Day: December 31, 2022

Another year has come to a close. It’s been a tiring one — I could list my reasons, but I’m sure you have a list of your own. All we can hope is that 2023 uses lube. But still, there were a few good things that happened. I got the new podcast off the ground, and we’ve had some real interesting interviews. I just need to learn how to edit the sound a bit better (and get a better microphone setup). I’ve kept the site up to date with updates, and people still seem to appreciate the work. So, in that vein, here are the updates for the California Highways website for November and December:

This update covers November and December. Before we dive into the updates to the California Highways site, an update on the California Highways: Route by Route podcast. Episodes are regularly posted around the middle of the month. You can keep up with the show at the podcast’s forever home at https://www.caroutebyroute.org/ , the show’s page on anchor.fm, or you can subscribe through your favorite podcaster or via the RSS feeds (CARxR, Anchor.FM) . The following episodes have been posted since the last update:

• December | Episode 1.06: Chronology – CEQA and Reality (featuring an interview with Gary Ruggerone, a Caltrans retiree and a Subject Matter Expert in CEQA and NEPA).

Turning to the updates to the California Highways pages: Updates were made to the following highways, based on my reading of the (virtual) papers in November and December 2022 (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^(ℱ), contributions of information or leads (via direct mail or ꜲRoads) from Tom Fearer⁽²⁾, Joel Windmiller⁽³⁾: I-5⁽³⁾, I-10⁽³⁾, Route 16^(ℱ), Route 20^(ℱ), Route 30^(3,2), Route 39^(ℱ), Route 41^(ℱ), Route 46^(ℱ), Route 49⁽²⁾, Route 67^(ℱ), Route 70^(ℱ), I-80^(ℱ), Route 99^(ℱ,2), US 101^(ℱ,2), Route 106⁽²⁾, Route 156⁽²⁾, Route 210⁽²⁾, Route 211⁽²⁾, I-280^(ℱ), Route 330⁽²⁾, I-580^(ℱ).
(Source: private email, Highway headline posts through the December Headline post (as indicated), AARoads through 12/29/2022)

Reviewed the Traversable Highways report from 2013 (hey, I just discovered it). Updated the following pages: Route 1, Route 12, Route 13, Route 14, Route 18, Route 24, Route 37, Route 39, Route 47, Route 48, Route 54, Route 56, Route 61, Route 64, Route 65, Route 74, Route 77, Route 81, Route 84, Route 87, Route 90, Route 91, Route 92, Route 93, Route 100, Route 102, Route 104, Route 108, Route 109, Route 118, Route 122, Route 125, Route 128, Route 130, Route 142, Route 143, Route 148, Route 152, Route 162, Route 164, Route 169, Route 170, Route 178, Route 179, Route 180, Route 181, Route 190, Route 211, Route 217, Route 227, Route 234, Route 235, Route 238, Route 239, Route 249, Route 251, Route 257, Route 258, Route 270, Route 276, Route 280, Route 281, Route 285, Route 380, Route 605, Route 710.

Reviewed the Pending Legislation page, based on the 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. This is the start of a new legislative session, so there wasn’t much activity. The major change to the page was updating the legislative calendar, and deleting the bills from the 2021-2022 session. Welcome to the 2023-2024 session, folks.

Reviewed the online agenda of the California Coastal Commission. There was no December meeting.

I checked California Transportation Commission page for the results of the December 2022 meeting of the California Transportation Commission. 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:

Read More …

December was an interesting month. It started with the Annual Computer Security Applications Conference (ACSAC). That — combined with a post-conference cold and difficultly coordinating an interview — led to a delay in getting Episode 1.06 up. But it’s there for your listening pleasure now.

I appreciate much more what a podcast producer does, especially the hard job of scaring up interviews. I think I’ve got a lead for 1.07; I’m still working on 1.08 and beyond. I’m looking for someone who is willing to talk for 30 minutes or so on the following:

• For 1.08: We return to the US highway system, so I’m looking for someone from AASHTO on the process for getting highway numbers approved.
• For 1.09: We return to the Interstates, so I’m looking for someone with some interesting insights on California’s interstate submittals.
• For 1.10: We’re looking at the county sign routes, so I’m look for someone from the Caltrans Local Assistance Programs office, or someone from a County public works department.

If you or someone you know would be interested in helping this project, please contact me.

The headlines for December were light. Perhaps fewer piqued my interest this month, but I do think the pace has turned to a focus on resurfacing and disaster repairs, and that’s of less interest for the pages. Speaking of the pages: I’m working on the last round of updates to the California Highways pages for 2022, which should be up slightly after this post.

