Ah, October. A time when a new government fiscal year starts, and our congress’ mind turns to … shutdown. As a result, I’m using an unexpected furlough to work on the highway pages.
Started a methodical review of the archived California Highways and Public Works. In addition to a number of specific route updates, this review left me with a number of general observations that don’t fit with any particular route:
- The CHPWs seem to follow a pattern, with regular reports in the winter months about storm damage to freeways, and regular calls to increase the funding for highway work. The latter seemed to grow more common as California’s road system grew and grew.
- There also seemed to be regular reminders — especially as the state moved into the freeway era — of the benefits the freeway would bring to the local communities — in particular the communities or business bypassed.
- Route construction also seemed to follow a pattern. First an initial roadway would be built — or more likely, acquired from the county. This road would be improved to an asphalt-concrete two-lane route. The route would then be rerouted along a route that eliminated a large number of curves and improved the grade. When this was done, often the old road was turned back to the county or city, and you can still find them on the maps. The land for the new road was often donated.
- The new roads would eventually prove inadequate. It would then be turned into a divided highway, and perhaps later, into what was called a limited-freeway (expressway) that limited the number of ingress and egress points. Usually this was done by turning the original road into one side of the expressway, and building a new road on the other.
- The expressway would soon become inadequate. Construction would then start on a grade-separated full freeway, often on a nearby alignment to permit the original route to remain open. The construction process would take multiple years, resulting in many articles on the same subject describing the incremental process.
- There was similar evolution into signage and control devices. Lines came first — first a solid white line, then later the double lines and the lines on the side of the road. Dashed lines seem to have come out of the war as a paint saving device, and they worked so well they were kept. Signage started out as all uppercase button copy, large fonts, white on black signage except for a few caution and stop signs. Lower case came in during the early 1950s, but signs remained just one or two lines, white button copy on a black porcelein steel. The green signs came in the early 1960s, as a response from the national system of interstate highways and their standardization of signs.
- Another form of propaganda in CHPW were the articles on right of way relocation. In the 1950s there were fewer fights on clearing houses. Often, major structures were moved (churches, meeting halls, etc.) at state expense, and there would be a great public interest article on the move. This included a move of a 200 year old church in Fresno, and the Womens Shakespeare Club in Placerville. There were also a lot of articles, especially for Southern California, of how homes were moved and turned into even nicer residences.
- People had different attitudes then. 20th Century Fox donated the land for Olympic Blvd (LRN 173, Route 26) in West LA. Don Adolpho Camarillo donated the land for the Conejo Grade on US 101, personally hosted a party for 500 when it opened, and served as “sidewalk supervisor” for the construction of the railroad grade separation at the current intersection of Route 34 and US 101 in Camarillo in 1953.
A number of the items seen had to do with particular routes, but I didn’t feel like incorporating that level of detail. This included numerous detailed discussions over many months about the construction of the first freeways (the Ramona, Santa Ana, Hollywood, Arroyo Seco), numerous discussions about freeways in San Francisco, Sacramento, and San Diego, and various discussions about construction materials and processes. The specific changes I identifled resulted in updates to the following routes: Route 1, Route 2, LRN 2, Route 3, Route 4, I-5, LRN 5, Route 7, Route 9, I-10, Route 12, Route 13, Route 14, I-15, Route 17, Route 18, LRN 19, Route 20, Route 21, LRN 21, Route 23, Route 24, LRN 26, Route 27, Route 28, Route 29, Route 30, Route 33, Route 37, Route 39, US 40, I-40, Route 42, LRN 43, Route 44, Route 47, US 48, Route 48, US 50, LRN 56, Route 57, Route 58, LRN 59, Route 59, Route 60, US 60, LRN 61, LRN 63, LRN 64, Route 64, US 66, Route 68, Route 70, US 70, Route 71, Route 74, LRN 74, LRN 75, Route 75, LRN 77, Route 77, LRN 78, LRN 79, US 80, LRN 80, I-80, Route 82, Route 84, Route 85, Route 86, Route 87, Route 90, US 91, Route 92, US 97, US 99, US 101, LRN 105, I-105, Route 108, Route 117, Route 119, Route 125, Route 126, Route 128, Route 134, Route 138, LRN 149, Route 150, Route 152, Route 154, Route 157, Route 160, LRN 163, LRN 167, Route 170, LRN 173, Route 186, Route 187, Route 188, Route 190, US 199, I-210, LRN 213, LRN 233, LRN 237, Route 242, Route 246, Route 248, Route 252, LRN 253, Route 266, Route 268, US 299, I-380 (Southern Crossing), US 395, US 399, I-405, Route 440, US 466, I-605, I-680, I-710, Route 740, I-805, I-880, I-905. Added a picture of one of the first callboxes to the postmile page, and added the 1963 LA freeway and expressway system map to the LA map page 3. Note that I often didn’t incorporate all the information in the issues on a highway — in particular, I didn’t capture every route relocation (as some were simple straightenings and such), nor did I note the freeway adoptions for every segment. I tended only to note something if it had a significant effect on numbering or it caught my eye for some other purpose.
