December 2015 Updates to California Highways (The Website)

We’re at the end of another year. I had hoped to do more frequent updates, but this little thing called life got in the way. Perhaps I’ll find more time next year. But for now, let’s look at the last four months of updates:

Before we do… an aside: People may not realize the time this takes. This round of updates took a solid three 8+ hour days, the bulk involving incorporating the headline items into the site. I need to remember to do this monthly and not let them back up. I’m also quite pleased that I was able to find more information on AAroads, but it took time to double check. For next year, a plea: If you see a news article or blog post related to a numbered state highway, please send me the link. Comment on Facebook with it, comment on the post, or even just use good ol’ email.

With that, I’ll wish everyone who likes “California Highways (The Website)” [and even those who don’t] the happiest and healthiest of new years. I don’t believe in wishing people bad things; even people who are bad you can wish to get better. My all your travels on the roads of California (or whereever you live) be safe, and remember that distracted driving can be deadly driving. Be safe when you take that picture of the roads (better yet, let your passenger take it for you). Don’t play with your cell phone while driving, and focus on the road. The life you save may just be that of another lover of the roads.

Happy New Year – 2016

Keep reading for the details of the updates. In the legislative actions, I’ve attempted to highlight the really important parts of each bill (which, of course, WordPress strips out… so you’ll need to visit the real changes page).

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. I’ve given up on misc.transport.road. This resulted in changes on the following routes, with credit as indicated [my research⁽¹⁾, contributions of information or leads (via direct mail) from Laurie Martin Perlowin Avocado⁽²⁾, Concrete Bob at AAroads⁽³⁾, Emory at AAroads⁽⁴⁾, Andy Fields⁽⁵⁾, Jander at AAroads⁽⁶⁾, Jonathan Ledbetter⁽⁷⁾, Nexus73 at AAroads⁽⁸⁾, Joe Rouse⁽⁹⁾, Arturo Salazar⁽¹⁰⁾, Chris Sampang⁽¹¹⁾, Oscar Voss⁽¹²⁾: Postmile Numbering⁽⁷⁾, Route 1⁽¹⁾, Route 4^(1,12), I-5^(1,5), Route 11^(1,5), Route 12⁽⁵⁾, I-15⁽¹⁾, Route 17⁽¹⁾, Route 23⁽¹⁾, Route 29⁽¹⁾, Route 37⁽¹⁾, US 40⁽⁵⁾, Route I-215⁽¹⁾, Route 227⁽¹⁾, US 395⁽⁷⁾, I-405⁽¹⁾, I-580⁽¹⁾, I-605⁽¹⁰⁾, I-680⁽¹⁾, I-710^(1,9,10), I-805⁽¹⁾, I-880⁽⁶⁾, Route 905⁽⁵⁾, I-980⁽¹⁾.

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. Noted the passage of the following bills and resolutions (for some of these, I’ve highlighted key phrases in red):

• AB 157 (Levine) Richmond-San Rafael Bridge.
  Existing law specifies the powers and duties of the Department of Transportation, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, and the Bay Area Toll Authority with respect to the collection and expenditure of toll revenue from the 7 state-owned toll bridges within the geographic jurisdiction of the commission, including the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge.This bill, if the commission and the department develop a project to open the third lane on the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge (I-580) to automobile traffic on the eastbound level and to bicycle traffic on the westbound level, would authorize the lead agency to complete the design work for the project simultaneously with the environmental review conducted pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

  10/01/15 Chaptered by Secretary of State – Chapter 393, Statutes of 2015.

