🛣️ Headlines About California Highways – October 2018

October has been a busy month. Adding maps to the county routes was completed, and I’ve started work on doing a normal round of updates. Elections are soon here, and if you want to see progress on California’s roads continue, vote “NO” on Proposition 6. You can find my summary ballot post here — it points to all the more detailed posts. About Proposition 6, I say:

Repeals a 2017 transportation law’s taxes and fees designated for road repairs and public transportation. Fiscal Impact: Reduced ongoing revenues of $5.1 billion from state fuel and vehicle taxes that mainly would have paid for highway and road maintenance and repairs, as well as transit programs.

You have to ask on this one? I’m the California Highway Guy.

Let me give some history on how California has traditionally funded its roads. I’m quoting from my Chronology here: In 1947, in response to the recommendations of the Joint Interim Commission on Highways, Roads, Streets, and Bridges, the Legislature passed the Collier-Burns Act (Chapter 11). This act, among other things, (a) Raised the gasoline and diesel fuel tax to 4.5 cents per gallon; (b) Increased automobile registration fees from $3 to $6, with a proportionate increase in the weight taxes on trucks; (c) Created a fund for all highway revenues and motor vehicle taxes. (d) Revised apportionment of revenues from fuel taxes to cities, counties, and the state. (e) Directed gasoline tax and registration fee revenues toward construction of freeways in urban areas and highways in rural areas of the state. (f) Divided state highway construction funds with 55% allocated to the southern half of the state, and 45% to the northern half of the state. This was a significant shift from the previous 49%/51% allocation. This also provided minimum funding for each county. Since 1947, the fuel tax increased very little, certainly not equivalent to the increase in costs. During that time, fuel economy went down, more cars went electric, and construction costs skyrocketed. There were insufficient funds for maintenance. So about a year ago, the legislature passed SB1. This increased the exise tax and diesel fees, increased other fees such as weight fees and fees for vehicles that don’t use fuel.  There are specific purposes for which these funds can be spend — basically, things under the purview of the California Transportation Commission. This includes not only roads, but transit, air facilities, rail, and such. It can also be spent on local (city and county) highways. The law has strict rules on accounting for costs. There is complete transparency on how the funds are being spent; just visit http://rebuildingca.ca.gov/.

There are some people who are upset that the fuel tax went up, notably Republicans who hate any form of tax. Never mind that this is a tax that is going to services paid for by the users of those services. Never mind that having safe roads and modern transit systems make the state better for business and to live in.

The “Yes” side is intentionally trying to mislead. They bring up problems with mismanagement at the DMV. Never mind the fact that this tax has nothing to do with the DMV. They bring up problems with mismangement of high speed rail. Never mind the fact that SB1 has nothing to do with high speed rail. They want you to translate your hatred of DMV or transportation bureaucracy into voting down an excise tax the greatly benefits, and already has benefited, the state.

The “No” side has almost unified support from the cities and the media. If you read my headline article, you’ll find the editorials. SacBee: “Hating Caltrans isn’t a reason to repeal the gas tax“. LA Times: “It’s hard to overstate how destructive Proposition 6 would be for California. Vote no.”. SF Chronicle: “No on Proposition 6 — cynical political ploy would destroy California’s roads“. Redding (a part of the state that doesn’t love taxes): “Gas tax increase repeal supporters not telling entire story to voters“.  Mercury News: “No on Prop. 6 to keep state roads, transit funds“. SD Union Tribune: “Proposition 6: Vote no because gas tax-funded improvements are much-needed“. Petaluma: “Vote no on Prop. 6 gas tax repeal.” The San Bernardino Sun even has a look at how roads would change if it was repealed.

Look at the “No on 6” website for more details. This one isn’t just a no, it is a “hell no!”