Updated the chronology pages to reflect the primary routes defined in 1927, and to reflect the summary changes since 2007, when I had last updated the chronology pages.
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(*), contributions of information or leads (via direct mail) from Joel Windmiller(1)]: Route 12(*), Route 67(*), Route 71(*), I-80(*), US information on the highway naming polices to the Naming Page, thanks to a pointer from Chandru Vittal.
Reviewed the Pending Legislation page. The new California Legislature site is very nice, but it occasionally switches to another bill when moving tabs. As usually, I recommend to every Californian that they visit the legislative website regularly and see what their legis-critters are doing. Noted the passage or
veto of the following bills:
- AB 244 (Bonilla) Vehicles: license plates: veterans.
This bill would require the Department of Veterans Affairs to apply to the DMV to sponsor a veterans specialized license plate, and would require the DMV to issue the veterans specialized license plates if the Department of Veterans Affairs meets the above-described requirements. The bill would require that these license plates be subject to specified additional fees, and that department deposit the revenue from those additional fees, after deducting its administrative costs, in the Veterans Service Office Fund. The design of the veterans specialized license plate shall be identical to the design of the veterans special interest license plate issued pursuant to Section 5068 on or before January 1, 2010, and the decals for the plate shall be identical to those offered pursuant to Section 5068.
Chaptered by Secretary of State – Chapter 690, Statutes of 2013.
- AB 266 (Blumenfield) Vehicles: high-occupancy vehicle lanes.
Existing federal law authorizes, until September 30, 2017, a state to allow specified labeled vehicles to use lanes designated for high-occupancy vehicles (HOVs). Existing state law authorizes the Department of Transportation to designate certain lanes for the exclusive use of HOVs, which lanes may also be used, until January 1, 2015, or until the Secretary of State receives a specified notice, by certain low-emission, hybrid, or alternative fuel vehicles not carrying the requisite number of passengers otherwise required for the use of an HOV lane, if the vehicle displays a valid identifier issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles. A violation of provisions relating to HOV lane use by vehicles with those identifiers is a crime. This bill would extend the operation of those provisions for certain low-emission vehicles to January 1, 2019 or until federal authorization expires, or, until the Secretary of State receives that specified notice, whichever occurs first. The bill would until January 1, 2015, or until the Secretary of State receives that specified notice, authorize the department to issue a valid identifier to a vehicle that meets California’s transitional zero-emission vehicle (TZEV) standard. The bill would also repeal duplicate provisions of law, delete obsolete provisions of law relating to hybrid vehicles, and make additional conforming changes. This bill would incorporate additional substantive changes in Sections 5205.5 and 21655.9 of the Vehicle Code made by SB 286, to become operative if SB 286 and this bill become effective on or before January 1, 2014, and this bill is enacted last. The bill would become operative only if SB 286 is enacted and takes effect on or before January 1, 2014.
09/28/13 Chaptered by Secretary of State – Chapter 405, Statutes of 2013.
- AB 401 (Daly) Transportation: design-build: highways.