• AB 194 (Frazier) High-occupancy toll lanes.
  Existing law provides that the Department of Transportation has full possession and control of the state highway system. Existing law authorizes the department to construct exclusive or preferential lanes for buses only or for buses and other high-occupancy vehicles.Existing law authorizes a regional transportation agency, as defined, in cooperation with the department to apply to the California Transportation Commission to develop and operate high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes, including administration and operation of a value-pricing program and exclusive or preferential lane facilities for public transit, consistent with established standards, requirements, and limitations that apply to specified facilities. Existing law requires the commission to conduct at least one public hearing in northern California and one in southern California for each eligible application submitted by the regional transportation agency. Existing law limits the number of approved facilities to not more than 4, 2 in northern California and 2 in southern California, and provides that no applications may be approved on or after January 1, 2012.This bill would authorize a regional transportation agency or the department to apply to the commission to develop HOT lanes and other toll facilities, as specified, and would delete the January 1, 2012, deadline for HOT lane applications and remove the existing limitation on the number of facilities that may be approved. The bill would include the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority within the definition of regional transportation authority for these purposes. The bill would delete the requirement that the facilities be consistent with the established standards, requirements, and limitations that apply to specified facilities and would instead require the commission to establish eligibility criteria set forth in guidelines for the development and operation of the facilities approved by the commission on or after January 1, 2016, subject to specified minimum requirements. The bill would provide for the review and approval by the commission of each proposed toll facility pursuant to those eligibility criteria. The bill would authorize a regional transportation agency or the state, as applicable, to issue bonds, refunding bonds, or bond anticipation notes backed by revenues generated from the facilities. The bill would delete the requirement that the commission conduct at least one public hearing in northern California and one in southern California for each eligible application and would instead require the commission to conduct at least one public hearing at or near the proposed toll facility. The bill would require a regional transportation agency that applies to the commission to reimburse the commission for all of the commission’s costs and expenses incurred in processing the application and to enter into specified agreements with the department and the Department of the California Highway Patrol. Before submitting an application to the commission, the bill would require a regional transportation agency to consult with every local transportation authority and every congestion management agency whose jurisdiction includes the facility that the regional transportation agency proposes to develop and operate pursuant to the above-described provisions. The bill would require the regional transportation agency to give a local transportation authority or congestion management agency, as specified, the option of entering into agreements, as needed, for project development, engineering, financial studies, and environmental documentation for each construction project or segment, and would authorize the local transportation authority or congestion management agency to be the lead agency for those construction projects or segments. The bill would provide that these provisions do not authorize or prohibit the conversion of any existing nontoll or nonuser-fee lanes into tolled or user-fee lanes, except that a high-occupancy vehicle lane may be converted into a HOT lane pursuant to its provisions.

  This bill would create the Highway Toll Account in the State Transportation Fund for the management of funds received by the Department of Transportation for toll facilities operated by the department under the bill. The bill would continuously appropriate to the department the portion of revenues designated and necessary for the payment of debt service for those facilities.

  This bill would become operative only if AB 914 is enacted and takes effect on or before January 1, 2016.

  10/09/15 Chaptered by Secretary of State – Chapter 687, Statutes of 2015.

