🛣️ 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 …


🗯️ 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.


🛣️ 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.


🛣️ 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 …


🛣 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 …


🛣️ Headlines About California Highways – June 2018

June has proven to be a very busy month. In addition to a ridiculously busy theatre schedule thanks to the  Hollywood Fringe Festival (FB), I’ve been working on highway page updates. Those updates have been complicated by the adoption in March of the 2018 State Transportation Improvement Program and the 2018 State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP). When I post the description of the updates, read them carefully as there will be a lot there. This post captures two things: One, some research I’ve done on the STIP and SHOPP so I can find things later. Two, the highway headlines for June that have been incorporated (or will be incorporated) into the June Highway Page updates. Remaining headlines for the next batch of updates will be in the July posting.

STIP/SHOPP Information

Highway Headlines

  • Caltrans’ new director to visit Last Chance Grade. Caltrans Director Laurie Berman was appointed by Gov. Jerry Brown in March and will be making her first trip to the area as director today to tour Caltrans District 1 and visit Last Chance Grade.
  • Community meeting on Cal Trans Highway 121 project. CalTrans has called a community meeting for Wednesday, May 30, to discuss a coming safety improvement project on State Route 121 between Wagner and Bisso roads, south of the Bonneau Rd. intersection past Cornerstone and Viansa Winery. The project proposes to reduce accidents and improve safety by implementing safety measures, such as widening shoulders, realigning the roadway and adding a center-turn lane where necessary.
  • CalTrans announces I-5 traffic changes. The California Department of Transportation announced plans Tuesday night to remove a bypass lane through the SCV on Thursday, and open another June 8. As part of the Caltrans I-5 Roadway Rehabilitation Project, the department is taking away a temporary bypass lane on Interstate 5 between Valencia Boulevard and State Route 126 this week, due to pavement construction near Santa Clarita.
  • Caltrans: Stoplight at Camp Richardson discontinued indefinitely. Following backlash in its first summer of use and input from partner agencies, the pedestrian stoplight at Camp Richardson is on indefinite hiatus, according to the California Department of Transportation. The device was installed in 2016 as part of a Caltrans construction project. It was mostly used in the summer of 2017 as a means to help address traffic and pedestrian issues.
  • US 50 reconstruction project phase 2 in South Lake Tahoe underway. Road work is ramping up around the Tahoe Basin, including on South Shore where the California Department of Transportation has resumed reconstructing a stretch of U.S. 50. Now entering its second year, the three-year, $56.9 million project involves rebuilding a 2-mile stretch of U.S. 50 from the “Y” to Trout Creek Bridge. The rebuilding includes widening the roadway to provide 6-foot shoulders for bike lanes in both directions, replacing traffic signals, rebuilding curbs, gutters and sidewalks, and improving the pavement cross slope, according to Caltrans.
  • Caltrans District 7 Tweet:. Media Advisory – Friday, June 1 at 12 p.m. join Caltrans and our partners @California_CTC @MayorOfLA @metrolosangeles @CHPsouthern @SouthBayCCOG as we break ground for the beginning of the $35 million 110/405 interchange improvement project.
  • The far-out future 1960s planners envisioned for LA transit. If midcentury planners and architects had their way, we’d be whizzing around Los Angeles in monorails and flying buses. Southern California’s population and economy were booming in the 1950s and ’60s, driving up the demand for practical infrastructure, says architect and historian Alan Hess.

Read More …


I-710 and #MeToo

Last night, I went to the opening of “710”, an exhibition described as:

An exhibition considering the timeline, the geography, and the politics of the 710 interstate freeway and its incomplete five-mile northern extension — an invisible line that marks the longest running development dispute in American history. Covering 23 miles and over 60 years of local, state, and federal planning, the exhibition looks at our ever-changing relationship to the freeways and the matrix of transportation, industry, environment, and neighborhood power that it has come to represent.

