![\"\"](\"https:\/\/cahighways.org\/wordpress\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/12\/userpicroadgeeking.jpg\")
Whew! It’s been busy, as I’ve been getting ready for retirement come July 1. But I’ve been able to squeeze in some time to finally finish the highway page updates. Consider it your Easter present, if you so observe. I promise there aren’t any rotten eggs here.<\/p>\n
This update covers January, February, and March 2025. Before we dive into the updates to the California Highways site, an update on the\u00a0California Highways: Route by Route<\/em><\/a>\u00a0podcast. As always, you can keep up with the show at the podcast’s forever home at\u00a0https:\/\/www.caroutebyroute.org<\/a>\u00a0,\u00a0the show’s page on Spotify for Podcasters<\/a>, or you can subscribe through your favorite podcaster or via the RSS feeds (CARxR<\/a>,\u00a0Spotify for Podcasters<\/a>) . The following episodes have been posted since the last update just before the end of December:<\/p>\n Turning to the updates to the California Highways pages: Updates were made to the following highways, based on my reading of the (virtual) papers and my research for the podcast in January and February 2025 (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(\u2131)<\/sup>, contributions of information or leads (via direct mail or\u00a0\ua732Roads<\/span>) from\u00a0Bickendan<\/span>(2)<\/sup>,\u00a0DTComposer<\/span>(3)<\/sup>, Tom Fearer(4)<\/sup>, Mark Furqueron(5)<\/sup>, Mike Palmer(6)<\/sup>,\u00a0Plutonic Panda<\/span>(7)<\/sup>, Huntington W. Sharp(8)<\/sup>,\u00a0Voyager<\/span>(9)<\/sup>]: Route\u00a01<\/a>(4)<\/sup>, I-5<\/a>(\u2131)<\/sup>, US\u00a06<\/a>(5)<\/sup>, Sign Route\u00a07<\/a>(\u2131)<\/sup>, Route\u00a037<\/a>(\u2131)<\/sup>, US\u00a050<\/a>(\u2131,4)<\/sup>,\u00a0 Route\u00a051<\/a>\/Business Route\u00a080<\/a>(\u2131)<\/sup>, Route\u00a054<\/a>(\u2131)<\/sup>, Route\u00a055<\/a>(\u2131)<\/sup>, Route\u00a057<\/a>(\u2131)<\/sup>, Route\u00a067<\/a>(\u2131)<\/sup>, Route\u00a068<\/a>(4)<\/sup>, Route\u00a070<\/a>(\u2131)<\/sup>, Route\u00a071<\/a>(\u2131)<\/sup>, Route\u00a072<\/a>(\u2131,6)<\/sup>, Route\u00a074<\/a>(\u2131)<\/sup>,\u00a0 Route\u00a090<\/a>(2)<\/sup>, Route\u00a091<\/a>(\u2131)<\/sup>, Route\u00a092<\/a>(6)<\/sup>, Route\u00a099<\/a>(\u2131,4)<\/sup>, US\u00a0101<\/a>(\u2131,5,3,6)<\/sup>, I-105<\/a>(7)<\/sup>, Route\u00a0108<\/a>(9)<\/sup>, Route\u00a0118<\/a>(\u2131)<\/sup>, Route\u00a0120<\/a>(\u2131)<\/sup>, LRN\u00a0126<\/a>(4)<\/sup>, Route\u00a0138<\/a>(\u2131)<\/sup>, Route\u00a0145<\/a>(4)<\/sup>, Route\u00a0152<\/a>(\u2131)<\/sup>, Route\u00a0156<\/a>(\u2131)<\/sup>,\u00a0 LRN\u00a0158<\/a>(\u2131)<\/sup>, LRN\u00a0159<\/a>(5)<\/sup>, Route\u00a0170<\/a>(5)<\/sup>, Route\u00a0180<\/a>(\u2131,4)<\/sup>, Route\u00a0198<\/a>(\u2131)<\/sup>, I-210<\/a>(\u2131)<\/sup>, Route\u00a0216<\/a>(\u2131)<\/sup>, Route\u00a0217<\/a>(\u2131)<\/sup>, Route\u00a0275<\/a>(8)<\/sup>, I-280<\/a>(\u2131)<\/sup>,\u00a0 US\u00a0395<\/a>(\u2131,4)<\/sup>, I-580<\/a>(\u2131)<\/sup>, I-680<\/a>(\u2131)<\/sup>, I-710<\/a>(\u2131)<\/sup>. Added the 1925 Highway Advisory Committee Report(4)<\/sup>\u00a0to the Chronology pages. Added a lot of information from “The Implications of Freeway Siting in California: Four Case Studies on the Effects of Freeways on Neighborhoods of Color<\/em><\/a>“, UCLA Inst. for Transportation Studies, 2023 to a number of pages (I-210<\/a>, Route\u00a0118<\/a>, I-5<\/a>, US\u00a050<\/a>, Route\u00a099<\/a>, Route\u00a051<\/a>, I-280<\/a>, I-680<\/a>). I mention the report in particular because it contains a lot of useful historic information on the freeway planning and construction. The report is also\u00a0at risk<\/em>\u00a0from the current political administration, as due to their hatred of anything DEI, it is subject to removal. Whether or not you agree with the administration, historical