• AB 210 (Gatto) High-occupancy vehicle lanes: County of Los Angeles.
  Existing law authorizes the Department of Transportation to designate certain lanes for the exclusive or preferential use of high-occupancy vehicles. When those exclusive or preferential use lanes are established and double parallel solid lines are in place to the right thereof, existing law prohibits any person driving a vehicle from crossing over those double lines to enter into or exit from the lanes, and entrance or exit from those lanes is authorized only in areas designated for these purposes or where a single broken line is in place to the right of the lanes, except as specified.This bill would prohibit, commencing July 1, 2016, any high-occupancy vehicle lane from being established on specified portions of state highway routes (Route 134 between Route 170 and I-210, and I-210 between Route 134 and Route 57) in the County of Los Angeles, unless that lane is established as a high-occupancy vehicle lane only during the hours of heavy commuter traffic, as determined by the department. The bill would require any existing high-occupancy vehicle lane established on the specified portions of these routes to be modified to conform with those requirements. The bill would authorize the department, on or after May 1, 2017, to reinstate 24-hour high-occupancy vehicle lanes on the specified portions of these routes if the department makes a specified determination and would require the department to report to the Legislature on the impact on traffic of limiting the use of high-occupancy lanes only during the hours of heavy commuter traffic, as provided in the bill.09/28/15 Vetoed by Governor. Veto message: The bill limits the 24/7 carpool lane controls on specified segments of the 134 and 210 freeways in Los Angeles to the hours of heavy commuter traffic. I vetoed a nearly identical bill last session. I continue to believe that carpool lanes are especially important in Los Angeles County to reduce pollution and maximize the use of freeways. Therefore, we should continue to retain the current 24/7 carpool lane control.
• AB 218 (Melendez) State Highway Route 74.
  Existing law provides that the Department of Transportation has full possession and control of all state highways. Existing law describes the authorized routes in the state highway system and establishes a process for adoption of a highway on an authorized route by the California Transportation Commission. Existing law authorizes the commission to relinquish certain state highway segments to local agencies.This bill would authorize the commission to relinquish to the County of Riverside that portion of State Highway Route 74 located in the unincorporated area east of the City of Lake Elsinore and west of the City of Perris under specified conditions.10/07/15 Chaptered by Secretary of State – Chapter 553, Statutes of 2015.
• AB 400 (Alejo) Department of Transportation: changeable message signs.
  Existing law provides that the Department of Transportation has full possession and control of all state highways. Existing law, the Outdoor Advertising Act, provides for the regulation by the department of advertising displays, as defined, within view of public highways. Existing law also authorizes the department to install and maintain information signs along state highways.This bill would require the department, by June 30, 2016, to update its internal policies to allow displays of safety, transportation-related, and voting-related messages on changeable message signs, as defined, subject to approval by the United States Department of Transportation, as provided.[Note: The types of messages permitted are: (1) Safety messages. (2) Transportation-related messages. (3) Reminders to register to vote, as requested by the Secretary of State, not more than two days prior to, and on the last day to, register to vote in a particular statewide general election, statewide primary election, or statewide special election conducted pursuant to the Elections Code. (4) Reminders to vote, as requested by the Secretary of State, as elections approach, not more than two days prior to, and on election day of, a particular statewide general election, statewide primary election, or statewide special election conducted pursuant to the Elections Code. Also permitted are messages required per the requirements of the Emergency Alert System, the Amber Plan under Section 8594 of the Government Code, or the Blue Alert System under Section 8594.5 of the Government Code. US DOT has to approve other displays. Unclear what that means for drought warnings.]

  10/09/15 Chaptered by Secretary of State – Chapter 693, Statutes of 2015.

• AB 652 (Cooley) State Highway Route 16: relinquishment: County of Sacramento.
  Existing law gives the Department of Transportation full possession and control of all state highways. Existing law describes the authorized routes in the state highway system and establishes a process for adoption of a highway on an authorized route by the California Transportation Commission. Existing law authorizes the commission to relinquish certain state highway segments to local agencies.Existing law authorizes the commission to relinquish to the County of Sacramento the portion of Route 16 that is located within the unincorporated area of the county, east of the City of Sacramento boundary and west of Watt Avenue, under certain conditions.This bill would revise this authorization to apply to a specified portion of Route 16 that is located within the unincorporated area of the county, between the general easterly city limits of the City of Sacramento and near Grant Line Road, and would impose additional conditions on the relinquishment. The bill would state the intent of the Legislature in this regard.

  This bill would also authorize the commission to relinquish to the City of Rancho Cordova a specified portion of Route 16, under certain conditions.

  10/08/15 Chaptered by Secretary of State – Chapter 630, Statutes of 2015.

• AB 810 (Ridley-Thomas) State Highway Routes 1 and 187.
  Existing law gives the Department of Transportation full possession and control of all state highways. Existing law describes the authorized routes in the state highway system, including Route 1 and Route 187, and establishes a process for adoption of a highway on an authorized route by the California Transportation Commission. Existing law requires certain conditions to be fulfilled before the construction of any portion of Route 187. Existing law authorizes the commission to relinquish certain state highway segments to local agencies.This bill would authorize the commission to relinquish a specified portion of Route 1 (between the southern limit of Santa Monica and Route 105) and Route 187 (between the route’s western terminus at Lincoln Boulevard (approximately postmile 3.5) and its eastern terminus at Cadillac Avenue near Route 10 (approximately postmile 8.9)) to the City of Los Angeles under certain conditions. The bill would delete the conditions relating to the construction of Route 187.10/07/15 Chaptered by Secretary of State – Chapter 561, Statutes of 2015.
• AB 914 (Brown) Toll facilities: County of San Bernardino.
  Existing law provides for the Department of Transportation and local authorities, with respect to highways under their respective jurisdictions, to authorize or permit exclusive or preferential use of highway lanes for high-occupancy vehicles (HOVs). Existing law authorizes the development and implementation of a value-pricing program consisting of high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes in various corridors under certain circumstances, pursuant to which vehicles that do not meet the vehicle occupancy requirements for use of an HOV lane may use the lane upon payment of a toll.This bill would authorize the San Bernardino County Transportation Commission to conduct, administer, and operate a value-pricing program that includes HOT lanes and other toll facilities on I-10 and I-15 in the County of San Bernardino and, with the agreement of affected transportation agencies, specified extensions and connections into the Counties of Los Angeles and Riverside. The bill would require the toll revenues to be spent for specified transportation purposes and would authorize the commission to issue revenue bonds payable from toll revenues. The bill would require the commission to report to the Legislative Analyst on specified matters within 3 years of commencement of revenue collection from the value-pricing program. The bill would enact other related provisions.This bill would become operative only if AB 194 is also enacted and becomes operative on or before January 1, 2016.

