![\"\"](\"https:\/\/cahighways.org\/wordpress\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/12\/userpicroadgeeking.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
We’re up to the closing three-day weekend of the summer, and that means it is time to start on a website update. It’s been a busy summer and a hot summer, with an almost 4,900 road trip from Los Angeles CA to Madison WI and back, out through the middle (Colorado, Nebraska) and back through St. Louis and the “mother road”. Work has continued on California Highways, especially thanks to some tax modifications that provided a much needed infrastructure boost to the state. As for that promised Infrastructure bill from the Feds, it remains just that, a promise.<\/p>\n
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”<\/a> and to the California Highways Facebook group<\/a>) as well as any backed up email changes. I also reviewed the the AAroads forum<\/a>. This resulted in changes on the following routes, with credit as indicated [my research(1)<\/sup>, contributions of information or leads (via direct mail) from Mike Ballard(2)<\/sup>, Bill Deaver(3)<\/sup>, Andy Field(4)<\/sup>, Gonealookin\/AARoads<\/sub>(5)<\/sup>, Ron Langum(6)<\/sup>, NE2\/AARoads<\/sub>(7)<\/sup>, Alex Nitzman(8)<\/sup>, Max Rockatansky\/AARoads<\/sub>(9)<\/sup>, Joe Rouse(10)<\/sup>, Sparker\/AARoads<\/sub>(11)<\/sup>; Michelle Sandoval(12)<\/sup>, Richard Severeid(13)<\/sup>: Route\u00a01<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, Route\u00a04<\/a>(6)<\/sup>, I-5<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, Former US\u00a06<\/a>(2)<\/sup>, I-8<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, I-10<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, Route\u00a012<\/a>(13)<\/sup>, I-15<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, Route\u00a016<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, Route\u00a025<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, Route\u00a027<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, Route\u00a029<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, Route\u00a032<\/a>(9)<\/sup>, Route\u00a036<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, LRN\u00a036<\/a>(7,9,11)<\/sup>, Route\u00a037<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, US\u00a040<\/a>(9)<\/sup>, Route\u00a041<\/a>(9,11)<\/sup>, Route\u00a043<\/a>(9)<\/sup>, Route\u00a049<\/a>(1,9,7,11)<\/sup>, US\u00a050<\/a>(1,5,9)<\/sup>, Route\u00a057<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, Route\u00a058<\/a>(1,10)<\/sup>, Route\u00a062<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, Route\u00a063<\/a>(7,9,11)<\/sup>, Route\u00a065<\/a>(9)<\/sup>, Former US\u00a066<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, Route\u00a070<\/a>(9)<\/sup>, Route\u00a075<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, Route\u00a076<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, I-80<\/a>(1,9)<\/sup>, Route\u00a087<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, Route\u00a088<\/a>(9,11)<\/sup>, Route\u00a089<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, Route\u00a091<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, Route\u00a094<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, LRN\u00a094<\/a>(11)<\/sup>, Route\u00a099<\/a>(1,13)<\/sup>, US\u00a0101<\/a>(1,4)<\/sup>, Route\u00a0104<\/a>(9,11)<\/sup>, Route\u00a0108<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, Route\u00a0120<\/a>(9)<\/sup>, LRN\u00a0120<\/a>(9)<\/sup>, Route\u00a0121<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, Route\u00a0124<\/a>(9,11)<\/sup>, Route\u00a0132<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, Route\u00a0134<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, LRN\u00a0135<\/a>(9)<\/sup>, Route\u00a0136<\/a>(9)<\/sup>, Route\u00a0138<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, Route\u00a0140<\/a>(9)<\/sup>, Route\u00a0145<\/a>(9)<\/sup>, Route\u00a0146<\/a>(9)<\/sup>, Route\u00a0152<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, Route\u00a0155<\/a>(11)<\/sup>, Route\u00a0158<\/a>(9)<\/sup>, Route\u00a0163<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, Route\u00a0172<\/a>(9,11,7)<\/sup>, Route\u00a0174<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, Route\u00a0178<\/a>(1,9)<\/sup>, Route\u00a0180<\/a>(9)<\/sup>, Route\u00a0201<\/a>(9)<\/sup>, Route\u00a0203<\/a>(9)<\/sup>, Route\u00a0204<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, Route\u00a0211<\/a>(11)<\/sup>, Route\u00a0237<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, Route\u00a0269<\/a>(9)<\/sup>, Route\u00a0270<\/a>(9)<\/sup>, US\u00a0395<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, I-405<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, US\u00a0466<\/a>(3)<\/sup>, Route\u00a0480<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, I-505<\/a>(8)<\/sup>, I-580<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, I-605<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, I-680<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, I-710<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, Monterey