information such as this (as well as\u00a0related articles<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0sites<\/a>) should be preserved. Made more updates to pages based on podcast research, and the various rabbit-holes that research takes me down: LRN\u00a04<\/a>, US\u00a06<\/a>, LRN\u00a06<\/a>, Sign Route\u00a07<\/a>, LRN\u00a07<\/a>, LRN\u00a08<\/a>, Route\u00a014<\/a>, Route\u00a021<\/a>, LRN\u00a023<\/a>, LRN\u00a026<\/a>, Route\u00a029<\/a>, Route\u00a037<\/a>, US\u00a040<\/a>, LRN\u00a074<\/a>, LRN\u00a079<\/a>, US\u00a099<\/a>, US\u00a0101<\/a>, Route\u00a0103<\/a>, Route\u00a0121<\/a>, Route\u00a0126<\/a>, Route\u00a0134<\/a>, Route\u00a0141<\/a>, LRN\u00a0161<\/a>, Route\u00a0163<\/a>, Route\u00a0170<\/a>, Route\u00a0190<\/a>, Route\u00a0221<\/a>, LRN\u00a0240<\/a>, LRN\u00a0265<\/a>, US\u00a0395<\/a>, I-680<\/a>, I-710<\/a>, I-780<\/a>.<\/p>\n Added back links to Mark Furqueron’s pages,\u00a0which are still out on the Internet Archive<\/a>. Did some additional updates to the map page links, as I discovered some sources have gone away or changed URLs.<\/p>\n Reviewed\u00a0the Pending Legislation page<\/a>, based on the\u00a0California\u00a0<\/a>Legislature site<\/a>, for bills through 2025-04-05. 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>\u00a0(updated for 2025) to the end of the Pending Legislation page.We’re early in the legislative session, when legislators justify their pay by introducing lots of legislation, most of which goes nowhere. They also introduce lots of “non-substantive changes” legislation, which allows them to amend the legislation later in the session, after the deadline to introduce new bills have passed. By the way, this is what makes monitoring legislation hard: by the end of a session, a bill may have changed into something completely unrelated to the original bill introduced. More significantly, a non-transportation or non-substantive transportation bill may have morphed into something of interest. So far, in this session, it is just deciding what to monitor.<\/p>\n Reviewed\u00a0the online agenda of the California Coastal Commission<\/a>. There was no meeting in January. In the February and March meetings, the only item of interest related to Route\u00a01<\/a>\u00a0in Big Sur.<\/p>\n I checked\u00a0California Transportation Commission<\/a>\u00a0page for the results of the January 2025\u00a0meeting<\/a>\u00a0of the\u00a0California Transportation Commission<\/a>. As always, note that I tend not to track items that do not impact these pages \u2014 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\u2660\u00a0is an indicator used to keep track of what has been added to the pages;\u00a0\u2767\u00a0<\/span>indicates the results from the meeting, if the meeting minutes were available. ]<\/p>\n \u2660\u00a0(Jan) (1) SHOPP Amendments for Approval: Request to: 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).\u00a0 \u201c\u2298\u201d indicates\u00a0phase not programmed<\/em>.<\/p>\n \u2660\u00a0(Mar) (1) SHOPP Amendments for Approval: Request to: 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).\u00a0 \u201c\u2298\u201d indicates\u00a0phase not programmed<\/em>.<\/p>\n \u2660\u00a0(Mar) (2) STIP Amendment for Action: The Department and San Luis Obispo Council of Governments propose to amend the 2024 STIP to reflect changes to five projects in San Luis Obispo County, as follows: \u2660\u00a0(Jan) (1) STIP Amendment for Notice: The Department and San Luis Obispo Council of Governments propose to amend the 2024 STIP to reflect changes to five projects in San Luis Obispo County, as follows:<\/p>\n There were no items of interest for this agenda item in the reviewed minutes.<\/p>\n There were no items of interest for this agenda item in the reviewed minutes.<\/p>\n There were no items of interest for this agenda item in the reviewed minutes.<\/p>\n There were no items of interest for this agenda item in the reviewed minutes.<\/p>\n \u2660\u00a0(Jan) (1) Approval of Six Projects for Future Consideration of Funding: (\u00b0 indicates items that were below the level of detail for updating the specific route pages)<\/p>\n\n
