun) (1) State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Amendment for Notice: The Solano Transportation Authority and the Department propose to reprogram $16,700,000 in Regional Improvement Programming(RIP) funds from the Solano-80 Managed Lanes project (PPNO 0658L) on I-80 to the I-80/I-680/ Route 12 Interchange Package 2A project (PPNO 5301X) in Solano County.

♠ (Jun) (2) STIP Amendment for Notice: Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission propose to delete Mar Vista (PPNO 1968) and transfer scope and $6,779,000 RIP funds to State Park Bay Porter (PPNO 0073C) on Route 1 in Santa Cruz County.

2.1c. TCIF Baseline Amendments

There were no items of interest for this agenda item in the reviewed minutes.

2.1s. TCEP Baseline Amendments

♠ (Jun) (4) TCEP- Project Scope Amendment The Department proposes to amend the Cycle 1 Trade Corridor Enhancement Program – Route 71 Expressway to Freeway Conversion project in Los Angeles County to reduce scope and funding. (PPNO 2741S)

2.2a. Submittal of Notice of Preparation for Comments

There were no items of interest for this agenda item in the reviewed minutes.

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

There were no items of interest for this agenda item in the reviewed minutes.

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

♠ (May) (1) Approval of Projects for Future Consideration of Funding and New Public Road Connection: Projects indicated with ° were not at the level of interest for the highway pages: [Approved as Revised]

♠ (May) (7) Approval of Project for a New Public Rode Connection: 06-Mad-41, PM 1.15/7.6 Madera 41 South Expressway. Construct a divided four-lane expressway in Madera County. (FEIR) (EA 0R040) (NPRC) [Approved]

♠ (May) (9) Approval of Project for Future Consideration of Funding: 12-Ora-241, PM 36.1/39.1; 12-Ora-91, PM 14.7/18.9; 08-Riv-91, PM 0.0/1.5 Route 241/Route 91 Tolled Express Lanes Connector Project. Construct a tolled facility between Route 241 and Route 91 in Orange and Riverside counties. (FSEIR) (EA 0K9700) [Approved]

♠ (Jun) (1) Approval of Projects for Future Consideration of Funding: Projects indicated with ° were not at the level of interest for the highway pages:

♠ (Jun) (9) Approval of Project for Future Consideration of Funding: 05-SLO-46, PM 49.7/54.7 Route 46 Corridor Improvement Project. Widen the Cholame Section of State Route 46 from a two-lane highway to a four-lane divided expressway. (SFEIR) (PPNO 0226J) (STIP)

♠ (Jun) (12) Approval of Project for Future Consideration of Funding 07-LA-710 PM 6.0/6.4 – Los Angeles County Shoemaker Bridge Replacement Project. Future Route 710: Replace bridge and other improvements. (FEIR) (PPNO 4071) (STIP)

♠ (Jun) (14) Approval of Project for Future Consideration of Funding 12-Ora-74, PM 1.0/2.1 Route 74 Lower Ortega Highway Widening Project. Widen Route 74 from two lanes to four lanes in Orange County. (FEIR) (PPNO 4110) (STIP)

2.3a. Route Adoptions

There were no items of interest for this agenda item in the reviewed minutes.

2.3b. New Public Road Connection

♠ (Jun) One New Public Road Connection (NPRC): 08- RIV-10- PM 45.8 NPRC to I-10 at Portola Avenue in the City of Palm Desert, in Riverside County.

2.3c. Relinquishments

♠ (May) One Relinquishment Resolution: 10-Sta-99-PM R21.4/R22.0 Right of Way along Route 99 on Pelandale Avenue and Sisk Road, in the county of Stanislaus. [Approved]

♠ (Jun) Five Relinquishment Resolutions:

  1. 01-Men-101-PM 46.36/47.53 Right of Way on superseded portion of Route 101 (Main Street) from State Route 20 to the north City limits, in the city of Willits.
  2. 04-CC-680-PM 13.6 Right of Way along State Route 680 at Circle Drive, in the county of Contra Costa.
  3. 06-Tul-99-PM 40.3/41.0 Right of Way along State Route 99 at the Betty Drive Interchange, in the community of Goshen, in the county of Tulare.
  4. 06-Ker-155-PM R1.46 Right of Way along State Route 155 on Browning Road, in the city of Delano.
  5. 08-SBd-58-PM R22.64/R30.53 Right of Way on superseded portion of State Route 58 (Barstow-Bakersfield Highway) and Realigned Route 58 collateral facilities from Wagner Road to Lenwood Road, in the county of San Bernardino.