Existing law, until January 1, 2014, authorizes certain state and local transportation entities, if authorized by the California Transportation Commission, to use a design‑build process for contracts on transportation projects, as specified. Existing law establishes a procedure for submitting bids that includes a requirement that design-build entities provide a statement of qualifications submitted to the transportation entity that is verified under oath, subject to penalty of perjury.This bill would authorize the Department of Transportation to utilize design-build procurement for up to 10 projects on the state highway system, based on either best value or lowest responsible bid. The bill would authorize regional transportation agencies, as defined, to utilize design-build procurement for projects on or adjacent to the state highway system. The bill would also authorize those regional transportation agencies to utilize design-build procurement for projects on expressways that are not on the state highway system, as specified. The bill would repeal these provisions on January 1, 2024, or one year from the date that the Department of Transportation posts on its Internet Web site that the provisions related to the construction inspection services of these projects are invalid. The bill would provide that these design-build authorizations do not include construction inspection services for projects on or interfacing with the state highway system. The bill would require the Department of Transportation to perform construction inspection services for projects on or interfacing with the state highway system, as specified. The bill would require a transportation entity, as defined, awarding a contract for a public works project pursuant to these provisions, to reimburse the Department of Industrial Relations for costs of performing prevailing wage monitoring and enforcement of the public works project and would require moneys collected to be deposited into the State Public Works Enforcement Fund, a continuously appropriated fund. By depositing money in a continuously appropriated fund, the bill would make an appropriation.The bill would extend the use of design-build procurement to regional transportation agencies, as defined, and extend the period of time for which the Department of Transportation may use design-build procurement, subject to existing procedures. The bill would, by extension, impose the statement of qualifications requirement upon regional transportation agencies and the department, subject to penalty of perjury, thereby creating a new crime and imposing a state-mandated local program.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
10/05/13 Chaptered by Secretary of State – Chapter 586, Statutes of 2013.
- AB 405 (Gatto) Highways: 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, 2014, any high-occupancy vehicle lane from being established on specified portions of state highway routes 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. This 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. This bill would authorize the department, on or after May 1, 2015, to reinstate 24-hour high-occupancy vehicle lanes on the specified portions of these routes if the department makes a specified determination. This bill would require the department to report to the Legislature on the impact on traffic by limiting the use of high-occupancy lanes as provided in the bill.Note: The “specified portions of those routes” are: Route 134 between Route 170 and I-210; I-210 between Route 134 and Route 57.
09/28/13 Vetoed by Governor. Veto Message: “This bill limits the 24/7 carpool lane controls on about 13 miles of the 134 freeway in Los Angeles to the hours of heavy commuter traffic. Carpool lanes are especially important in Los Angeles County to reduce pollution and maximize use of freeways. We should retain the current 24/7 carpool lane control.”
- AB 755 (Ammiano) Suicide barriers.
Existing law does not require bridges to be constructed with suicide barriers. Existing law requires a project study report or a project study report equivalent to be prepared prior to the inclusion of a transportation capital improvement project in the regional transportation improvement program, which is prepared by regional agencies, or the interregional transportation improvement program, which is prepared by the Department of Transportation. Existing law requires the California Transportation Commission to adopt the state transportation improvement program incorporating projects included in the regional transportation improvement program and the interregional transportation improvement program. Existing law also requires the department to prepare, for approval by the commission, a separate state highway operation and protection program for capital improvements that are necessary to preserve and protect the state highway system.This bill would require a project study report or project study report equivalent that is prepared for any new project involving the construction of a new bridge, or the replacement of a bridge with a history of documented suicides, which project is included in the regional transportation improvement program, the interregional transportation improvement program, or the state highway operation and protection program, to include a document demonstrating that a suicide barrier was a feature considered during the project’s planning process. The bill would define “bridge” for these purposes.
10/05/13 Chaptered by Secretary of State – Chapter 593, Statutes of 2013.
- AB 933 (Skinner, Hall) Distilled spirits manufacturers: licenses: tastings.
Existing law, the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, authorizes a licensed distilled spirits manufacturer to conduct tastings of distilled spirits produced or bottled by, or produced or bottled for, the licensee, on the licensed premises, under specified conditions. Existing law generally prohibits a manufacturer, winegrower, manufacturer’s agent, California winegrower’s agent, rectifier, distiller, bottler, importer, or wholesaler from, among other things, giving or lending any money or other thing of value, directly or indirectly, to any person engaged in operating, owning, or maintaining any off-sale licensed premises. Existing law excepts from this prohibition the listing of names, addresses, telephone numbers, and e-mail addresses, among other things, if specified conditions are met. Existing law provides that a violation of the act is a misdemeanor unless otherwise specified.This bill would revise the conditions upon which a distilled spirits manufacturer may conduct tastings, authorize a licensed distilled spirits manufacturer to charge consumers for tastings on its licensed premises, and would impose additional conditions on the provision of tastings by the licensee on the licensed premises. The bill would include in these conditions that tastings of distilled spirits not exceed a specified amount and be limited to 6 tastes to be provided to an individual per day.The bill would also extend the authorization to conduct tastings, as described above, to brandy manufacturers.
