{"id":2104,"date":"2007-03-25T10:22:00","date_gmt":"2007-03-25T17:22:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/cahighways.org\/wordpress\/?p=2104"},"modified":"2007-03-25T10:22:00","modified_gmt":"2007-03-25T17:22:00","slug":"februarymarch-updates-to-calfornia-highways","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cahighways.org\/wordpress\/?p=2104","title":{"rendered":"February\/March Updates to Calfornia Highways"},"content":{"rendered":"

Well, they\u2019re finally done. This round was a bear, with lots of legislative stuff<\/a> to go through (the assembly<\/a> and senate<\/a> have been busy). I do recommend looking at some of the stuff I highlighted. I also got to go through all the Corridor Mobility Improvement Account<\/a> stuff (Prop 1B). <\/p>\n

Want to know more? Then…
\n<\/p>\n

It’s been a busy time, and live theatre every weekend in February\t\t\t and March has left me little time to update California Highways<\/i>. But\t\t\t I’ve set aside one day, so here are the updates…<\/p>\n

First, I did the usual round of link updates, discovered from my\t\t\t monthly review of M.T.R. and a few mailed postings.<\/p>\n

Next, I updated information on the following routes, based on my\t\t\t research(1)<\/sup>, and contributions of information on leads (via direct\t\t\t mail or Usenet) from Gary Araki(2)<\/sup>, David Arana(3)<\/sup>, Scott\t\t\t en Aztlan(4)<\/sup>, Concrete Bob(5)<\/sup>, Timothy\t\t\t Edwards(6)<\/sup>, Jon Enslin(7)<\/sup>, Cameron Kaiser(8)<\/sup>,\t\t\t Daniel Ketchum(9)<\/sup>, Michael G. Koerner(10)<\/sup>, Steve\t\t\t Lustro(11)<\/sup>, Brandon Rock(12)<\/sup>, and Sean\t\t\t Tongson(13)<\/sup>:Route\u00a022<\/a>(4)<\/sup>, Route\u00a057<\/a>(11)<\/sup>, Route\u00a065<\/a>(10, 5)<\/sup>,\t\t\t Route\u00a071<\/a>(6)<\/sup>, Route\u00a074<\/a>(6)<\/sup>, Route\u00a085<\/a>(1, 13)<\/sup>, Route\u00a090<\/a>(6)<\/sup>, Route\u00a091<\/a>(8)<\/sup>, Route\u00a092<\/a>(3)<\/sup>, Route\u00a099<\/a>(2)<\/sup>, Route\u00a0130<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, Route\u00a0229<\/a>(9)<\/sup>, US\u00a0101<\/a>(7)<\/sup>, US\u00a0395<\/a>(6)<\/sup>, I-210<\/a>(8)<\/sup>, I-405<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, and LRN\u00a014<\/a>(12)<\/sup><\/p>\n

Updated the legislative information\t\t\t page<\/a>. No bills of interest passed, but the legislature has been very, very\t\t\t busy. I do suggest that folks take a look at the bills I found of interest:\t\t\t some may surprise you. In particular, there were a large number of bills\t\t\t declaring the intent of the legislature to dictate the process of allocating\t\t\t money from the Prop 1B bonds. My guess is that the assemblycritters didn’t like\t\t\t their districts being shortchanged, and are trying to hijack the process. A\t\t\t number of this bills seem to make non-substantive changes to laws. My guess is\t\t\t that these bills are placeholders for future gut-and-rewrites, as there is a\t\t\t particular date after which bills may no longer be introduced. All this teaches\t\t\t me is that we need to watch our elected officials carefully. I’m beginning to\t\t\t think that every bill should require inclusion of the proposer’s real rationale\t\t\t behind submitting the bill. <\/p>\n

I’ll note that one non-transit bill of interest did pass:<\/p>\n