\n(Source: private email through 4\/26\/2025, Highway headline posts through the March 2025 Headline post, AARoads through 4\/22\/2025)<\/cite><\/span><\/p>\n\n2.1a. STIP\/SHOPP Program\/Project Amendments<\/h4>\n
\n(Related Items under Ref. 2.5b.(1) and 2.5b.(2))<\/p>\n\n
\n
04-Nap-121 7.2\/7.4. PPNO 04-1483B; ProjID 0414000097; EA 0J890. Route\u00a0121<\/a>\u00a0in the city of Napa, at the intersection with Third Street\/East Avenue\/Coombsville Road. Construct intersection improvements. Additional non-SHOPP contribution of $1,153,000 for R\/W cap; Additional contribution of $3,748,000 for PA&ED, $2,000,000 for PS&E, $1,000,000 for R\/W cap from City of Napa; Additional contribution of $2,000,000 for CONST from Metropolitan Transportation Commission.<\/del>\u00a0Note: Delete project. Due to COVID-related financial challenges, the City of Napa suspended work from early 2020 to August 2022 and was unable to complete PA&ED on time. This project will be reprogrammed in the future.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\n(Related Items under Ref. 2.5b.(1), 2.5b.(2), and 2.5d.(3))<\/p>\n\n
\n
$2,826<\/del>\u00a0$2,721<\/ins>; R\/W Cap $800; Const Cap\u00a0$5,663<\/del>\u00a0$5,513<\/ins>; TOTAL\u00a0$13,218<\/del>\u00a0$12,963<\/ins><\/li>\n$4,668<\/del>\u00a0$4,555<\/ins>; R\/W Cap $993; Const Cap\u00a0$49,684<\/del>\u00a0$48,729<\/ins>; TOTAL\u00a0$59,673<\/del>\u00a0$58,605<\/ins><\/li>\nconstruct concrete barrier,<\/del>\u00a0and upgrade signs, facilities to Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards<\/del>, and Transportation\u00a0 Management System (TMS) elements. Note: Project description inaccurately included ADA facility improvements and concrete barrier work, and did not include bridge replacements and widening work. No new scope has been added or deleted from the project. No allocation changes.<\/li>\nR0.4\/2.0<\/del>\u00a0R0.4\/2.1<\/ins>. PPNO 07-6024; ProjID 0722000334; EA 39020. Route\u00a047<\/a>\u00a0in the city of Los Angeles, near the Port of Long Beach, at Vincent Thomas Bridge \u2116 53-1471. Replace bridge deck and seismic sensors. This is a Construction Manager\/General Contractor (CMGC) project. (G13 Contingency) Note: The design methodology is changed from orthotropic steel to pre-cast concrete panels for deck replacement,\u00a0 reducing the construction capital. Increase in R\/W capital is due to six additional temporary easements required.\u00a0 Increase in construction support is due to increase in number of working days to account for preliminary construction\u00a0 work needed prior to full closure of the bridge during construction and due to complexity of establishing detours. Allocation ($ \u00d7 $1000) PA&ED $17,140;\u00a0PS&E $20,900; R\/W Sup $17;\u00a0\u2298Con Sup\u00a0$39,840<\/del>\u00a0$46,336<\/ins>; R\/W Cap\u00a0$30<\/del>\u00a0$3,230<\/ins>;\u00a0\u2298Const Cap\u00a0$628,464<\/del>\u00a0$618,589<\/ins>; TOTAL\u00a0$706,391<\/del>\u00a0$706,212<\/ins><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\n(Related Items under Ref. 2.2c.(7), 2.5w.(1), and 4.20)<\/p>\n\n
2.1b. STIP Program\/Project Amendments\/Approvals for Notice<\/h4>\n
\n
2.1c. TCIF Baseline Amendments<\/h4>\n
2.1s. TCEP Baseline Amendments<\/h4>\n
2.2a. Submittal of Notice of Preparation for Comments<\/h4>\n
2.2b. Submittal of Notice of Documents Available for Comment (DEIRs)<\/h4>\n
2.2c. Approval of Projects for New Public Road Connection \/ Future Consideration of Funding<\/h4>\n
\n
\n(Related Item under Ref. 2.5b.(2))<\/li>\n
\n(Related Item under Ref. 2.5b.(2))<\/li>\n
\n(Related Item under Ref. 2.5b.(2))<\/li>\n
\n(Related Item under Ref. 2.5b.(2))<\/li>\n