By expanding the definition of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
09/26/13 Chaptered by Secretary of State – Chapter 366, Statutes of 2013.
- AB 1371 (Bradford) Vehicles: bicycles: passing distance.
Under existing law, a driver of a vehicle overtaking another vehicle or a bicycle proceeding in the same direction is required to pass to the left at a safe distance without interfering with the safe operation of the overtaken vehicle or bicycle, subject to certain limitations and exceptions. A violation of this provision is an infraction punishable by a fine not exceeding $100 for a first conviction, and up to a $250 fine for a 3rd and subsequent conviction occurring within one year of 2 or more prior infractions.This bill would enact the Three Feet for Safety Act, which would require the driver of a motor vehicle overtaking and passing a bicycle that is proceeding in the same direction on a highway to pass in compliance with specified requirements applicable to overtaking and passing a vehicle, and to do so at a safe distance that does not interfere with the safe operation of the overtaken bicycle, having due regard for the size and speed of the motor vehicle and the bicycle, traffic conditions, weather, and the surface and width of the highway. The bill would prohibit, with specified exceptions, the driver of the motor vehicle that is overtaking or passing a bicycle proceeding in the same direction on a highway from passing at a distance of less than 3 feet between any part of the motor vehicle and any part of the bicycle or its operator. The bill would make a violation of these provisions an infraction punishable by a $35 fine. The bill would also require the imposition of a $220 fine on a driver if a collision occurs between a motor vehicle and a bicyclist causing bodily harm to the bicyclist, and the driver is found to be in violation of the above provisions. This bill would make these provisions operative on September 16, 2014.
09/23/13 Chaptered by Secretary of State – Chapter 331, Statutes of 2013.
- ACR 55 (Stone) Ohlone Costanoan Esselen Highway.
Designates Route 68 between Blanco Road in the City of Salinas and Anza Drive in the County of Monterey as the Ohlone Costanoan Esselen Highway.
09/27/13 Chaptered by Secretary of State – Res. Chapter 135, Statutes of 2013.
- ACR 57 (Jones) James Craig Schmidt Memorial Highway.
Designates Route 94 between Bancroft Drive and Avocado Boulevard in the County of San Diego as the James Craig Schmidt Memorial Highway.
09/27/13 Chaptered by Secretary of State – Res. Chapter 136, Statutes of 2013.
- ACR 62 (Calderon) The Detectives Mike Lane and John Pierce Memorial Highway.
Designates the portion of Route 72 from the western entrance to Route 72 at the intersection of Penn Street and Whittier Boulevard to the eastern entrance of State Highway Route 72 at the intersection of Costa Glen Avenue and Whittier Boulevard as the Detectives Mike Lane and John Pierce Memorial Highway.
09/27/13 Chaptered by Secretary of State – Res. Chapter 139, Statutes of 2013.
- ACR 65 (Hall) The Willie L. Brown, Jr. Bridge.
Designates the the western span of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge (I-80) as the Willie L. Brown, Jr. Bridge.
09/27/13 Chaptered by Secretary of State – Res. Chapter 140, Statutes of 2013.
- ACR 68 (Donnelly) Detective Jeremiah MacKay Memorial Highway.
Designates the portion of Route 38 between post mile 24.00 to post mile 29.00, inclusive, in San Bernardino County as the Detective Jeremiah MacKay Memorial Highway.
09/27/13 Chaptered by Secretary of State – Res. Chapter 142, Statutes of 2013.
- ACR 69 (Salas) CHP Officer Dean Esquibel Memorial Bridge.
Designates the Cross Creek Bridge on Route 198 in the County of Kings as the CHP Officer Dean Esquibel Memorial Bridge.
09/27/13 Chaptered by Secretary of State – Res. Chapter 143, Statutes of 2013.
- ACR 70 (Chesbro) CHP Officer Kenneth E. Marshall Memorial Interchange.
