![\"\"](\"https:\/\/cahighways.org\/wordpress\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/12\/userpicroadgeeking.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
And with that, 2020 comes to a close. What a year it has been. We started out thinking this was going to be a somewhat normal election year. What we ended up with was a dumpster fire: a year consumed by a pandemic, with far too many deaths, far too many trips curtailed, and an election that seems to never want to end. There are some things you don’t want to see in your rear view mirror, such as a CHP cruiser with red lights flashing. But there are somethings that are best in the rear view, receding away. 2020 is in that latter group.<\/p>\n
But as we enter 2021, we can take some comfort in that we’ve been rebuilding the roadbed, and that rebuilt foundation should be strong. We need to watch out for the fringes of the road. If they continue to deteriorate, they can weaken the stability of the entire road. But if we take care to not let the fringes (on either side) overwhelm us, and if we follow both the written and unwritten rules of the road, we should be able to travel safe. May 2021 see us all arrive at our destinations safely, and see us back on the roads and byways of this great land.<\/p>\n
On to the updates.<\/p>\n
Updates were made to the following highways, based on my reading of the papers (which are posted to\u00a0the roadgeeking category at the “Observations Along The Road”<\/a>\u00a0and to the\u00a0California Highways Facebook group<\/a>) as well as any backed up email changes. I also reviewed the\u00a0the AAroads forum (\ua732)<\/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 or\u00a0\ua732Roads<\/span>) from Michael Ballard(2)<\/sup>, Nathaniel B(3)<\/sup>, Mark Dierking\/Metro.Net(4)<\/sup>, Tom Fearer(5)<\/sup>, Andy Field(6)<\/sup>, Kurumi(7)<\/sup>, John Lumea(8)<\/sup>, Scott Parker(9)<\/sup>, Joe Rouse(10)<\/sup>, Chris Sampang(11)<\/sup>, Joel Windmiller(12)<\/sup>: Route\u00a01<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, Route\u00a03<\/a>(5,9)<\/sup>, Route\u00a04<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, I-5<\/a>(1,5,2)<\/sup>, Route\u00a011<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, Route\u00a012<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, Route\u00a020<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, Route\u00a025<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, Route\u00a029<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, Route\u00a033<\/a>(11,9)<\/sup>, Route\u00a036<\/a>(5)<\/sup>, Route\u00a038<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, I-40<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, US\u00a048<\/a>(5)<\/sup>, Route\u00a049<\/a>(1,5)<\/sup>, US\u00a050<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, Route\u00a051<\/a>(12)<\/sup>, Route\u00a052<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, Route\u00a055<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, Route\u00a057<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, Route\u00a058<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, Route\u00a060<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, Route\u00a071<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, Route\u00a074<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, Route\u00a076<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, Route\u00a078<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, I-80<\/a>(1,3,8)<\/sup>, Route\u00a091<\/a>(1,5)<\/sup>, Route\u00a092<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, Route\u00a096<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, US\u00a097<\/a>(5)<\/sup>, US\u00a099<\/a>(2,5,12)<\/sup>, US\u00a0101<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, I-105<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, Route\u00a0108<\/a>(1,5)<\/sup>, Route\u00a0120<\/a>(1,5)<\/sup>, Route\u00a0125<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, Route\u00a0140<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, Route\u00a0156<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, Route\u00a0172<\/a>(5)<\/sup>, Route\u00a0180<\/a>(5)<\/sup>, Route\u00a0219<\/a>(5)<\/sup>, Route\u00a0221<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, Route\u00a0254<\/a>(5)<\/sup>,\u00a0 