For many residents of the San Gabriel Valley, the 710 is the freeway that will never be built. The five mile gap between Valley Boulevard in the south and West California Boulevard in the north marks the battle lines of an intergenerational conflict over the very meaning of “development”. For the California Department of Transportation, the 710 is the freeway that is always about to be completed. One more feasibility study, one more environmental impact report, one more funding cycle or election away… always just on the horizon of final connection, of “closing the gap”. In 2018, with the overland freeway proposal dead and the tunnel alternative currently de-funded, we look back on a struggle that has spanned the entire freeway era in America, from modernist ideal to paleotechnic dinosaur.

I was at the exhibit because some of my source materials for California Highways were on loan to it. It was held in one of the houses near the 710 northern stub (near the “fork in the road“). On the way home, it got me thinking. First, that I need to add some material on the highway pages covering the pre-2000 period of the gap completion fight (this will be done in the June updates to the site). Second — and the reason for this post — it got me thinking about the arguments both for and against the highway. The argument against the gap completion is clear: the impact on the local communities, the destruction of beautiful and historic homes, the impact on air quality and traffic in the communities, the visual blight. But (and this wasn’t heavy in the exhibition), what is the argument for? Primarily, one would think it is thru truck traffic (and even that might be limited — some of the alternatives wouldn’t allow thru trucks on the gap segment). It is completion of a line on a map. But it doesn’t benefit the local community except for a few minutes of time. In this day and age — and much as fellow roadgeeks might dislike me for saying it — there’s no strong reason to complete the route, other than traffic flow. How does one balance larger congestion relief with devastating impacts on the communities traversed — especially in an era on increased sensitivity.

This, in turn, got me thinking of how Caltrans built freeways in the 1950s, and how attitudes have changed. In many many ways, it is like the #metoo movement as a reflection of how societal attitudes have changed, and how what was once acceptable is not anymore.

Consider: In the heyday of freeway building, the need for “traffic privilege” overrode everything. We built where there was no road. We widened and “expresswayed” and “freeway-tized” existing roads. We cut through the hearts of communities, poor or rich, we didn’t care. The rights of the roadbuilder were supreme. In a paternalistic and colonial sense, the freeways were built “because they were good for you”. Close your eyes and think of the empire.

But we’ve learned quite a bit — and become more sensitive. We are still building new freeways, but often they are in areas where there is nothing now, and only the environment to complain (think about the High Desert Corridor as an example). When freeways are built through communities, often the past of least resistance — meaning the path of redevelopment — is taken. Translation: Build through the lower income communities that can’t afford to protest and fight back. Again, examples of this are clear in the distant and recent past: Building I-5 through Boyle Heights. Building the Century Freeway through Inglewood and South LA. The proposal to widen I-710 through the working class communities south of I-10 (although that is being fought). There is the increasing sense, however, that this is wrong. We’re widening the freeway, but for what end. Are there other solutions possible?

Then there are the wealthier communities: the ones that can afford to protest. Beverly Hills. Hollywood. Pasadena. South Pasadena. They make us realize that quite a bit will be lost in our quest to save a few minutes. They make us realize that what was once acceptable may not have been the right answer.

In the case of the 710, of course, this was a problem of Caltrans’ making. Caltrans policy in the 1950s and 1960s was to build the hardest parts first, and then connect them: meaning they built the interchanges and then the roads to connect them. In the case of the 710, the location of 134/210/710 interchange and the terminus N of I-10 at Valley Blvd created the problem, for it had to connect one unchangeable point with another unchangeable point. That created the Meridian Alignment and almost guaranteed the battle. If Caltrans had chosen to not build the stub portions of the interchange, they would have had the flexibility to pick any point along the 210 as the end of the 710, and to pick other points along the 10, and could likely have limited the construction to business districts, and widening of an existing road vs. creation of a new route. Caltrans, essentially, boxed themselves into a corner.