In between all of this, however, I have been collecting headlines. Here’s what’s been posted about California Highways in October:

  • Caltrans Will Begin More Than 120 New “Fix-it-First” Projects This Fiscal Year. Caltrans will begin more than 120 new “Fix-it-First” projects this fiscal year (July 2018 – June 2019), replacing, repairing and improving more than 6,700 lane miles of pavement, 250 culverts and 320 bridges across the state, due to funds from Senate Bill 1 (SB 1), the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017. These projects got the green light after the department received almost half a billion dollars of SB 1 funding for new state highway maintenance projects this fiscal year. New SB 1 funded maintenance projects coming to your area include: …
  • Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao formalizes Interstate 5 grant. U.S. Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao came to the Santa Clarita Valley on Monday to formalize the presentation of a $47 million grant to Metro to build truck lanes and extend high-occupancy vehicle, or carpool, lanes running through the SCV. Chao was joined by Rep. Steve Knight, R-Palmdale, Los Angeles County 5th District Supervisor Kathryn Barger and Santa Clarita Mayor Laurene Weste to talk about the I-5 Golden State Chokepoint Relief Program the grant is planned for.
  • ENR California Best Projects 2018 Highway/Bridge: State Route 76 East Segment. The 5.2-mile improvement project on State Route 76 included widening a two-lane road to a divided four-lane highway and updating bridges over the San Luis Rey River. The project team worked around Native American protected sites in a sensitive river floodplain. “The team was six months early in the delivery despite working in a pretty highly environmental area,” a judge said. The project restored 1,600 acres of habitat, and the team scheduled vegetation clearing and pile-driving around habitat breeding seasons. The project also built a bridge over culverts supplying water to the San Diego area. To protect the culverts, girders for the new bridge were transferred in mid-air using two cranes, each positioned at different bridge abutments.
  • District 10 – State Route 99/Fulkerth Road Interchange Project. The project will widen Fulkerth Road to accommodate six to seven lanes, with five-foot wide shoulders and six-foot wide sidewalks; Widen the northbound (NB) off-ramp to provide two lanes where it connects to Fulkerth; Reconstruct the NB on-ramp to provide two mixed-flow lanes and one future high occupancy vehicle (HOV) preferential lane with provisions for future ramp metering; Realign the southbound (SB) off-ramp to improve intersection spacing and provide three lanes where it connects to Fulkerth; Realign the SB on-ramp to improve intersection spacing, and provide two mixed- flow lanes and one future HOV preferential lane with provisions for future ramp metering; Align Dianne Drive with existing Auto Mall Drive, eliminating the offset local street intersection on Fulkerth Road; Signalize the Dianne Drive/Fulkerth Road, State Route 99 (SR-99) SB ramps/Fulkerth Road and SR-99 NB ramps/Fulkerth Road intersections. This project includes $5.5 million from the Local Partnership Program, part of Senate Bill 1.
  • A Historical Context and Methodology for Evaluating Trails, Roads, and Highways in California. This study was prepared in response to the need for a cohesive and comprehensive examination of trails, roads, and highways in California, together with a methodological approach for evaluating these types of properties for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The study documents the development of trails, roads, and highways in California from prehistoric times to the creation of today’s modern highway system. This holistic approach was predicated upon the strong relationship between California’s modern highway system and trails and roads that span hundreds, if not thousands, of years. While railroads and bridges played a significant role in the state’s transportation history, neither property type is discussed in any detail in this study, since a plethora of published and unpublished books and articles have already been written about railroads, and a historic context study and evaluation process has been adopted for bridges. While this study does address archaeological resources, the focus is largely on built environment properties, particularly roads and highways. In addition to Appendix A and B of the report, 10 additional appendices have been digitally scanned for reference, along with the digital version of this study.

Read More …

Share

🛣️ Changes to the California Highway Web Page: July-October 2018

Phase 2 of the site refresh is done — the second half of the “Mapping Project Phase”. In this phase, maps illustrating each route were added to the County Sign Route pages. This uncovered loads of errors in the database, and loads of errors in Google Maps. It also shows much more visually the rhyme and reason behind the county sign routes. It is a shame that the counties have not done a better job signing these routes or calling attention to them — many of them look quite useful and interesting to drive. It is also interesting that many counties do not choose to participate in the program, or do so only sparingly.

Next up: A normal update, processing headlines, legislative actions, and CTC minutes.