2.3d. Vacations

There were no items of interest for this agenda item in the reviewed minutes.

2.5a Minor Projects

There were no items of interest for this agenda item in the reviewed minutes.

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

♠ (May) (1) SHOPP Allocations: Request of $338,990,000 for 30 SHOPP projects. The following allocations were of interest to the highway pages: [Approved, as revised]

♠ (May) (2) Request of $73,541,000 for 76 2018 SHOPP preconstruction project phases for environmental, design and R/W support. The following allocations were of interest to the highway pages: [Approved]

♠ (Jun) (1) Request $454,514,000 for 41 SHOPP projects. The following allocations were of interest to the highway pages:

♠ (Jun) (2) Request of $135,568,000 for 144 2018 SHOPP preconstruction project phases for environmental, design and R/W support. (2a) SHOPP Support Phases; (2b) SHOPP SB1 Projects. The following allocations were of interest to the highway pages:

♠ (Jun) (3) Request of $492,503,000 for 331 2020 SHOPP preconstruction project phases for environmental support. However, I was unable to determine what was easily applicable to the highway pages, as this was presented as a dense table with just EA, PPNO, ProjID, and the amount allocated to PA&ED in FY 20-21. I do not have handy a table mapping PPNO to Route, and so was unable to analyze this further. Caltrans should really hire me to design them a highway status tool that allows you to go by any attribute and pull out this data.

2.5c Financial Allocations for STIP Projects

♠ (May) (5) Request of $2,445,000 for two locally-administered STIP projects, on the State Highway System, programmed FY 2020-21. [Approved]

♠ (Jun) (8) Request for an allocation of $18,100,000 for the Right of Way Capital phase for the STIP project on Route 156 (05-Mon-156 R1.6/1.4 Castroville Boulevard Interchange) in Monterey County. (PPNO 0057D)

♠ (Jun) (9) Request for an allocation of $26,400,000 for the Right of Way Capital phase for the STIP project on Route 138 (07-LA-138 53.2/54.2 Widen Conventional Highway (Segment 4)) in Los Angeles County. (PPNO 4353)

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

There were no items of interest for this agenda item in the reviewed minutes.

2.5e Supplemental Fund Allocations

♠ (Jun) (1) Request for an allocation of $180,000 (10.0 percent increase) in pre-construction support cost (COS), for the SHOPP Bridge Replacement project on US 101 in Santa Barbara County (05-SB-101 70.7/71.2). (PPNO 2522)

2.5f Financial Allocations for SHOPP

♠ (May) Informational Reports on Allocations Under Delegated Authority [Information Only]

Of these, the following were of interest for the highway pages:

2.5g Prop 1B Project Allocations

♠ (Jun) (5a) Request of $1,940,000 for the locally-administered Proposition 1B TCIF Metro Air Parkway Northbound Auxiliary Lane project, on the State Highway System, on I-5 and Route 99, in Sacramento County, programmed in FY 20-21. (PPNO 8575)

♠ (Jun) (5b) Request of $8,638,000 for the locally-administered Proposition 1B TCIF State Route 60/Central Avenue Interchange project, on the State Highway System, in San Bernardino County. (PPNO 3017C)

2.5s Senate Bill 1 Programs Project Allocations Local Partnership Program (LPP) Allocations

♠ (May) (1) Request of $9,388,000 for the State-Administered LPP I-5 Improvement from Alicia to El Toro Road – Segment 3 project, on the State Highway System, in Orange County. (PPNO 2655B) [Approved]

♠ (May) (2) Request of $4,450,000 for the locally-administered LPP Route 18 West End Widening – Phase 1 Apple Valley Road Realignment project, on the State Highway System, in San Bernardino County. (PPNO 3010U): [Approved]

(May) (7) Request of $247,000,000 for the locally-administered  TCEP Interstate 5 Golden State Chokepoint Relief project, on the State Highway System, in Los Angeles County. (PPNO 3189B) [Approved]

♠ (May) (9) Request of $25,000,000 for the locally-administered multi-funded LPP/STIP Capital Southeast connector – Segment D3 project, off the State Highway System, in Sacramento County. (PPNO 1785). See Route 148. [Approved]

♠ (Jun) (2) Request of $6,670,000 for three locally-administered LPP (Formulaic/Competitive) projects, on the State Highway System.

Of these, the following were of interest for the highway pages:

♠ (Jun) (6) Request of $80,386,000 for four State-Administered TCEP projects, on the State Highway System.