Route\u00a0262<\/a>(11)<\/sup>, Route\u00a0263<\/a>(5)<\/sup>, Route\u00a0265<\/a>(5)<\/sup>, Route\u00a0271<\/a>(5)<\/sup>, I-280<\/a>(7,9)<\/sup>, US\u00a0395<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, I-405<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, I-580<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, I-605<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, I-680<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, I-710<\/a>(1,4)<\/sup>, Route\u00a0740<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, I-880<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, Route\u00a0905<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, County Sign Route\u00a0A12<\/a>(5)<\/sup>, County Sign Route\u00a0A28<\/a>(5)<\/sup>, County Sign Route\u00a0G15<\/a>(5)<\/sup>, County Sign Route\u00a0S21<\/a>(1)<\/sup>.<\/p>\n Added a link for the newly created\u00a0Historic Highway 99 Association of California<\/a>\u00a0to all the appropriate places. Added a page on the\u00a0US Bicycle Route System<\/a>, as County Sign Route\u00a0S21<\/a>\u00a0was about to be designated as part of USBRS Route\u00a095. Added a link to the\u00a01935 State Highway Map<\/a>(5)<\/sup>. Update\u00a0the page on exit numbering<\/a>(6,10)<\/sup>.<\/p>\n Reviewed\u00a0the Pending Legislation page<\/a>, based on the\u00a0new California\u00a0<\/a>Legislature site<\/a>. As usual, I recommend to\u00a0every\u00a0<\/em>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\u00a0the legislative calendar<\/a>\u00a0to the end of the Pending Legislation page. A new legislative session started after the November elections; all of the 2019-2020 bills are dead. For the 2021-2022 legislative session, this is extremely early in the session and there were very few bills to review, and even fewer related to transportation.<\/p>\n I checked\u00a0California Transportation Commission<\/a>\u00a0page for the results of the\u00a0California Transportation Commission<\/a>\u00a0meetings<\/a>\u00a0from October through December 2020. 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:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n [ Note: \u00b0 indicates items that were below the level of detail for updating the specific route pages;\u00a0♠\u00a0is an indicator used to keep track of what has been added to the pages;\u00a0\u2767\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0indicates the results from the meeting, if the meeting minutes were available. ]<\/p>\n ♠\u00a0(Oct) (1) SHOPP Amendments for Approval:\u00a0\u2767 Approved<\/span> Of these, the following projects\/allocation were at the level of interest for the highway pages (general, these are significant new structures or changes, as opposed to repair or rehabilitation in place; additions of bike paths, pedestrian, or complete street elements; or non-visible changes):<\/p>\n ♠\u00a0(Dec) (1) SHOPP Amendments for Approval: Request to: (Related Items under Ref., 2.3a.(1), 2.3a.(2), 2.3c.(2), 2.5b.(1), and 2.5b.(4))<\/p>\n Of these, the following projects\/allocation were at the level of interest for the highway pages (general, these are significant new structures or changes, as opposed to repair or rehabilitation in place; additions of bike paths, pedestrian, or complete street elements; or non-visible changes):<\/p>\n Although they did not rise to the level of interest for the pages, a large number of items were related to damage from the summer and fall fires. Here are some examples:<\/p>\n I don’t think I’ve ever seen a fire season like this. The impact on the highways of California has been significant.<\/p>\n ♠\u00a0\u00a0(Dec) (2) STIP Amendment for Action: The Department proposes to amend the US\u00a0395<\/a>\u00a0\u2013 Olancha-Cartago 4-lane expressway (PPNO 0170) project in Inyo County, to split a portion of scope to construct the Olancha and Cartago Expressway Desert Tortoise Exclusion fence. (PPNO 0170B) STIP Amendment 20S-03 (Related Item under Ref. 2.5c.(5))<\/p>\n ♠\u00a0\u00a0(Oct) (1) STIP Amendment for Notice: The Department proposes to amend the US\u00a0395<\/a>\u00a0\u2013 Olancha-Cartago 4-lane expressway (PPNO 0170) in Inyo County, to separate out the Desert Tortoise mitigation identified as the Olancha and Cartago Expressway Desert Tortoise Exclusion Fence Project (PPNO 0170B) (STIP Amendment 20S-03)\u00a0\u2767 Information Only<\/span><\/p>\n\n2.1a. STIP\/SHOPP Program\/Project Amendments<\/h4>\n