Share

🛣️ Headlines about California Highways – September 2018

Ah, September. The last month of the US Government fiscal year. Silly season 3. But also the time when we are gearing up for the November elections — and for us roadgeeks, the battle over Proposition 6 — the initiative to repeal the gas tax increase, which (if passed) will do horrible things for the highways in this state. As for me, it has been a month of adding maps to the county sign route pages; as the month finished, I’ve added routes through all the letters up to “S”, and am working on the “S”s. So while I work on that, have some headlines:

  • Big Sur’s new stretch of highway already cracking. The newly rebuilt section of Big Sur’s scenic Highway 1 near the town of Gorda is beginning to crack, an early sign of wear for the road that opened just a month ago. But it’s nothing to be alarmed about, state officials say. Several cracks in the pavement, sometimes a foot or longer, were reported this week across the one-third mile stretch of coastal road, which was closed to traffic in May 2017 after being washed out by the enormous Mud Creek Slide.
  • Mineral King Road/Mountain Road 375; the unbuilt California State Route 276. Back in July of 2016 I took Mineral King Road east from California State Route 198 to Mineral King Valley in Sequoia National Park. Mineral King Road is a 24.8 mile roadway which travels from the confluence of the Middle Fork and East Fork Kaweah River in modern day Three Rivers to Mineral King Valley. Mineral King Road has an approximate starting elevation at about 1,000 feet above sea level in Three Rivers and ends at approximately 7,400 feet above sea level in Mineral King Valley in the High Sierras.
  • Yesterland: Walt Disney’s Mineral King. It was a Friday. It was about a week before Christmas. And it was official: The U.S. Forest Service awarded the right to develop the Mineral King area of Sequoia National Forest to Walt Disney Productions. The year was 1965. A wire service article quoted Walt Disney: “When I first saw Mineral King five years ago, I thought it was one of the most beautiful spots I had ever seen and we want to keep it that way.” To Walt Disney, that meant a self-contained “Alpine Village” designed to preserve the natural beauty of valley. Other people wanted “to keep it that way” too. But to them it meant no development at all.
  • The western end of US Route 6 and Laws Depot on the Carson & Colorado Railway. Back in June of 2016 I visited the western terminus of US Route 6 at US Route 395 located in Bishop, California of Inyo County on my way to Laws Depot. US 6 is one of the longest US Routes at 3,205 miles between Bishop, CA east to Provincetown, MA. Historically US 6 was the longest US Route ever when it ended in Long Beach at 3,652 miles. US 6 is known as the Grand Army of the Republic Highway and is mostly known for traveling through some of the most rural corners of the Continental United States.

Read More …

Share

🛣️ August Headlines About California Highways

Another month has passed, and so it is time for another accumulation of highway headlines. Hopefully, your summer has been filled with interesting travels along the roads of this state. Speaking of states, I’ll note that I’m currently in the process of the second phase of the site remodel: I’m starting to add maps to the county sign route pages. So far, I’ve done routes in the A, B, C, D, and E groups. I’ll announce when that effort is completed.

Here are your headlines for August:

  • Route Highway 37 through American Canyon? Napans shudder. One idea to save Highway 37 along San Pablo Bay from predicted sea level rise is moving a section north to drier land along a new route through American Canyon and rural southwest Napa County. The Napa County option would mean combining the 40,000 autos using Highway 37 daily with the 45,000 autos using Highway 29 daily through the city of American Canyon. American Canyon is already a notorious traffic chokepoint in Napa County.
  • Caltrans I-5 rehab on track for 2019.  When Santa Clarita Mayor Pro Tem Marsha McLean tried to use the freeway earlier this month, her experience, like many in the Santa Clarita Valley, was a bit tumultuous. As McLean tried getting on the freeway at Lyons Avenue traveling northbound, blocked lanes made it difficult for her to dodge the trucks going by “pretty fast.” That’s because the California Department of Transportation’s Interstate 5 Roadway Rehabilitation Project is well underway. The 15.8-mile stretch of I-5 under construction cuts through the Santa Clarita Valley, and has served daily traffic for 50 years.
  • 405 Freeway widening project moving forward with closure of McFadden Avenue bridge on Aug. 7.  It’s time to start paying attention to the 405 Freeway widening project – and to figure out alternate routes. Beginning next week, bridges crossing over the freeway will lose lanes or – in some cases – be shut down altogether. Construction work, however, will be staggered along the 16-mile stretch to help alleviate traffic jams sure to plague each area as it takes its turn.
  • Trans-Sierra Highway Passes; Interstate 80 Donner Summit. Back in 2016 I attempted as many Trans-Sierra Highway Passes as I could upon my return to California.  I started with Interstate 80 over Donner Summit during the late winter on the way to Lake Tahoe and Virginia City.