Of these, the following were of interest for the highway pages:

♠ (Jun) (7) Request of $10,800,000 for the locally-administered multi-funded LPP(Competitive)/STIP Capital Southeast Connector – Segment B2 project, off the State Highway System, in Sacramento County. See Route 148 (PPNO 1784)

2.5t Traffic Congestion Relief Program (TCRP) Allocations

There were no items of interest for this agenda item in the reviewed minutes.

4. TCIF and Aeronautic Program Updates / Policy Matters

♠ (May) 4.6 Adoption of the 2020 State Highway Operation and Protection Program. Note that the SHOPP was incorporated into the Highway Pages as part of the May 2020 Part III update. The adoption resolution notes: [Approved as revised. Note the final version was used for the May 2020 Part III Update.]

The 2020 SHOPP is a four-year, approximately $17.4 billion program of projects including reservations necessary to preserve and protect the state highway system. The 2020 SHOPP is the first performance driven project portfolio built entirely by the asset management process. Projects in the 2020 SHOPP were developed under an asset management framework established through the [Transportaton Asset Management Program] TAMP and implemented with the State Highway System Management Plan. More than half of the program’s $17.4 billion will address condition improvements across the four primary asset classes: pavement, bridges, culverts, and transportation management systems (TMS).

♠ (Jun) 4.17 Proposition 1B – TCIF Program Amendment: Add the Route 60 Central Avenue Interchange Project in San Bernardino County for $8,638,000

♠ (Jun) 4.21 Local Partnership Formulaic Program Amendment . Add 8 new projects into the current Formulaic Program of Projects. Of these, the following were of interest for the highway pages:

♠ (Jun) 4.23 Approval of the 2020 Local Partnership Formulaic Program – Advance Program of Projects. Of these, the following were of interest for the highway pages:

Other Matters/Public Comment

There were no items of interest for this agenda item in the reviewed minutes.

July 2020:

It's finally here. The site rework. As you can see, the major changes are the introduction of new menu navigation and the elimination of the use of the tables for headers and footers, which should improve the look of the site on mobile devices. There is a new overall site navigation bar; there is also a floating menu on each page that provides the same access. The floating menu is handy because it remains visible even if you have scrolled down deep into a page. I have also done some preliminary work to make images autosize on smaller screens, although some menus will still require some horizonal scrolling. I'm still working on that.

The big change is that the site has been moved to have one route per page, with improved navigation within the page for each route (i.e., there is an internal page navigation menu). This should really make a big difference on the large route pages such as Route 1, US 101, and such. It will also make a difference for those unlucky group pages that had multiple large files, such as the groups that had Route 1 and I-5, or Route 99 and US 101. They all now have their individual pages. For those of you who linked into the route pages, don't fret. The old files are still there so your links will work, but have been changed to use Javascript that automatically redirects to the right page. You shouldn't need to change anything. If you refer to something out of the range of the file, you should end up on Route 404. Please let me know of any problems.

I hopefully fixed any problems that occurred when "Route" (or other equivalents such as US, BR, CR, etc.) was part of an ALT or TITLE attribute of an IMG, or when it was in an A tag (i.e., I prevented the normal mechanism that converts such references from working). I also (hopefully) prevented translation when US- or I- appears in the HREF or SRC attribute. Hopefully, this didn't break anything, but if you find problems, let me know.

While I was at it, I finally fixed the variant spelling of "milage" to "mileage". I insisted "milage" was correct all the way back in April 1998, but I decided to bow to convention.

While doing the update pass, I named the segments in all the routes, and did a bit of link updating. I still need to go through all the regional resource link pages and confirm that links are still good. If you maintain a regional highway hobbyist (i.e., state, province, or country) page, please make sure I have the link. I've also updated the statistics pages -- most notably including some 2018 traffic count information.

Major changes were made in how the list of named highways was generated. Previously, I had to hand maintain that table. The table is now generated from information in the individual highway pages. As a side effect of this, unique named anchors are generated for each name, and the link to the route in the name table goes directly to the name (something I've wanted to do for years). The only drawbacks of this is that (a) sometimes a route gets listed twice, because the same name appears in multiple segments; (b) I can no longer include business routes in the names list, so Business Route 80 is listed as Route 51 (sorry, Cap City Freeway); and (c) some variants of names might get collapsed. As before, let me know of any problems that I might not have caught.