As a PS: For the argument about the freight traffic from the port, which was the principal reason that Long Beach built what became the 710 in the first place, and is the primary freight traffic on the 710: there is an easy answer. Rail. Find a distribution point out of the city, and build a dedicated rail line from the Port to that distribution center. Rail takes much less right of way, does not require interchanges, and can have much higher density of containers than trucks ever can. It can also use non-polluting engines. Use rail to bring things to the out-of-city distribution point, and then run trucks from there to other points.


Headlines about California Highways for May 2018

Well, the first update for the highway pages is getting closer. But first, some headlines. Here are the accumulated headlines about California Highways for May 2018. Many of these will be discussing allocations from the California Transportation Commission that are dependent on SB1, or are talking about SB1. So first, a little political aside:

I have been spending Memorial Day weekend starting on long-awaited updates to the highway pages. In doing so, I’ve seen the long list of projects funded by SB1 (otherwise known as the Gas Tax), and the long list of major projects whose completion depends on SB1. But SB1 is in jeopardy. There are many who do not understand how it works, what it funds, and why it is needed. SPREAD THE WORD. SB1 is badly needed. Vote yes on Prop 69. Vote FOR candidates that support SB1, and AGAINST those that support the repeal. When the November election comes, defeat the repeal. The pennies we pay at the pump go a long way to make our drives more pleasant, and getting us to our destinations faster and safer.

For those who don’t know, here is the process of how I do highway page updates: Phase 1 is headline updates. First, I go through these headline posts and update pages, then I go through material emailed to me. I then skim the AARoads Pacific Southwest Forum for other information I might have missed. Phase 2 is looking at the legislative actions and updating pages based on those. In Phase 3, I go through the minutes of the California Transportation Commission looking for significant changes to highways: reroutings, widenings, relinquishments, EIRs, and such (not ephemeral things like resurfacing or landscaping). This post, which is going up a few days early, will represent the headline stopping point for this update (i.e., headlines after this post will go into the next round).

So here are the headlines for May. As always, for most paywalled pages, you can get around the paywall by trying incognito or private mode in your browser.

  • Caltrans: Hwy 1 at Mud Creek expected to reopen in mid-September. Caltrans has announced a new target of mid-September to reopen Highway 1 at Mud Creek. A massive landslide in May 2017 sent more than 6 million cubic yards of rock and dirt onto the highway and into the ocean. It was the biggest slide ever along California’s Big Sur coast. Since then, Highway 1 has been closed between Salmon Creek and Gorda.
  • California eyes fall reopening of Highway 1 near Big Sur. California transportation officials are targeting mid-September for reopening a stretch of iconic Highway 1 in the Big Sur region that was blocked almost a year ago by a massive landslide following winter storms. The slide has hindered visitors and hurt businesses on the major tourism route among classic California coastal vistas and landmarks between Los Angeles and San Francisco.
  • There’s Still Time to Comment on the Proposed I-605/Katella Interchange Project. More than 50 area residents and community leaders attended a public hearing in Los Alamitos on April 24 regarding the I-605/Katella Avenue Interchange Project. The proposed project would enhance the local interchange by improving freeway access, traffic flow and pedestrian and bike paths.
  • New on-ramps, off-ramps to 60 Freeway in City of Industry, Diamond Bar will open on Tuesday. Two of the three legs of the new Lemon Avenue interchange of the 60 Freeway in Diamond Bar will open on Tuesday, May 1 in time for the busy morning commute, according to the Alameda Corridor-East Construction Authority. At 6 a.m., Caltrans will clear away the orange cones and officially allow vehicles to enter the westbound 60 Freeway from a brand new Lemon Avenue on-ramp. Freeway riders traveling eastbound can take the Lemon Avenue exit via a newly constructed off-ramp.
  • Bridging Moody Gulch on Highway 17. Q: While expensive, any thoughts on bridging Moody Gulch on Highway 17? Seems like the elevation on both ends does not make it much of a rise.

Read More …