\nRequest to: (SHOPP Amendment 20H-003) (Related Items under Ref. 2.5b.(1), 2.5b.(2) and 2.5d.(5))<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
$7K<\/del>\u00a0$136K<\/ins>; and Const Cap\u00a0$2,879K<\/del>\u00a0$2,750K<\/ins>. The total remains the same. Explanation: To minimize the risk of delays to this safety project, the removal of trees and shrubs will be done during non-bird- nesting period prior to construction under a separate contract, thus increasing R\/W capital and decreasing construction capital.<\/li>\n$20K<\/del>\u00a0$74K<\/ins>; Total\u00a0$5,780K<\/del>\u00a0$5,834K<\/ins>. Explanation:\u00a0 Increase in R\/W capital is due to additional work for positive location of underground utilities.<\/li>\nPavement rehabilitation.<\/del>\u00a0Financial Contribution Only (FCO) to Kern County for pavement rehabilitation to relinquish by relocating a portion of the route.<\/ins>\u00a0The change zeroes the previous programming for PS&E ($1,200K<\/del>) R\/W Sup ($250K<\/del>) and Con Sup ($1,900K<\/del>). It increases Const Cap ($7,000K<\/del>\u00a0$10,650K<\/ins>). This increases the total for the project by $300K. (Concurrent CONST allocation under Resolution FP-20-41; December 2020.)\u00a0 (Concurrent relinquishment agreements under Resolutions R-4056 and R-4057; December 2020.)\u00a0Note<\/u>: Accelerate project to accommodate relinquishment. This portion of the route is being relocated to a new alignment previously constructed by local agencies.\u00a0 This project is a Financial Contribution Only (FCO) to allow Kern County to bring pavement to good repair after relinquishment.<\/li>\n1.4\/6.9<\/del>\u00a04.0\/6.9<\/ins>\u00a0PPNO 07-4982 ProjID 0716000042 EA 32080. Route\u00a0164<\/a>\u00a0In the cities of\u00a0Whittier,\u00a0<\/del>South\u00a0El\u00a0<\/ins>Monte,\u00a0El Monte,<\/ins>\u00a0and<\/del>\u00a0Rosemead,\u00a0and Temple City<\/ins>, from\u00a0Gallatin Road<\/del>\u00a0Rush Street<\/ins>\u00a0to Rudell Underpass. Upgrade curb ramps, sidewalks and pathways to meet current Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards. Programmed funding changes (in thousands): Con Sup\u00a0\u00a0$2,714<\/del>\u00a0\u00a0$2,000<\/ins>; R\/W Cap\u00a0\u00a0$952<\/del>\u00a0$720<\/ins>;\u00a0 Const Cap\u00a0\u00a0$5,803<\/del>\u00a0\u00a0$5,626<\/ins>; Total\u00a0$14,569<\/del>\u00a0$13,446<\/ins>. Explanation:\u00a0Change to postmile limits due to a partial relinquishment of Route\u00a0164<\/a>.<\/strong>\u00a0 Update of performance measure because some curb ramps were removed from the relinquished segment, and some remaining curb ramps were changed from one corner curb ramp to two directional ramps.\u00a0 Construction support, R\/W capital, and construction capital were updated to reflect the revised project limits and updated survey mapping.<\/li>\nRetrofit bridge footings,<\/del>\u00a0Replace bridges,<\/ins>\u00a0replace and expand Rock Slope Protection (RSP) limits. Programmed allocation changes (in thousands): Con Sup\u00a0$2,538<\/del>\u00a0$4,776<\/ins>; Const Cap\u00a0$9,652<\/del>\u00a0$15,880<\/ins>; Total\u00a0$15,571<\/del>\u00a0$24,037<\/ins>. Note: The scope of this project is changing from scour mitigation to bridge replacement because the scour specialist determined that the previous strategy of micro piles should not be used in soils susceptible to liquefaction and bridge replacement would be a preferred strategy.\u00a0 Increase construction support because more working days will be required and increase construction capital because of the additional costs involved in bridge replacement.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n
2.1b. STIP Program\/Project Amendments\/Approvals for Notice<\/h4>\n