As always, a big ✘ to Caltrans and their accessibility rework, which broke almost every link I had into their site. I was able to rediscover and relink most of the resources. If you identify other Caltrans links that require correction, let me know. As always, I'll be glad to host un-remediated Caltrans resources to make things available pending remediation.

As I note in the sources, special credit goes to Steve Sobol, who helped me figure out the CSS tricks that are at the heart of the 2020 reworking of the site. Steve is a road scholar of long standing, but more than that, a generally good person who has been there to help me with numerous computer issues. If you need computer help, or a web site, or other consulting, I highly recommend him.

Actually highway content changes are light, and primarily in response to email. As a reminder, I'm looking for photographs of highway or structure naming signs that are not currently present in the route pages; if you find one, please send it to webmaster@cahighways.org. In this go around, I added information and made updates based my research(1) and information from Frank Aros(2), Karen Davis(3), Tom Fearer(4), Occidental Tourist on AARoads(5) to the following routes: Route 13(2), Route 17(2), US 80(3), Route 91(2), US 99(3), Route 145(4), Route 149(4), Route 245(4), Route 269(4), I-605(5). I also added some information related to trail names and the "Southern Cause", based on information provided by Jill Livingston and the LA Times article regarding a Jefferson Davis Highway historical monument.

May 2020 Part III:

Added historical information and naming pictures to the following routes, my research(1) and information from Corco(2), Denis Wolcott/Gerald Desmond Bridge Replacement Project(3): I-710(3), I-880(2).

Joel Windmiller has been posting historical information about route adoptions to the California's Historic Highways group on Facebook. With his permission, I've started grabbing that information and incorporating on the corresponding pages for the current highways. This resulted in changes to the following routes: I-5, US 40, US 50, Route 65, Route 70, Route 89, Route 99, Route 113, Route 244, I-680, I-780.

Worked my way through the 2020 SHOPP adopted at the May 2020 CTC Meeting. The State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP) is the State Highway System’s “fix-it-first” program that funds the repair and preservation, emergency repairs, safety improvements, and some highway operational improvements on the State Highway System (SHS). By continuously repairing and rehabilitating the SHS, the SHOPP protects the enormous investment that has been made over many decades to create and manage the approximately 50,000 lane-mile SHS. Much of what is in the SHOPP is significant work, but not at the level of interest that impacts these pages. For example, SHOPP funding that simply rehabilitates existing roadways, improves drainage, fixes landscaping, repairs storm damage, adds ADA cutouts, and such does not make a long-term historical impact on a route, or make changes that sometime in future years might be curious about. Some other SHOPP changes, however, are of interest: new roundabouts, potentially rumble strips, realigning a roadway for safety, replacing a bridge -- all can impact the pages. All projects funded by the SHOPP are limited to capital improvements that do not add  capacity (no new highway lanes) to the SHS, though some new auxiliary lanes are eligible for SHOPP funding. The SHOPP portfolio of projects is updated every two years, carrying forward projects programmed in the last two years of the preceding SHOPP and making those last two years of projects the first two years of projects in the new SHOPP. There are also "long lead" SHOPP projects, which require more than four years to develop due to complex environmental and preliminary engineering work. The 2020 SHOPP contains 40 Long Lead projects, valued at $2.93 billion. These projects are authorized to start work on the Project Approval and Environmental Document (PA&ED) phase. Separate authorization addresses the construction phase. Projects are generally divided into nine broad categories: Major Damage Restoration, Collision Reduction, Mandates (such as reserves for relinquishment), Bridge Preservation, Roadway Preservation, Mobility, Roadside Preservation, Facilities, and Multiple Objective.

Contrast the SHOPP with the STIP, which was incorporated in the main May updates. The STIP is a multi-year capital improvement program of transportation projects on and off the State Highway System, funded with revenues from the Transportation Investment Fund and other funding sources. STIP programming generally occurs every two years. With respect to highways, the STIP has two types of projects. Capacity Increasing Highway Operational Improvements, which are improvements that expand the design capacity of the system, and thus are not eligible for SHOPP funding. If regional, they are nominated by the regional agency; if statewide, Caltrans nominates them.  Examples of such projects would be HOV lanes and interchanges, interchange design modifications and upgrades to accommodate traffic volumes that are significantly larger than the original design capability of the existing facility, or truck or slow vehicle lanes on freeways with six or more lanes. There are also non-capacity improvements that could be funded through the SHOPP, but which can be implemented faster through the STIP.