Designates the interchange at US 101 and Route 200 in the County of Humboldt as the CHP Officer Kenneth E. Marshall Memorial Interchange.
09/27/13 Chaptered by Secretary of State – Res. Chapter 144, Statutes of 2013.
- HR 24 (Bradford) Relative to Hall of Fame baseball player Jackie Robinson.
The Assembly urges the Cities of Los Angeles, Inglewood, Downey, South Gate, and Norwalk, and the County of Los Angeles to work together to rename Manchester Avenue and Firestone Boulevard (formerly Route 42) after the Hall of Fame baseball player Jackie Robinson.
09/09/13 Read. Amended. Adopted. (Page 2993.)
- SB 286 (Yee) Vehicles: high-occupancy vehicle lanes.Existing federal law, until September 30, 2017, authorizes a state to allow specified labeled vehicles to use lanes designated for high-occupancy vehicles (HOVs). Existing law authorizes the Department of Transportation to designate certain lanes for the exclusive use of HOVs, which lanes may also be used, until January 1, 2015, or until the Secretary of State receives a specified notice, by certain low-emission, hybrid, or alternative fuel vehicles not carrying the requisite number of passengers otherwise required for the use of an HOV lane, if the vehicle displays a valid identifier issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles. A violation of provisions relating to HOV lane use by vehicles with those identifiers is a crime. This bill would extend the operation of those provisions for certain zero-emission vehicles to January 1, 2019, or until federal authorization expires, or until the Secretary of State receives that specified notice, whichever occurs first. The bill would authorize the department to issue a valid identifier to a vehicle that meets California’s transitional zero-emission vehicle (TZEV) standard. The bill would also repeal duplicate provisions of law, delete obsolete provisions of law relating to hybrid vehicles, and make additional conforming changes. By extending a crime that otherwise would be repealed, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would incorporate additional substantive changes in Sections 5205.5 and 21655.9 of the Vehicle Code made by AB 266, to become operative if AB 266 and this bill become effective on or before January 1, 2014, and this bill is enacted last. This bill would become operative only if AB 266 is enacted and takes effect on or before January 1, 2014.
09/28/13 Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 414, Statutes of 2013.
- SB 788 (Committee on Transportation and Housing) Transportation.
[…] (3) 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.This bill would authorize the commission to relinquish portions of Route 68, Route 74, and Route 86 to local agencies under certain conditions. This bill would also authorize the commission to relinquish a portion of Route 25 in the City of Hollister to that city prior to relocation of that route to a proposed new easterly bypass alignment, under certain conditions, and would thereafter require the commission to adopt the new bypass alignment into the state highway system, as specified. This bill would revise the descriptions of certain authorized state highway routes (Route 1, Route 19, Route 39, Route 58, Route 66, Route 78, Route 82, Route 130, I-710) to reflect implementation of previously-authorized relinquishments. This bill would repeal an existing requirement that the City of Auburn ensure the continuity of traffic flow, including any traffic signal progression, on a former portion of Route 49 previously relinquished to it. The bill would make other related changes. […]
10/03/13 Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 523, Statutes of 2013.
- SCR 23 (Cannella) Soledad State Prison Correctional Officers Memorial Highway.
Designates US 101 between Exit 305 at post mile 64.63 and Exit 310 at post mile 69.37 in the County of Monterey as the Soledad State Prison Correctional Officers Memorial Highway honoring John V. Mills, William C. Shull, Robert J. McCarthy, and Kenneth E. Conant.
09/06/13 Chaptered by Secretary of State. Res. Chapter 95, Statutes of 2013.
- SCR 43 (DeSaulnier) CHP Officer Kenyon Youngstrom Memorial Undercrossing.
Designates the I-680 undercrossing over Livorna Road below Bridge No. 28-191 in Contra Costa County as the CHP Officer Kenyon Youngstrom Memorial Undercrossing.
09/06/13 Chaptered by Secretary of State. Res. Chapter 98, Statutes of 2013.
- SCR 44 (DeSaulnier) Joe Eddy McDonald Memorial Overcrossing.
Designates the Willow Avenue Overcrossing over Route 4 in Contra Costa County as the Joe Eddy McDonald Memorial Overcrossing.
09/20/13 Chaptered by Secretary of State. Res. Chapter 124, Statutes of 2013.
- SCR 55 (Gaines, Nielsen) Dean Patton Memorial Interchange.