  10/09/15 Chaptered by Secretary of State – Chapter 702, Statutes of 2015.

• AB 1043 (Highways: State Highway Route 43) Highways: State Highway Route 43.
  Existing law requires certain transportation funds made available for transportation capital improvement projects to be programmed and expended in specified amounts for interregional improvements and regional improvements. Existing law specifies the state highway routes that are included in the interregional road system and the state highway routes that are eligible interregional and intercounty routes.This bill would include State Highway Route 43 as an eligible interregional and intercounty route.10/09/15 Vetoed by Governor. Veto message: This bill adds Route 43 to the list of interregional routes, thereby making it eligible to compete for state interregional funds to cover the costs of capital improvement projects. However, Caltrans has determined that Route 43 is not an interregional route eligible for this funding. Therefore, I cannot sign this bill. A better alternative to funding improvements to Route 43 is to enact a long-term, sustainable transportation funding solution in the current special session.
• ACR 86 (Roger Hernández) CHP Officer William B. Wolff III Memorial Interchange.
  Designates the interchange at I-10, post mile 31.151, and I-605 freeway in the County of Los Angeles as the “CHP Officer William B. Wolff III Memorial Interchange“.
  09/21/15 Chaptered by Secretary of State – Res. Chapter 185, Statutes of 2015.
• ACR 88 (Campos) San Jose Police Officer Michael Johnson Memorial Highway.
  Designates the portion of Route 87 between Route 85 and I-280 in the City of San Jose as the “San Jose Police Officer Michael Johnson Memorial Highway“.
  09/21/15 Chaptered by Secretary of State – Res. Chapter 186, Statutes of 2015.
• ACR 89 (Wilk) Connie Worden-Roberts Memorial Bridge.
  Designates the Golden Valley Road Bridge over Route 14 in the City of Santa Clarita, County of Los Angeles, as the “Connie Worden-Roberts Memorial Bridge“.
  09/21/15 Chaptered by Secretary of State – Res. Chapter 187, Statutes of 2015.
• SB 461 (Hernandez) State Highway Route 164: relinquishment.
  Existing law provides that the Department of Transportation has full possession and control of all state highways. Existing law describes the authorized routes in the state highway system and establishes a process for adoption of a highway on an authorized route by the California Transportation Commission. Existing law authorizes the commission to relinquish certain state highway segments to local agencies.This bill would authorize the commission to relinquish specified portions of Route 164 to the County of Los Angeles and to the City of South El Monte, under specified conditions.10/07/15 Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 575, Statutes of 2015.
• SB 491 (Committee on Transportation and Housing) Transportation: omnibus bill.
  A number of provisions (after all, this is an omnibus bill). Of particular interest are the following:(11) Existing law prohibits a person operating a motor vehicle or a bicycle from wearing a headset covering both ears, or from wearing earplugs in both ears, subject to certain exceptions.This bill would also prohibit wearing earphones covering, resting on, or inserted in, both ears. Because a violation of these provisions would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

  (17) Existing law provides for the California Transportation Commission, except as otherwise provided by law, to adopt the location for a state highway on routes authorized by law. Existing law generally describes the various authorized routes in the state highway system, including Route 170 in the County of Los Angeles. Existing law also includes various state highway routes in the California freeway and expressway system.

