November / December 2013 Update to California Highways

It’s the end of the year. I’m sure snow is on the ground somewhere, and so it is time for the final set of updates to the highway 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 — sad to say, I’m not seeing much there other than discussions about topics that aren’t the sort of information I capture here.^† 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 Eric Armoror⁽²⁾, Douglas Bright⁽³⁾, Chris Sampang⁽⁴⁾]: I-10^(*), Route 11⁽²⁾, Route 23⁽¹⁾, Route 24⁽¹⁾, Route 29⁽⁴⁾, Route I-710⁽¹⁾.

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. We seem to be in the quiet months — there were no substantive changes, and no new bills or bill passages.

Reviewed the Traversable Highways document on the Caltrans website. Updated information for the following highways: Route 12, Route 13, Route 14, Route 18, Route 19, Route 24, Route 36, Route 37, Route 39, Route 47, Route 48, Route 52, Route 54, Route 56, Route 57, Route 64, Route 65, Route 74, Route 77, Route 81, Route 84, Route 87, Route 90, Route 92, Route 93, Route 100, Route 102, Route 104, Route 109, Route 118, Route 122, Route 127, Route 128, Route 130, Route 142, Route 143, Route 148, Route 152, Route 162, Route 164, Route 169, Route 170, Route 179, Route 180, Route 181, Route 190, Route 211, Route 217, Route 227, Route 230, 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, I-380, I-605, Route 710, Route 905. Traversable highways are existing roads or streets between the termini of and approximately along the State highway routes described in the Streets and Highways Code. Most traversable highways do not comply with state highway standards and cannot be adopted into the state highway system. Whenever a traversable highway is complete over its entire route and constructed to State highway standards. The California Transportation Commission must adopt the constructed facility and the Department must maintain it with funds from the State Highway Account. If a traversable highway exists over a portion of a route is constructed to State highway standards and connects to an already maintained state highway, the Commission may adopt the constructed facility. After the Commission adopts the facility, the Department maintains that facility with funds from the State Highway Account. An existing facility meets State highway standards if it provides an acceptable level of traffic service and does not require restoration.

I checked the CTC Liaison page for the results of the CTC meetings the December 11, 2013 meeting. The following items were of interest (note: ° indicates items that were below the level of detail for updating the specific route pages) :

2.2c. Environmental Matters — Approval of Projects for Future Consideration of Funding, Route Adoption or New Public Road

(1) Five Projects:

1. 02-Sis-96, PM 56.0.° Fort Goff Creek Fish Passage Project. Replace culvert with new bridge on Route 96 in Siskiyou County near the community of Seiad Valley. (Approved)
2. 04-Son-116, PM 13.6/13.9.° Pocket Canyon Creek Retaining Wall Project. Replace existing retaining wall and repair storm damage on Route 116 in Sonoma County. (Approved)
3. 05-SLO-101, PM 63.2/R69.3, 05-Mon-101, PM R0.0/1.9° North Paso Robles 101 Rehabilitation Project. Roadway improvements along a portion of US 101 in San Luis Obispo and Monterey Counties near the town of San Miguel. This looks to be construction of retaining walls and improves at the Mission Street bridge. (Approved)
4. 08-SBd-138, PM 0.0/R15.2, 07-LA-138, PM 69.3/74.9. State Route 138 Widening Project. Widen a portion of Route 138 from two lanes to four lanes in San Bernardino and Los Angeles Counties. (Approved)
5. 08-Riv-10, PM 51.7/R53.1.° Interstate 10/Jefferson Street Interchange Improvement Project. Realign and reconstruct the Jefferson Street/I-10 Interchange in Riverside County near the city of Indio. (Approved)

(3) Approval of Project for Future Consideration of Funding and a New Public Road Connection: 06-Fre-99, PM 28.8/30.11. Veterans Boulevard/Route 99 Interchange Project/Veterans Boulevard Grade Separation Project. Roadway improvements including a new interchange on Route 99 in Fresno County. (The Commission approved, as modified, the environmental document, Statement of Overriding Considerations and Findings of Fact and approved the project for future consideration of funding and as a New Public Road connection. (Commissioner Assemi recused himself))