Designates the interchange between Route 99 and Riego Road in Sutter County as the Dean Patton Memorial Interchange.
09/20/13 Chaptered by Secretary of State. Res. Chapter 125, Statutes of 2013.
I checked the CTC Liaison page for the results of the CTC meetings the October meeting. The following items were of interest:
2.1c Proposition 1B Amendments for Action
(2a) The Department proposes to amend the Route 99 baseline amendment for the Arboleda Road Freeway project (PPNO 5414) in Merced County to revise the project limits.
2.2b. Environmental Matters — Notice of Availability of Draft Environment Impact Report (EIR)
06-Ker-58, PM R143.5/R143.9, 08-SBd-58, PM 0.0/12.9 Route 58 Kramer Junction Expressway Project. Widen a portion of Route 58 from two lanes to four lanes near the town of Boron. (DEIR) (PPNO 0215C) (STIP)
2.2c. Environmental Matters — Approval of Projects for Future Consideration of Funding, Route Adoption or New Public Road
(1) Approval of Project for Future Consideration of Funding: 03 – Yuba County Route 70/Feather River Boulevard Interchange Project – construction of interchange near the City of Marysville.
(2) Approval of Project for Future Consideration of Funding: 04 – San Mateo County Route 1 San Pedro Creek Bridge Replacement Project – bridge removal and reconstruction in the city of Pacifica.
(5) Approval of Project(s) for Future Consideration of Funding and/or Road Adoption:
- 03-But-70, PM 23.91/24.46. Flag Canyon Creek Bridge Replacement Project. Replace existing bridge on Route 70 near the city of Oroville.
- 04-Nap-29, PM 47.0/47.2. Troutdale Creek Bridge Replacement Project. Replace an existing bridge on Route 29 near the city of Calistoga.
- 05-SLO-1, PM 73.7/74.0. Elephant Trunk Slide Permanent Restoration Project. Roadway improvements to stabilize a portion of Route 1 near the community of Ragged Point.
- 05-SBt-25, PM 18.8/19.5. Route 25 Curve Realignment Project. Roadway improvements on a portion of Route 25 near the town of Paicines.
- 06-Fre-33, PM 10.9/11.1. Jacalitos Creek Bridge Replacement Project. Replace an existing bridge on Route 33 near the city of Coalinga.
- 08-SBd-10, PM 17.8/19.3. I-10/Cedar Avenue Interchange Improvement Project. Improvements to an existing interchange on I-10 at Cedar Avenue in the community of Bloomington.
(7) Approval of Project for Future Consideration of Funding: 08-SBd-58, PM 22.2/31.1. Route 58 Hinkley Expressway Project. Widen a portion of Route 58 from two lanes to four lanes in and near the town of Hinkley.
2.3c. Relinquishment Resolutions
Seven Relinquishment Resolutions:
- 01-Lak-29-PM 6.0 Right of way along Route 29 at Wardlaw Street, in the unincorporated Town of Middletown, county of Lake.
- 04-SM-101-PM 14.8 Right of way along Route 101 on Airport Boulevard, in the city of San Mateo.
- 07-Ven-1-PM 21.0, 05-Ven-101-PM 22.5/R23.0. Right of way adjacent to Routes 1 and 101 on Wagon Wheel Road, in the city of Oxnard.
- 10-SJ-4-PM 6.0 Right of way along Route 4 on Tracy Boulevard, in the county of San Joaquin.
- 11-SD-5-PM R40.69. Right of way along Route 5 at Regal Road, in the city of Encinitas.
- 11-SD-5-PM R30.4. Right of way along Route 5 at Roselle Street, in the city of San Diego.
- 11-SD-52-PM 16.8. Right of way along Route 52 at Cottonwood Avenue, in the city of Santee.
2.5b. Financial Allocations for State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP) Projects
Financial Allocation: $47,380,000 for 10 SHOPP projects, as follows: (1) $40,786,000 for seven SHOPP projects; (2) $6,594,000 for three projects amended into the SHOPP by Departmental action. The only project of interest was $2.2 million in Santa Monica on Route 1, from Dewey Street to Route 10, with the goal of relinquish 5.2 miles of roadway (Lincoln Boulevard) to local jurisdiction. City will accept ownership, maintenance, operation and liability over the relinquished facilities.