Read More …

Share

🗯️ Urban Privilege

Over the last few weeks, I’ve been working on adding maps to my highway pages (I just finished). As I do this, I’ve been essentially seeing both urban and rural corridors in the state, and my mind has been thinking about the entire state. I mention this because of an interesting phrase that popped into my head recently while on the van to work: “urban privilege”. The notion arose when I was thinking about all the building of freeways, and all the proposals for freeways in all these rural areas that had no need for them. It popped into my head as I thought about all the moves away from individual cars and car ownership, into shared ride systems, commuter trains, and pushing people to bicycles and other forms of personal transportation that are perfect for dense, urban areas. It popped into my head when I thought about the state routes and the road system, and how much of a lifeline that is to rural areas of the state. It popped into my head as I thought about the push for electric vehicles, which have a limited distance they can go on a charge: great for dense urban commuting, not so great for longer rural distances.

In the urban areas, there’s a lot of talk and a lot of thought about “white privilege“: the implicit, inherent benefits one gains by being white in American society. Examples abound, from the shampoo that is given out in hotels that is perfect for Caucasian hair, but less so for ethnic hair, to the fact that there’s no question when a white jumps ahead in line, but not for someone whose black. We’re well aware by now about the “white privilege” in the interaction with law enforcement. For this post, I’m concentrating less on the “white”, and more on this notion of implicit privilege based on a characteristic.

So here’s the premise: Is there such a thing as “urban privilege”? How much of this notion of “urban privilege”, and the unconscious resentment it engenders, be a contributing factor in the rise of Donald Trump?

Think about it: Under the Obama administration (translation: Under an administration perceived as liberal and progressive), there were loads of actions that encouraged things that worked well for those in urban environments. Pushes towards increase ride density and housing density. Pushes towards services in cities. Pushes towards the Internet. Even the Affordable Care Act worked better for people in cities with larger sets of providers and insurers. And because those who have the privilege don’t see it, we were blind to how this played in the rural areas — who were feeling forgotten, neglected, and that no one was listening to their concerns.

And, just like the “Black Lives Matter” movement was an expression of: WE ARE NOT BEING LISTENED TO. Just like Occupy was an expression of WE ARE NOT BEING LISTENED TO. … the rise of Trump was the rise of an electorate and a constituency that was no longer being heard to say: WE ARE NOT BEING LISTENED TO. Donald Trump, for all of his faults, was listening to them and they responded. They, in turn, and responded to being loyal to a fault. [And, by the way, one might argue the same is true for Bernie-crats, who were being ignored by the Clinton wing of the party, and the party was giving an implicit bias towards the Clinton wing]

I’m not writing this to try to apologize for Trump, or excuse his behavior. Rather, this is what we might call “a learning opportunity”. With our eye on the prize — getting Donald Trump and his offensive ideas and behavior out of office — we must learn from this. Here’s what I see we must learn:

  • We must take off our urban privilege blinders. We must think about how our progressive ideas play throughout the country.
  • We must listen. We can’t think that just because we might be urban and better educated, that we are some how smarter or better than the rest of the country. We must hear the concerns of all, and design solutions that work for all.
  • We must realize segments that feel wronged or ignored can choose to work for us, or they can choose to work against us. We’ve seen what happens when they work against us; we must figure out how to turn that energy in a different direction.

The “12 Steps” teach that the first step is recognizing the problem. Then you work on changing your behavior, and making amends for what you’ve done wrong in the past. That is what we as liberals and progressives must do. We can’t, with blinders on, think that we weren’t (at least partially) a contributor to this mess. We have to recognize that to start down the path of fixing it.

So (to bring this back to highways): How do we address this issue? How do we ensure that tax dollars and other funds raised for transportation purposes benefit not only the urban commuter, but the rural transportation user? Is it more effective trucking of goods to lower costs? Better design and maintenance of rural roads to prevent closure during adverse weather conditions? Is it figuring out how to make the notion of ride sharing work in a less-dense environment, or an environment with more on-demand vs. regular usage.

I don’t have the answer. But the question is worth asking.