County Route G13<\/a>(9)<\/sup>, Monterey County Route G14<\/a>(9)<\/sup>, Tulare County Route J37<\/a>(9)<\/sup>; FAQ(12)<\/sup>. Note: Almost all of the SB 1 projects discussed here<\/a> are resurfacing or repair of infrastructure, not new construction or widening. Thus, they are below the level of detail that I normally capture in these pages.<\/p>\n Noted the passing of Matthew Salek’s Highways of Colorado<\/a> (and updated the regional pages appropriately). If I had lights, I’d dim them in it’s memory as another major roadsite disappears.<\/p>\n Updated the highway types page<\/a> to clarify the difference between being a scenic highway in the legislative code and being an actual state scenic highway. The Q2-2017 Mile Marker explained the difference: “Many highway corridors are eligible for Scenic Highway status, but receiving an official designation requires the local government to apply to Caltrans for approval and adopt a Corridor Protection Program. The local governing body must develop and implement measures that strictly limit development and control outdoor advertising along the scenic corridor. ”<\/p>\n Sometimes an innocent question can lead one down an interesting path. Such is the case with the question I received from David Walker, who asked “Who or what named the ditches on I-10<\/a>?”. This led me to UglyBridges.com and the National Bridge Inventory<\/a>. This resulted in an addition to the FAQ<\/a>, and a list of ditch names for I-10<\/a>. I thought I might add them for some other desert routes, but the interface doesn’t make that easy. Another query that didn’t lead to an easy update to the site was a reporter from the OC Register, Kurt Snibbe, who wanted to do a piece explaining California’s road signs<\/a>. It didn’t quite fit into a particular road’s page, and didn’t quite fit onto a specific numbering page, so it was shoehorned into the page on signing standards<\/a> and the FAQ<\/a>.<\/p>\n Reviewed the Pending Legislation page<\/a>, based on the new California <\/a>Legislature site<\/a>. As usual, I recommend to every <\/em>Californian that they visit the legislative website regularly and see what their legis-critters are doing. I noted the passage\/veto of the following bills and resolutions (for some of these, I’ve highlighted key phrases in red):<\/p>\n This bill would authorize the SBCTA, upon approval of its board of directors, to use the design-build contracting process for local agencies to award a contract for the construction of the Mt. Vernon Avenue Viaduct project in the City of San Bernardino (the project).<\/p>\n Existing law requires specified information submitted by a design-build entity, as defined, in the design-build procurement process to be certified under penalty of perjury.<\/p>\n By authorizing SBCTA to use design-build for the project, the bill would expand the scope of the crime of perjury and would thus impose a state-mandated local program.<\/p>\n This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the project.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.\n
\nExisting law authorizes the display of the Flag of the United States of America and the Flag of the State of California on a sidewalk located in or abutting on a state highway situated within a city, if the type of flagholder and the method of its installation and maintenance are not in violation of the Department of Transportation\u2019s rules.This bill would authorize a city or county to display the Flag of the United States of America or the Flag of the State of California, or both, as part of a gateway monument, as defined (a \u201cgateway monument\u201d means any freestanding structure or sign, or nonintegral or nonrequired highway feature, constructed within the state\u2019s right-of-way, that communicates the name of the city or county.)