My review of the adopted SHOPP resulted in updates to the following routes: Route 1, Route 3, Route 4, I-5, Route 9, I-10, Route 12, Route 13, I-15, Route 17, Route 20, Route 22, Route 25, Route 26, Route 29, Route 33, Route 35, Route 36, Route 37, Route 39, I-40, Route 41, Route 43, Route 49, US 50, Route 51, Route 52, Route 59, Route 68, Route 70, Route 74, Route 79, I-80, Route 82, Route 84, Route 88, Route 96, Route 99, US 101, I-105, Route 110, Route 120, Route 121, Route 128, Route 133, Route 138, Route 140, Route 145, Route 154, Route 162, Route 165, Route 175, Route 180, Route 184, Route 190, I-215, Route 217, Route 223, Route 237, Route 245, Route 299, US 395, I-405, I-580, I-710. The Route 39 item is particularly amazing: a Long-Lead item "Near Falling Springs, from 1.8 miles north of Crystal Lake Road to Route 2. Rehabilitate and reopen a 4.4 mile segment of Route 39." Who woulda thunk, right? Even more amazing is the schedule: it is programmed in FY26-27, with construction scheduled to start May 2027.

May 2020 Part II:

Completed the update for format and memorial names. Next up: The SHOPP that was approved at the May 2020 CTC Meeting.

May 2020:

Ah, a new year and what a year it is start out to be. Let's start with the good: As I was starting on these updates at the end of February 2020, I was out in Madison WI visiting my daughter, walking hither and yon. The end of March 2020 also marks 20 years for the domain cahighways.org, and (if you read through to the bottom of the page), almost 25 years for the posting of highway information on Usenet, or from this sites former home on Pacificnet (which is now long gone). Twenty years. In internet time, that's like ... well, forever.

But 2020 will be memorable for much more than 20 years of California Highways. It will be memorable for another "C": Coronavirus. Much of my weekdays in March and April have been spent working from home, and my weekends on doing these highway page updates and recording LPs to MP3. That's because everything else has gone away: going out to theatre; roadtrips and eating out along the road. This is a temporary new normal. But at least I have these pages to keep me busy on the weekends.

Somethings don't change. Things that were on the horizon in 2019 are still on the horizon. In other words, I'm still trying to figure out how I want the site update to look (although I'm getting closer on the ideas). I do know that we'll be going to one page per highway, and that I'll have a translation page so that old links don't get broken (the Javascript is already written). On the editor front, I am transitioning to BlueGriffon, as it supports the HTML5 tags that I think might be useful for the site in the future (in particular, the <NAV> tag, which may be the basis of future overall site navigation). I think the compatibility problem with the other editor I use (Amaya) was the <!DOCTYPE> tag, where a missing or HTML4 tag caused Amaya to flag valid HTML as invalid thanks to SGML enforcement. We shall see. BlueGriffon's advantage over Amaya is that it is still maintained; however, I may have to pay to enable some features (should not be a big deal).

I'm also starting to enter the modern era, as of a decade ago, by starting a stylesheet. Progress is also continuing on the project to add memorial images and information to naming information. A side benefit of this will be a bit more standardization of the structure of the individual highway pages. In the future, as part of the move to single pages for each highway, I will use the standardized structure to generate a hyperlinked table of contents to make it easier get to portions of a route. For this conversion process (memorial images, stylesheet standardization), as of when I post this, I'm currently on Route 280.

The Caltrans website rework is still creating problems. Many typical resources and pages are still not available and are still pending remediation. My offer still stands to Caltrans: I will be glad to host any unremediated information -- or will find someone to do so if the information doesn't fit in this site -- pending remediation and rehosting on the Caltrans website. I am already hosting the Bridge Logs on my my Caltrans Resources page.