  This bill would revise the description of Route 170 to delete the unconstructed portion of this route between Los Angeles International Airport and Route 90 from both the state highway system and the California freeway and expressway system.

  (18) Existing law gives the Department of Transportation full possession and control of all state highways. Existing law describes the authorized routes in the state highway system and establishes a process for adoption of a highway on an authorized route by the California Transportation Commission. Existing law authorizes the commission to relinquish certain state highway segments to local agencies. Existing law, with respect to certain relinquished former portions of Route 92, Route 185, and Route 238 in the City of Hayward, requires the city to maintain within its jurisdiction signs directing motorists to the continuation of those routes or to the state highway system, as applicable, and also requires the city to ensure the continuity of traffic flow, including any traffic signal progression.

  This bill would revise the route description for Route 92, and delete the requirement for the City of Hayward to ensure the continuity of traffic flow, including any traffic signal progression, on relinquished former portions of Route 92, Route 185, and Route 238 within the city. The bill would also authorize the California Transportation Commission to relinquish to the city all or any portion of these routes within the city under certain terms and conditions, including a requirement for the city to maintain within its jurisdiction signs directing motorists to the continuation of each route or to the state highway system, as applicable.

  (20) Existing law requires the driver of every motor vehicle who is involved in an accident that results in damage to the property of any one person in excess of $750, or in bodily injury, or in the death of a person, to report the accident to the Department of Motor Vehicles within 10 days after the accident, as specified. Under existing law that threshold amount of damages also serves as a condition, among others, for (A) the suspension of a judgment debtor’s driving privileges, as an aid in the enforcement of small claims or civil money judgments arising out of those accidents; and (B) the suspension or revocation of specified endorsements or certificates.

  This bill, commencing January 1, 2017, would increase the minimum property damage that is required to be reported to $1,000. The bill would make conforming changes to those related provisions described above.
  10/02/15 Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 451, Statutes of 2015.

• SB 539 (Glazer) Public property: names: Confederate States of America.
  (1) Existing law prohibits the sale or display of the Battle Flag of the Confederacy, as specified, or its image, by the State of California, subject to exceptions serving educational or historical purposes.This bill would, on and after January 1, 2017, prohibit the use of an elected leader or senior military officer of the Confederate States of America to name state or local property. The bill would require a name associated with the Confederate States of America used to name state or local property prior to January 1, 2017, to be changed and any sign associated with the name to be removed. The bill would prohibit its provisions from being construed to require the renaming of a city, county, or other political jurisdiction that was named after an elected leader or senior military officer of the Confederate States of America prior to January 1, 2016, or to be construed to require the renaming of any school, building, park, roadway, or other property that incorporates the name of the city, county, or political jurisdiction in which it is situated. By increasing the duties of local officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would also make a statement of legislative findings and a conforming change.(2) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

  This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.
  10/11/15 Vetoed by the Governor. Veto Message: This bill would prohibit the naming of any school, park, building or other public property after certain persons associated with the Confederate States of America. Recently we saw a national movement to remove the confederate flag from State Capitols in the South – a long overdue action. This bill, however, strikes me as different and an issue quintessentially for local decision makers. As far as we know, only two schools, and a street in Stockton would be affected by this law. Existing local processes provide for the naming or re-naming of public facilities, and in several cases local residents have voiced their opposition and have succeeded in re-naming schools and other public property. Local governments are laboratories of democracy which, under most circumstances, are quite capable of deciding for themselves which of their buildings and parks should be named, and after whom.

• SCR 73 (Gaines) Lowell C. Allen Memorial Bridge.
  Designates Bridge No. 10-218 on US 101 (over the South Fork of the Eel River), between postmile 106.574 and 106.670, in the County of Mendocino as the “Lowell C. Allen Memorial Bridge“.
  09/18/15 Chaptered by Secretary of State. Res. Chapter 178, Statutes of 2015.