2.3a. Route Adoptions

A Route Adoption as a freeway at: 04-Sol-680-PM 11.2/13.1. Route 680 from Red Top Road to Route 80, in the county of Solano (Approved)

2.3b. New Public Road Connections

New Public Road Connection to Route 99 at Veterans Boulevard, in the city of Fresno. 06-Fre-99-PM 29.5 (Approved (Commissioner Assemi recused himself))

2.3c. Route Relinquishments

Five Relinquishment Resolutions: (Approved)

1. 05-SB-225-PM 0.05/R4.55 Right of way on Route 225 on Las Positas Road, Cliff Drive, and Castillo Street, in the city of Santa Barbara. This was a relinquishment authorized by a previous statute (e.g., it was actual relinquishment of the route in the City of Santa Barbara).
2. 07-LA-405-PM 27.0/27.1 Right of way adjacent to Route 405 between Sawtelle Boulevard and Barman Avenue, in the city of Culver City.
3. 10-Cal-4-PM R14.7 Right of way along Route 4 on Pool Station Road, in the county of Calaveras.
4. 11-SD-905-PM R8.8/R11.0 Right of way along Route 905 between Britannia Boulevard and Airway Road, in the city of San Diego.
5. 11-SD-905-PM 8.2/R8.8 Right of way along Route 905 between Cactus Road and Britannia Boulevard, in the city of San Diego.

2.3d. Route Vacations

One Vacation Resolution: 10-Cal-4-PM R14.5/R14.7 Right of way along Route 4 at Pool Station Road, in the county of Calaveras. (Approved)

2.5b. Financial Allocations for SHOPP Projects

(1) Financial Allocation: $67,165,000 for 14 SHOPP projects, programmed, as follows: (Approved)

• $61,723,000 for 12 SHOPP projects°. These include pavement rehabilitation, erosion control, curb reconstruction and similar minor projects along Route 1 and Route 128 ($1.985M, Men-PM 40.1/40.9), Route 299 ($350K, Tri-PM 48.3), Route 299 ($8.6M, Tri-PM 53.5/64.0), Route 17 ($536K, SCl-PM 1.9/5.8), Route 198 ($4.899M, Kin-PM R14.7/R17.9), Route 2 ($260K, SBd-PM 3.6/4.1), I-40 ($21.932M, SBd-PM R73.0/R89.0), Route 247 ($1.212M, SBd-PM 1.8/9.6), US 395 ($3.985M, Mno-PM R6.9/R10.3), Route 165 ($5.027M, Mer-PM 26.7/30.0), I-15 ($445K, SD-PM R54.0).
• $5,442,000 for two projects amended into the SHOPP by Departmental action°. These are similar minor projects: Route 1 ($1.710M, Son-PM 29.9), Route 17 ($3.732M, SCr-PM 9.4/10.1)

2.5c. Financial Allocations for STIP Projects

(1a) Financial Allocation: $34,599,000 for two State administered STIP projects on the State Highway System.° Contributions from other sources: $41,377,000. Both projects are reconstructions of existing interchanges: US 101 – $19M to reconstruct the Broadway overcrossing in Burlingame; Route 198 – $15.599M to reconstruct the 12th Ave interchange in Hanford. (Approved)

2.5g. Financial Allocations for Proposition 1B TCIF Projects

(5a) Financial Allocation: $4,361,000 for the locally administered TCIF Project 97-Feather River Boulevard / Route 70 Interchange (PPNO 0363D) project, in Yuba County, on the State Highway System. Contributions from other sources: $12,139,000. (Approved)

---

^† If you hadn’t figured it out by now, I’m not focused on taking pictures of highways. I’m not concerned with signage, or whether Caltrans is doing it right or wrong when contrasted with other states. I try not to hypothesize where routes should go — I focus on where they are and where they went in the past. I try to remain focused on facts — if I talk about an adopted route, that’s because I’ve seen the specifics of the adoption. Far too often, “road scholars” want the world to have a perfect sense of order to it, with everything consistent in terms of numbering, marking, and usage; I’ve learned in my soon-to-be 54 years that the real world, alas, doesn’t have that sense of order (and wishing and discussions won’t bring it). I also understand that some changes, although reasonable, are expensive and simply do not fit within budget strictures (this is common for simple signing changes, which are often quite complicated). So I don’t try to make sense of it; I just try to report it.