Moving on to the updates, starting with headlines, emailed items, and AAroads forum updates: 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 Tom Fearer(2), Michael McThrow(3), Scott Parker(4), Don Williams(5), and Joel Windmiller(6): Route 1(1,2), Route 2(2,4), Route 4(2,4), I-5(1,2), LRN 8(1), I-8(1), I-10(1,2), Route 11(1), Route 12(2,4), Route 14(1), Route 17(2,4), Route 20(1), Route 25(1,2), Route 29(1), Route 30(2), Route 36(1), Route 37(1,2), US 40(2), Route 42(1), Route 46(1), Route 48(1,2), US 50(1), Route 52(2), Route 58(1), Route 60(1), Route 63(1), Route 64(2), Route 65(2,3), Route 71(5), I-80(1,2), Route 84(1,4), Route 86(2), Route 89(1,2), Route 91(1), Route 92(1), Route 93(2), Route 96(2), Route 99(1,2,4,6), Route 100(2,4), US 101(1,2,4), Route 111(1,2), Route 116(2,4), Route 118(2,4), Route 122(2), Route 125(1), Route 126(5), Route 132(1), Route 146(2), Route 154(1), Route 156(1), Route 157(2), Route 162(1), Route 171(2), Route 180(1,2), Route 181(2), Route 183(1), Route 192(1), Route 196(2), US 199(2), Route 210(1,2,4), Route 211(2), Route 220(1), Route 239(4), Route 241(1), Route 249(2), Route 251(2), Route 252(2), Route 256(3), Route 281(2), US 395(1), I-405(1), US 466(2), I-580(1), I-880(1), I-905(1), County Sign Route J22(2), County Sign Route J29(2), County Sign Route J35(2), County Sign Route J132(2).

Added a pointer to Michael Ballard's Summits page to the Statistics Page 1.

Noted that the highway exit numbering PDFs from Cal-Nexus are working again... but all have been renamed.

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. As many people are unfamilair with how the legislature operates (and why there are so many "non-substantive changes" and "gut and amend" bills), I've added the legislative calendar to the end of the Pending Legislation page. As this is early in the legislative session, no bills or resolutions have been passed yet, although there are a number of interest.

I checked the CTC Liaison page (post AB 434 link) for the results of the California Transportation Commission meetings from January 2020 through April 2020. However, that page is also caught up in the AB 434 rework, meaning that none of the agendas and all of the background was unavailable. However, the California Transportation Commission does a better job of having its act together, and the agendas and minutes and backgrounds are available there. As always, note that I tend not to track items that do not impact these pages -- i.e., pavement rehabilitation or replacement, landscaping, drainage, culverts, roadside facilities, charging stations, or other things that do not impact the routing or history, unless they are really significant. As such, the following items were of interest (note: ° indicates items that were below the level of detail for updating the specific route pages; ♠ is an indicator used to keep track of what has been added to the pages):

2.1a. STIP Program/Project Amendments

♠ (Jan) SHOPP Amendments for Approval: Request to: (Related Items under 2.5b.(1), 2.5b.(2)and 4.6)2.1a.(1))

Of these, the following projects/allocation were at the level of interest for the highway pages (general, these are significant new structures or changes, as opposed to repair or rehabilitation in place or non-visible changes):

♠ (Mar) (1) SHOPP Amendments for Approval: Request to: (Related Items under Ref. 2.5b.(1) and 2.5b.(2))

Of these, the following projects/allocation were at the level of interest for the highway pages (general, these are significant new structures or changes, as opposed to repair or rehabilitation in place or non-visible changes): Note that some of the amendments and adjustments were not captured, because Caltrans made it impossible to cut and paste from the PDF agenda item. That's not accessibility, Caltrans.

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

There were no items of interest for this agenda item in the reviewed minutes.

2.1c. TCIF Baseline Amendments

There were no items of interest for this agenda item in the reviewed minutes.

2.1s. TCEP Baseline Amendments

There were no items of interest for this agenda item in the reviewed minutes.

2.2a. Submittal of Notice of Preparation for Comments

There were no items of interest for this agenda item in the reviewed minutes.

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

There were no items of interest for this agenda item in the reviewed minutes.

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

♠ (Jan) (1) Approval of Projects for Future Consideration of Funding: Of the 8 projects in this agenda item, the following projects/allocation were at the level of interest for the highway pages (in general, these are significant new structures or changes, as opposed to repair or rehabilitation in place, non-visible changes, or off-road features such as truck scales):

♠ (Jan) (5) Approval of Project for Future Consideration of Funding: 06-Fre-99, PM 28.88/30.11Veterans Boulevard/Route 99 Interchange Project/Veterans Boulevard Grade Separation Project. Construct a new interchange and separate the grade at Veterans Boulevard and State Route 99 in Fresno County. (FEIR) (PPNO 6995) (LPP) (Related Item under Ref. 2.5s.(3))

♠ (Mar) (1) Approval of Projects for Future Consideration of Funding: Of the 6 projects in this agenda item, the following projects/allocation were at the level of interest for the highway pages (in general, these are significant new structures or changes, as opposed to repair or rehabilitation in place, non-visible changes, or off-road features such as truck scales):