I checked the CTC Liaison page for the results of the CTC meetings from mid-September 2015 to the end of the year. This included the October and December meetings. Given the large number of items this period, I’m focusing more on the new items or significant changes, as opposed to funding amendments or implementing agency amendments. The following items were of interest (note: ° indicates items that were below the level of detail for updating the specific route pages) :

2.1a. STIP Program/Project Amendments

(Oct) (1) Request to: (a) Add 58 new projects into the 2014 SHOPP; (b) Revise 58 projects currently programmed in the 2014 SHOPP; (c) Develop 9 Long Lead projects. Most of these were repairs, drought conservation works, roadway rehabilitation, ADA curb construction, and so forth. The following specific items were of interest: . [Approved]

• 8-Riv-10 R57.6/R127.0 I-10 Near Desert Center, from Route 86 to Arco Ditch Bridge at various locations. Repair storm damage erosion at four bridges, build a freeway cross-over, and demolish failed Tex Wash Bridge No. 56-0576R. $150K (Right of Way); $4,850 (Construction). Completion: FY15/16. Support costs: PA & ED $75K; PS & E $340K; RW Sup $10K; Con Sup $410K; Total $835K
• 8-Riv-10 R57.6/R127.0 I-10 Near Desert Center, from Route 86 to Arco Ditch Bridge at various locations. Replace storm damaged Tex Wash Bridge No. 56-0576R. $75K (R/W) $8,000K (C) Completion FY15/16. Support: PA & ED $60; PS & E $500K; RW Sup $10K; Con Sup $600K; Total $1,170K
• 1-Hum-36 36.6/39.9 Route 36 Near Dinsmore, from west of Burr Valley Road to west of Buck Mountain Road. Widen to make lane and shoulder widths standard, realign curves, and improve roadway cross-slope. PAED: 10/01/2015 R/W: 07/01/2016 RTL: 07/15/2016 CCA: 12/01/2018. $231K (R/W) $7,441K (C) Completion FY16/17. Support costs: PA & ED $90K; PS & E $75K; RW Sup $150K; Con Sup $40; Total $355K
• 10-Sta-99 R18.0/R19.7 Route 99 In Modesto, from north of West Modesto Overhead to south of Beckwith Road. Construct acceleration and deceleration lanes at southbound ramps to improve safety. PAED: 09/01/2015 R/W: 04/01/2016 RTL: 05/01/2016 CCA: 12/01/2017 Costs: $7K (R/W); $4,200K (C) Completion FY15/16 Support costs: PA & ED $645K; PS & E $181K; RW Sup $29K; Con Sup $424K; Total $1,279K
• 12-Ora-22 R3.9/R10.8 Route 22 In the cities of Garden Grove, Orange and Santa Ana, from Route 39 (Beach Boulevard) to Route 5. Modify ramps and add auxiliary lane. PAED: 03/15/17 R/W: 05/15/18 RTL: 06/15/18 CCA: 10/15/20 Costs: $20K (R/W); $10,522K (C). Completion FY17/18. Support costs: PA & ED $950K; PS & E $2,000K; RW Sup $200K; Con Sup $2,100K; Total $5,250K.
• 12-Ora-133 3.1/3.6 Route 133 In Laguna Beach, from 1700 feet south to 1300 feet north of El Toro Road. Extend lanes in both directions. PAED: 02/01/17 R/W: 04/30/18 RTL: 05/31/18 CCA: 09/01/20 Costs: $1,230K (R/W); $3,870K (C). Completion FY17/18. Support costs: PA & ED $1,215K; PS & E $1,820K; RW Sup $550K; Con Sup $1,306K; Total $4,891K.
• Long Lead – 2-Sis-3 38.0/38.6 Route 3 North of Fort Jones, from 0.3 mile south to 0.3 mile north of West Moffett Creek Road at Moffett Creek Bridge No. 02-0042. Bridge replacement. PAED: 09/06/2019 R/W: 07/31/2020 RTL: 08/28/2020 CCA: 01/12/2024 Costs: $237K (R/W); $3,920K (C). Completion FY20/21. Support costs: PA & ED $1,340K; PS & E $700K; RW Sup $80K; Con Sup $1,540K; Total $3,660K.
• Long Lead – 3-Sac-51 2.6/3.0 Route 51 (Business Route 80) In the city of Sacramento at the American River Bridge No.24-0003. Widen and replace bridge deck. PAED: 08/01/2018 R/W: 02/01/2020 RTL: 05/01/2020 CCA: 10/01/2022 Costs: $1,000K (R/W); $105,300K (C). Completion FY19/20. Supporting Costs: PA & ED $4,340K; PS & E $10,130K; RW Sup $360K; Con Sup $16,120K; Total $30,950K.
• Long Lead – 5-Mon-1 20.9/21.3 Route 1 Near Lucia from 0.1 mile south to 0.2 mile north of Limekiln Creek Bridge No. 44-0058. Replace bridge. PAED: 12/02/2021 R/W: 03/05/2025 RTL: 04/03/2025 CCA: 12/12/2028 Costs: $704K (R/W); $64,644K (C). Completion: FY24/25 Supporting costs: PA & ED $3,500K; PS & E $0; RW Sup $416K; Con Sup $13,865K; Total $17.781K