Share

🛣️ Changes to the California Highways Web Pages – July 2018

July was not a normal update: It was phase 1 of the site refresh, also known as the “Mapping Project Phase.” In this phase, maps illustrating each route were added to the pages. Future phases in this project will include:

  • Adding maps to the county highways, and conversion of the county pages away from the “table” format.
  • Potentially adding some more historical maps for the pre-1964 routes, although Tom Fearer​/​Max Rockatansky/Challenger 66 may be doing this on some of his blogs, and I may just point there.
  • Reworking of the site to have one highway per page, instead of the present eight per page.
  • Adapting the site for responsive design.

Folks, the short description above may not give what was done sufficient weight. Basically, for every numbered state route, a map was added showing where the route currently runs, or where the route did run when it existed. For some of the routes, there are additional maps and insets providing more history and annotation. The Caltrans postmile tool was of great help here, as was the archive of state highway maps in the David Rumsey collection (linked here). Comments and corrections are welcome, but note the emphasis is not on showing all the historical routings. The primary goal was to give the site user a sense of where the route is or was in relation to the overall state, so that it is more than just a number.

You can see the route pages, with the updated maps, by starting here.

Share

🛣️ Headlines and Related Material About California Highways – July 2018

Another month has come to an end. I’ve been preoccupied this month with the “Mapping Project”; more on that in a subsequent post. But until then, here are some headlines and related material about California Highways that I’ve collected over the month:

  • Custom Highway Shields – OpenStreetMap WikiA good source for blank shields for those drawing maps. In particular, it provides a good US blank shield for California sign usage, vs. what comes up from Shields Up.
  • June 23, 1907: Auto Club Begins Posting Road Signs Along Future Route 66 June 23, 1907. The Auto Club of Southern California has begun posting white enamel signs with blue lettering along Foothill Boulevard between Los Angeles and Riverside.Spending about half a day, auto club President George Allen Hancock and Charles Fuller Gates, who is in charge of the county’s signage, staked the route through Highland Park, South Pasadena and Pasadena, Lamanda Park, Baldwin’s ranch, Monrovia, Azusa, Glendora, Claremont, Uplands, Cucamonga, Etiwanda, Stalder (34.0119/117.3125 to folks with GPS) to West Riverside.
  • Highway 395 widening project to begin later this year Significant progress is being made in addressing one of the High Desert’s biggest transportation priorities — the widening of US Highway 395 from Victorville to Adelanto. Later this year, work will begin on nearly $60 million in improvements to the busy stretch of highway — a major freight traffic route and passenger corridor that connects economic centers, recreation areas, cities and rural communities.
  • Caltrans Last Chance Grade Expert Based Risk Assessment (PDF). This report presents the methodology and findings of the expert-based risk assessment BGC Engineering conducted for the Last Chance Grade portion of US 101 in Del Norte County. The drawings attached to the report were developed as part of this process and were instrumental in the expert panel review. The other content reviewed by the panel has been published previously and is not duplicated here.
  • Truckee bridge construction taking off in Tahoe City Since the beginning of May, road blocks and orange cones have lined the edges of California Route 89 leading into Tahoe City, marking the beginning of a major construction project that is expected to run through Oct. 15. The project, originally conceptualized in the 1994 Tahoe City Community Plan, is a new Truckee River bridge — a rebuild of Fanny Bridge.

Read More …

Share

🛣 Updates to California Highways – June 2018

OK, OK. I said I wouldn’t let too much time elapse between updates. Life got away from me. Deal.

[Let me note that below the cut is information on all the things your gas tax is paying for: the STIP, the SHOPP, and all the SB1 programs. I urge you to go through those documents, and support the good work, jobs, and safer highways it is creating.]

I’m starting to get the urge to do some remodeling around here. I’ve already gotten the site moved to HTTPS: all the time, both on the blog side and on the highways side. Next up will be moving to a responsive design, together with some basic graphic changes of the headers and menus. I have no plans to change the content or my method of content generation. Rather, the use of icons as a menu with no text is very out of date; I’d rather go to a more accessible and understandable approach with some drop-down menus, and perhaps a nice graphic header. I did explore using a different CMS for the highway side and integrating my generation approach, but I’ve come to realize that is quite likely overkill. The problems I’ve got are (a) finding a good WSYWYG HTML editor that I like (both of the ones I use, HoTMetaL Pro and Amaya are abandonware). Second is learning how responsive design works and having the time to do it (this site was started in the earliest days of the web). So comment if you have suggestions (or wish to volunteer to help with the top level design), and be prepared for a new look at some point in the future. You can see my thoughts on what I would like from the redesign here; it also explains how the site is generated.