♠ (Mar) (4) Approval of Project for Future Consideration of Funding: 01-DN-101, PM 35.8/36.5 Dr. Ernest M. Fine Bridge Replacement Project. Replace bridge on US 101 in Del Norte County. (FEIR) (PPNO 0100V) (SHOPP) (Related Item under Ref. 2.5b.(2))

♠ (Mar) (5) Approval of Project for Future Consideration of Funding: 04-SCl-9, PM 4.75/4.9 Saratoga Creek Bridge Project. Construct a new bridge within the existing bridge or replace it to address seismic and structural concerns in Santa Clara County. (FEIR) (PPNO 0386F) (SHOPP) (Related Item under Ref. 2.5b.(2))

2.3a. Route Adoptions

♠ (Mar) One Notice of Intent to Consider Rescission: 05-Mon-101 PM R91.9/101.3, 05-SBt-101 PM 0.0/2.9 Notice of Intent to consider Rescinding Freeway Adoption on US 101 in the Counties of Monterey and San Benito.

2.3b. New Public Road Connection

There were no items of interest for this agenda item in the reviewed minutes.

2.3c. Relinquishments

♠ (Jan) One Relinquishment Resolution:

♠ (Mar) Three Relinquishment Resolution:

2.3d. Vacations

There were no items of interest for this agenda item in the reviewed minutes.

2.5a Minor Projects

♠ (Jan) Request of $416,000 for a SHOPP Minor project to widen shoulders and provide pedestrian access on Route 178, in Kern County.

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

♠ (Jan) Request $220,294,000 for 25 SHOPP projects. (Related Item under Ref 2.1a.(1)and 4.6).

The following SHOPP Construction Phase project allocations were at the level of interest for the highway pages:

♠ (Jan) (2) Request of $67,283,000 for 68 2018 SHOPP preconstruction project phases for environmental, design and R/W support. (Related Item under Ref 2.2c.(1), 2.1a.(1) and 4.12)

The following SHOPP Pre-Construction Phase project allocations were at the level of interest for the highway pages:

(2a) Support Allocations for SHOPP Projects

(2b) Support Allocations for SHOPP SB 1 Projects of Primary Asset Classes

♠ (Mar) (1) Request of $363,673,000 for 30 SHOPP projects. (Related Items under Ref. 2.1a.(1), 2.5c.(1) and 2.5c.(5))

The following SHOPP Construction Phase project allocations were at the level of interest for the highway pages:

♠ (Mar) (2) Request of $82,773,000 for 77 2018 SHOPP preconstruction project phases for environmental, design and R/W support. (Related Items under Ref. 2.1a.(1) and 2.2c.(1))

The following SHOPP Pre-Construction Phase project allocations were at the level of interest for the highway pages:

(2a) Support Allocations for SHOPP Projects

(2b) Support Allocations for SHOPP SB 1 Projects of Primary Asset Classes

♠ (Mar) (4) Request of $17,431,000 for the US 101 northbound off -ramp to 2nd Street at San Rafael Harbor Bridge Replacement SHOPP project in Marin County. (PPNO 0350H) (Related Item under Ref. 2.1a.(1) and 2.5b.(2))

2.5c Financial Allocations for STIP Projects

♠ (Jan) (6) Request of $4,000,000 for the locally-administered STIP AB 3090 Reimbursement project, on the State Highway System, on US 101 (US 101/Willow Road Interchange Reconstruction project), in San Mateo County.(PPNO 0690B)

♠ (Jan) (9) Request of $10,348,000 for the State-Administered Multi-Funded LATIP/STIP Peaceful Oaks Road/State Route 108 Interchange Ramps project, on the State Highway System in Tuolumne County. (PPNO 3048)

♠ (Mar) (5) Request of $9,240,000 for the State-Administered STIP Route 70 Passing Lanes (Segment 2) project (03-But-70 5.6/9.1), on the State Highway System, in Butte County, programmed FY 2020-21. (PPNO 9801A) (Related Item under Ref. 2.5b.(1))

♠ (Mar) (7) LATIP/STIP – Allocation Amendment Request to amend Resolution FP-19-51, approved in January 2020, for the State-Administered Multi-funded LATIP/STIP Peaceful Oaks Road/State Route 108 Interchange project (PPNO 3048) in Tuolumne County to revise the amount of allocated STIP funds.

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

There were no items of interest for this agenda item in the reviewed minutes.