(Dec) (1) Request to: (a) Add 43 new projects into the 2014 SHOPP. (b) Revise 28 projects currently programmed in the 2014 SHOPP. (c) Develop 1 Long Lead project. Most of these were damage repairs, drought conservation, facility repairs, mudslide repairs (such as the ones on I-5 (.5M) and Route 58 (2M)), repairs from wildfires, rumble strip installation (Route 32, Route 20, Route 174, various locations) The following specific items were of interest: . [Pending]

• 3-Sac-160 T1.8/4.2 Route 160 In and near the city of Sacramento, from Route 50 to Watt Avenue. Relinquish route to local agencies. PAED: 01/20/2016 R/W: 01/20/2016 RTL: 01/20/2016 CCA: 03/15/2016 Costs: $450K (C) Completion: FY15/16. $59K Support.
• 03-ElD-50 67.3 US 50 Near South Lake Tahoe, west of South Lake Tahoe at Echo Summit Sidehill Viaduct Bridge No. 25-0044. Rehabilitate or Replace bridge.
• 10-SJ-05 26.5 I-5 In Stockton, at the Stockton Channel Viaduct Bridge No. 29-0176 L/R. Bridge rehabilitation to address structural and load carrying capacity deficiencies. $815,000K.

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

None

2.2a. Submittal of Notice of Preparation for Comments

None

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

None

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

(Oct) (1) Approval of Projects for Future Consideration of Funding and Route Adoption: [Approved.]

1. 02-Plu-147, PM 8.9/9.3. (Route 147) Hamilton Branch Bridge Replacement Project. (ND) (PPNO 3472) (SHOPP)
2. 04-SCl-101, PM 16.00/52.55, 04-SCl-85, PM 23.0/R24.1. (US 101) United States Highway 101 Express Lanes Project. (MND) (EA 2G710) (Local)
3. 04-Mrn-1, PM 50.1/50.5, 04-Son-1, PM 0.0/0.1 (Route 1) Estero Americano Bridge Replacement Project. (ND) (PPNO 0326A) (SHOPP)
4. 08-SBd-210, PM 19.3/20.1 Route 210/Pepper Avenue New Interchange Project. (ND) (EA 44394) (Federal/Local)
5. 08-SBd-395, PM 39.0/45.9 US 395 Widen Median and Shoulder and Install Rumble Strips Project. (MND) (PPNO 0258P) (SHOPP)

(Oct) (2) Approval of Project for Future Consideration of Funding: 04-SCl-680, PM 6.5/9.9, 04-Ala-680, PM 0.0/12.4 I-680 Northbound HOV/Express Lane Project. Construct express lane facility on I-680 in Santa Clara and Alameda Counties. (FEIR) (PPNOs 0177 and 0587E) (TCRP/SHOPP) [Approved.]

(Oct) (3) Approval of Project for Future Consideration of Funding: 06-Ker-58, PM R143.5/R143.9, 08-SBd-58, PM 0.0/12.9 Route 58 Kramer Junction Expressway Project. Widen and realign a portion of Route 58 in Kern and San Bernardino Counties and construct new interchange with US 395. (FEIR) (PPNO 0215C) (STIP) [Approved.]