\n09\/01\/17 Chaptered by Secretary of State – Chapter 201, Statutes of 2017.<\/span><\/li>\n
\nThe County Transportation Commissions Act provides for the creation of county transportation commissions in specific counties, with various powers and duties relative to transportation planning and funding, as specified.The San Bernardino County Transportation Authority Consolidation Act of 2017, within the County Transportation Commissions Act, creates the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA). The SBCTA is subject to the contracting provisions of the County Transportation Commissions Act, including the requirement that the SBCTA purchase of all supplies, equipment, and materials, and the construction of all facilities and works, in excess of $25,000, be by contract let to the lowest responsible bidder.Existing law, until January 1, 2025, authorizes local agencies to use the design-build contracting process for public works projects. Existing law defines \u201clocal agency\u201d as cities and counties, certain special districts relating to wastewater, solid waste, water recycling, and fire protection facilities, various governmental entities responsible for the construction of transit projects, and the San Diego Association of Governments. Existing law defines \u201cproject\u201d specifically for each described category of local agency.<\/p>\n
\n07\/31\/17 Chaptered by Secretary of State – Chapter 154, Statutes of 2017.<\/span><\/li>\n
\nExisting law requires the Department of Transportation to adopt rules and regulations that allow the placement, near exits on freeways in rural areas, of information signs identifying specific roadside businesses. Existing law generally prohibits the placement of a sign within an urban area with a population of 5,000 or more, with certain exceptions.This bill would add to the list of specific roadside businesses eligible for an information sign under these provisions a business offering electric vehicle charging facilities.
\n07\/31\/17 Chaptered by Secretary of State – Chapter 158, Statutes of 2017.<\/span><\/li>\n
\nDesignate the portion of Route\u00a0111<\/a> from Overture Drive (post mile 58.478) to West San Rafael Drive (post mile 54.413) in the County of Riverside as the “Police Officer Jose \u201cGil\u201d Vega and Police Officer Lesley Zerebny Memorial Highway<\/em>“.
\n08\/30\/17 Chaptered by Secretary of State – Res. Chapter 125, Statutes of 2017.<\/span><\/li>\n
\nDesignates the Palomar Street Bridge on I-805<\/a> in the City of Chula Vista, California, as the “Officer Jonathan M. De Guzman Memorial Bridge<\/em>“.
\n08\/30\/17 Chaptered by Secretary of State – Res. Chapter 126, Statutes of 2017.<\/span><\/li>\n
\nDesignates that portion of I-680<\/a> from Bollinger Canyon Road to Crow Canyon Road in the City of San Ramon in the County of Contra Costa as the “Detective Sergeant Thomas A. Smith, Jr. Memorial Highway<\/em>“.
\n08\/30\/17 Chaptered by Secretary of State – Res. Chapter 127, Statutes of 2017.<\/span><\/li>\n
\nDesignates the portion of I-5<\/a> from Route\u00a0118<\/a> to Route\u00a0170<\/a> in the County of Los Angeles as the “Ritchie Valens Memorial Highway<\/em>“.
\nthe portion of I-5<\/a> from Route\u00a0118<\/a> to Route\u00a0170<\/a> in the County of Los Angeles as the “Ritchie Valens Memorial Highway<\/em>“.
\n08\/30\/17 Chaptered by Secretary of State – Res. Chapter 128, Statutes of 2017.<\/span><\/li>\n
\nDesignates the I-80<\/a> overcrossing at Baxter Road (Post Mile 46.935) in the Village of Alta in Placer County as the “California Highway Patrol Officer Nathan Taylor Memorial Overcrossing<\/em>“.
\n08\/30\/17 Chaptered by Secretary of State – Res. Chapter 129, Statutes of 2017.<\/span><\/li>\n
\nDesignates the portion of US\u00a0395<\/a> from the South Fork Pit River Bridge (post mile 16.523) to a portion of the Modoc National Wildlife Refuge (post mile 20.000) in the County of Modoc as the “Deputy Sheriff Jack Hopkins Memorial Highway<\/em>“.
\n08\/30\/17 Chaptered by Secretary of State – Res. Chapter 130, Statutes of 2017.<\/span><\/li>\n