2.5e Supplemental Fund Allocations

♠ (Jan) (1) Request for an additional $928,000 (45 percent increase) in Capital Outlay Support Costs, for the SHOPP Bridge Rehabilitation project on Route 20 in Mendocino County. (PPNO 4587)

♠ (Mar) (2) Request for an additional $990,000 (45 percent increase) in Capital Outlay Support Costs for the SHOPP Bridge Rehabilitation and Replacement project on US 101 in Santa Barbara County. (PPNO 2448)

♠ (Mar) (5) Request for an additional $3,552,000 (42 percent increase) in Construction Capital and $315,000 (9 percent increase) in Construction Support for the SHOPP Bridge Rehabilitation project on State Route 99 in San Joaquin County. (PPNO 0321)

2.5f Financial Allocations for SHOPP

♠ (Jan) Informational Reports on Allocations Under Delegated Authority:

The following allocations were at the level of interest for the highway pages:

2.5g Prop 1B Project Allocations

There were no items of interest for this agenda item in the reviewed minutes.

2.5s Senate Bill 1 Programs Project Allocations Local Partnership Program (LPP) Allocations

♠ (Mar) (2) Request of $7,500,000 for two locally-administered LPP projects, on the State Highway System. Resolution (Related Item under Ref. 2.2c.(1))

The following allocations were at the level of interest for the highway pages:

♠ (Mar) (6) Request of $23,636,000 for the State-Administered multi-funded TCEP/TCIF Route 125/Route 905 Connector project, on the State Highway System, in San Diego County. (PPNO 1036)

♠ (Mar) (7) Request of $51,030,000 for the State-Administered multi-funded TCEP/STIP South Coast US 101 High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes – Carpinteria (Segment 4A) project, on the State Highway System, in Santa Barbara County. (PPNO 7101C)

2.5t Traffic Congestion Relief Program (TCRP) Allocations

There were no items of interest for this agenda item in the reviewed minutes.

4. TCIF and Aeronautic Program Updates / Policy Matters

There were no items of interest for this agenda item in the reviewed minutes.

♠ (Mar) (4.6) Presentation of the 2020 State Transportation Improvement Program Staff Recommendations. Review of the recommendations and the adopted 2020 STIP resulted in updates to the following routes: Route 1, Route 3, Route 4, I-5, I-8, I-10, Route 12, Route 14, I-15, Route 29, Route 37, Route 41, Route 46, Route 49, Route 51, Route 55, Route 57, Route 58, Route 59, Route 60, Route 65, Route 68, Route 70, Route 71, Route 74, I-80, Route 84, Route 85, Route 88, Route 89, Route 91, Route 92, Route 94, Route 99, US 101, Route 108, Route 120, Route 121, Route 132, Route 138, Route 156, I-205, Route 210, Route 217, Route 221, I-280, Route 299, US 395, I-405, and I-805

♠ (Mar) (4.7) Adoption of the 2020 State Transportation Improvement Program Guidelines

♠ (Mar) (4.24) Proposition 1B State Route 99 Bond Program Amendment:

Other Matters/Public Comment

FREQUENTLY USED TERMS IN CTC MINUTES: California Transportation Commission (Commission or CTC), California Department of Transportation (Department or Caltrans), Regional Improvement Program (RIP), Interregional Improvement Program (IIP), State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP), Traffic Congestion Relief Program (TCRP), Public Transportation Account (PTA), Clean Air and Transportation Improvement Act of 1990 (Proposition 116), High Speed Passenger Train Bond Program (Proposition 1A), Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006 (Proposition 1B), Corridor Mobility Improvement Account (CMIA), State Route 99 Bond Program (RTE or SR 99), Local Bridge Seismic Retrofit Account (LBSRA), Trade Corridors Improvement Fund (TCIF), Highway-Railroad Crossing Safety Account (HRCSA), State-Local Partnership Program (SLPP), Traffic Light Synchronization Program (TLSP), Letter of No Prejudice (LONP), Environmental Phase (PA&ED), Design Phase (PS&E), Right of Way (R/W), Fiscal Year (FY), Active Transportation Program (ATP), Intercity Rail (ICR), California Aid to Airports Program (CAAP), Acquisition & Development (A&D), Transit and Inter-City Rail Capital Program (TIRCP), Transportation Facilities Account (TFA), Trade Corridor Enhancement Program (TCEP), Local Partnership Program (LPP), Local Streets and Roads Program (LSRP), Solutions for Congested Corridors Program (SCCP).

<-2021 Changes-> 2019 Changes

© 1996-2020 Daniel P. Faigin.
Maintained by: Daniel P. Faigin <webmaster@cahighways.org>.