(Oct) (6) Approval of Project for Future Consideration of Funding and for a New Public Road Connection: 04-Sol-80, PM 10.8/17.0, 04-Sol-680, PM 10.0/13.1, 04-Sol-12, PM 1.7/L2.8, 04-Sol-12, PM L1.8/4.8 I-80/I-680/Route 12 Interchange Project. Construct interchange improvements and relocate the west bound truck scales on I-80 in Solano County. (FEIR) (PPNO 5301Q) (STIP/TCIF) [Approved.]

(Dec) (1) Approval of Project for Future Consideration of Funding: 06-Mad-99, PM R7.5/15.1 Madera Route 99 Widening Project. (MND) (PPNO 5335) (STIP) [Approved]

2.3a. Route Adoptions

(Oct) Route Adoption as a Controlled Access Highway: 08-SBd-58-PM R0.0/R9.0 Route 58 From the Kern/San Bernardino county line to 3.7 miles east of US 395. [Approved.]

2.3b. New Public Road Connection

(Oct) New Public Road Connection: 04-Sol-680-PM R11.1 – New Public Road Connection to I-680 at Red Top Road, in the county of Solano. [Approved.]

2.3c. Relinquishments

(Oct) Relinquishment Resolutions: [Approved.]

1. 05-SB-101-PM 26.8, Right of Way along US 101 on Cathedral Oaks Road, in the city of Goleta.
2. 11-SD-15-PM M15.6, Right of Way along Route 15 at Hillery Drive, in the city of San Diego.

(Dec) Relinquishment Resolutions: [Approved.]

1. 11-SD-76-PM R7.7/R8.1 Right of way along Route 76 from Melrose Drive to Jeffries Ranch Road, in the city of Oceanside.
2. 11-SD-905U-PM 8.7/10.7, 11-SD-905-PM R6.4/R10.7 Right of way along superseded Route 905U (Otay Mesa Road) from Route 905 to Route 125, and along Route 905 at Cactus Road and from Route 125 to Sanyo Avenue, in the city of San Diego.

2.3d. Vacation Resolutions

None

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

(Oct) (1) Request of $46,851,000 for eight SHOPP projects as follows: 2.5b.(1a) $38,022,000 for four SHOPP projects; 2.5b.(1b) $8,829,000 for four projects amended into the SHOPP. No particular items were of interest; typical items included storm damage repair, roadway rehabilitation, wildlife crossings; rock slope prevention; ADA ramps; and rumble strips. [Approved.]

(Dec) (1) Request of $25,501,000 for five SHOPP projects as follows: 2.5b.(1a) $22,201,000 for three SHOPP projects. 2.5b.(1b) $ 3,300,000 for two projects amended into the SHOPP. No particular items required site changes: Pavement rehabilitation with rubberized asphalt on 07-VEN-101 R40.4/R43.6 In La Conchita, on US 101 from 0.6 mile north of Mobil Pier Undercrossing to Santa Barbara County line and 11-SD-008 15.3/R21.6 In and near El Cajon, on I-8 from Johnson Avenue to 0.2 mile west of Lake Jennings Park Road; updating bridge rail treatments in San Diego; water quality improvements in Presidio National Park near Route 1; and the required environmental mitigation for the Route 84 Pigeon Pass project. [Approved.]

2.5c Financial Allocations for STIP Projects

None of interest

2.5g Prop 1B Project Allocations

(Oct) (3) Request for $55,200,000 for the State administered Route 46 Corridor Improvements Proposition 1B STIP project (PPNO 0226H) in San Luis Obispo County. [Approved as modified.]

4. TCIF and Aeronautic Program Updates

(Oct) Approval of the Interregional Transportation Strategic Plan (ITSP). (Meeting Handouts – Letters from various local agencies.) [Approved, per Staff recommendation as related to non-substantive changes, as well as with Commissioner Earp’s motion that Route 20, Route 49 and State Route 74 between I-5 and I-15 be included as priority routes.]

• Of particular interest here is the link to the Final 2015 Interregional Transportation Strategic Plan (ITSP).
• Useful fact from the ITSP: The State Highway System (SHS) comprises approximately 51,326 lane-miles of roadway. A vast majority of conventional highways in the State do not restrict access.