Moving 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. This resulted in changes on the following routes, with credit as indicated [my research(1), contributions of information or leads (via direct mail) from Michael Ballard(2), bing101/AARoads(3), DTComposer(4), Tom Fearer​/​Max Rockatansky/AARoads(5), Andy Fields(6), Ray Mullins(7), Alex Nitzman(8), Sparker/AARoads(9), Miosh_Tino/AARoads(10), Don Williams(11), Joel Windmiller(12): Route 1(1,8), Route 4(1), I-5(1,2,8,3,9), US 6(5), I-8(8), Route 9(5), I-10(1), Route 11(8), Route 12(1), Route 14(1), I-15(1), Route 16(8), Route 17(1,5), Route 18(1), LRN 21(5), Route 24(5,8), Route 25(8), Route 28(5), Route 32(1,5), Route 33(5,7,11), Route 34(1), Route 35(1,5), Route 36(1,5), Route 37(8), I-40(1), US 40(5), Route 41(1,5), Route 46(1,5), Route 49(5), US 50(1,5,3), Route 51(1), Route 52(8), Route 57(1) Route 58(1), Route 59(5), Route 60(1), Route 62(1,5), Route 65(3,9), Route 66(1,5), Route 67(1), Route 68(1), Route 70(1,5,9), Route 71(1), Route 75(1), Route 76(1), Route 77(8), I-80(1,3,9), US 80(5), Route 82(8), Route 84(1,9), Route 85(1,5,10), Route 88(12), Route 89(1), Route 91(1), Route 93(8), US 95(1,5), US 97(8), Route 99(1,9), US 101(1,3,6), Route 109(5), I-110(1,8), Route 113(1), Route 114(5,9), Route 119(5), Route 120(5), Route 121(1), Route 123(8), Route 124(5), Route 127(1,5), LRN 127(1,5), Route 130(5,9,8), Route 132(9), Route 135(5,9), Route 136(1,5,9), Route 138(1), Route 138/HDC(1), Route 140(5), Route 146(5), Route 147(1), Route 149(9), Route 152(1), Route 153(5), Route 155(5), Route 156(1), Route 158(5), Route 163(1), Route 165(5,9), Route 166(1,5,8), Route 167(5), Route 172(5), Route 176(5,9), Route 178(5), Route 180(5), Route 184(5), Route 187(1), Route 191(1), Route 192(1), Route 195(5,9), Route 197(8), US 199(8), Route 203(5), I-205(8), Route 207(5), Route 209(5), I-210(1), Route 218(1), Route 219(5), Route 222(9), Route 223(5), Route 227(5), Route 237(5), Route 241(1), Route 246(1), Route 265(8), Route 268(1), Route 270(5), Route 273(8), I-280(1), Route 281(8), Route 283(8), Route 284(8), Route 299(8), Route 330(8), Route 371(1,8), US 395(8), US 399(5), I-405(1), US 466(5), I-580(1), I-605(1,4), I-680(1), I-710(1), I-780(3), I-805(1,8), Route 905(8), CR A15(5), County Route A22(5), County Route A23(5), County Route G13(5), CR G14(5), County Route J18(5), County Route J59(5).

Added some extensive history to Route 710 for the period before 2006, as a result of some of my materials being used in an exhibition on the history and controversy over the Route 710 Gap Completion. Thanks also to Julia Tcharfas and Tim Ivison, the exhibition organizers, for the scans of the proposed Route 710 gap routings from the 1980s, which was in their extensive set of clippings on the subject. This also led me to write a blog post on the subject.

Added a question to the FAQ about roadside memorials.

Processed some link corrections from David CrispRosanna Kull, and Will Tottle.

I’ve begun the slow process of adding postmile references to ensure I present highway information in order. Notable routes where this has been done includes Route 1, I-5, Route 99, and US 101. The process of doing so uncovered a few errors in the site, which have been corrected. For those who love to debate, this uncovered that there is a Route 101U, just as there was a Route 14U. There’s also a Route 210U.

Read More …

Share