Enough of this shameless self-promotion. Here are the headlines that I found about California’s highways for December:

Key

[Ħ Historical information | ＄ Paywalls, ＄＄ really obnoxious paywalls, and ∅ other annoying restrictions. I’m no longer going to list the paper names, as I’m including them in the headlines now. Note: For ＄ paywalls, sometimes the only way is incognito mode, grabbing the text before the paywall shows, and pasting into an editor.]

California Highways: Route by Route Podcast

• CARxR 1.06: Chronology – CEQA and Reality.In this episode, we conclude our exploration the history of the State Highway System with the last episode in this 6-part miniseries. This episode focused on the post-1969 era in the stat highway system: the changes in the highway system after 1969; the impact of the environmental quality acts, and the growing involvement of the regional transportation agencies. We also explore the changes in governance of state highways. Our interview is with Gary Ruggerone, who was the Caltrans District 5 Environmental Branch Chief from June 1980 until December 2010 when he retired from Caltrans. He started as as an Environmental Planner in D7 in March 1979, one of 5 environmental planners hired off the very first Environmental Planner Civil Service Exam. He was directly involved with Caltrans during the early days of CEQA and NEPA and is joining us to provide valuable insight on the impact of the CEQA. Gary is currently the Owner/Principal Environmental Planner of Piedra Environmental Consultants, a local environmental planning firm specializing in CEQA and NEPA analysis and regulatory permit compliance for transportation-related projects. A life-long resident of California, Gary earned a Bachelor of Science in Biological Sciences from California Polytechnic State University, Pomona, and a Master of Arts in Population Aquatic Biology from the University of California at Santa Barbara.

Back episodes are available at the Podcast’s forever home, as well as on its anchor.fm home. The anchor.fm also has links to the podcast’s page on most major podcasting services.

Highway Headlines

• The future of Bay Area freeways could have per-mile tolling (SF Gate). Transportation officials for the Bay Area are in the middle of a planning exercise to adapt the region’s freeway system for the next generation of drivers.  One proposition in the early stages of consideration is to treat freeways as a public utility, therefore subjecting them to operation costs that would be accrued through tolling. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission is starting to envision a future of Bay Area travel where per-mile tolls appear on freeways and highways across the region.
• Lawmaker May Take SF Out of Its Freeway Removal Slump (San Francisco Standard). A state lawmaker asked the state’s transportation department to figure out what it would take to remove what’s left of San Francisco’s Central Freeway and to look into what can be done with two other freeways. State Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) formally asked the California Department of Transportation to study the cost and logistics for taking down the Central Freeway, the Bayshore Viaduct of Interstate 80 between 17th Street and the Bay Bridge, and Interstate 280 north of U.S. 101.
• Transportation officials consider plan for Bay Area commuters to pay tolls on busy freeways to reduce traffic, emissions (ABC7 San Francisco). The future of Bay Area commuters could include tolls, not only at bridges but also on freeways. Transportation officials are considering the proposal as part of an effort to ease traffic congestion and help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Officials say congestion is mounting, partly because they’ve kept the user price of driving on freeways down. Officials are considering the Plan Bay Area 2050, a joint project between the MTC and Association of Bay Area Governments. They say the tolling idea would include all lanes of certain freeways-not just the express lanes.
• Contractor: Golden Gate Bridge suicide net will cost $400M (AP News). A suicide prevention net on San Francisco’s Golden Gate Bridge that is already years behind schedule will cost about $400 million, more than double its original price, because of problems sparked by the government agency that manages the span, the lead contractors allege. The allegations filed Monday in state court by Shimmick Construction Co. and Danny’s Construction Co. say that changes to and flaws in the government’s net design and the lack of transparency about the deterioration of the bridge’s maintenance platforms have raised the construction price from $142 million to at least $398 million.
• Modesto’s State Route 132 West Project | What to know (ABC 10). The State Route 132 West project has been a goal for the city of Modesto for 60 years. Highway 132 currently runs through streets in Modesto, causing issues with congestion, shipping, and even pollution due to idling vehicles. The project is supposed to make the area safer and keep trucks moving by relieving some of the traffic on Maze Boulevard. The long-anticipated $100 million project received over 70% of funding from the state and federal government, with a majority from the state. The local region funded about 30% of the project.
• ＄City’s path followed Agoura Road (The Acorn). The vintage, late-1940s postcard shown above provides a glimpse of Agoura Road when it was part of the main route from Los Angeles to Santa Barbara long before the 101 Freeway was built. The tall “Agoura” sign at the upper right of the picture—possibly dating back to the 1920s—welcomed travelers to a little hamlet where they could grab gas and food. But it was more than that. Known now as the Historic Quarter of Agoura Hills, the area south of the 101 Freeway off the Chesebro Road exit along Agoura Road, can also be thought of as the closest thing to a downtown the city has ever had.

Read More …