Thanksgiving weekend. The perfect time to thank everyone for their\t\t\t contributions of information to California Highways<\/i>. So, thank you!<\/p>\n
On to the updates:<\/p>\n
I didn’t receive any updates of links on external pages (i.e.,\t\t\t non-California). Please remember to mail them to me if you become aware of\t\t\t them. <\/p>\n
Based on my reading of the papers, some mailed in updates, and some\t\t\t updates from misc.transport.road, I updated information on the following\t\t\t routes, based on my research(1)<\/sup>, and contributions of information on\t\t\t leads (via direct mail or Usenet) from Andy Field(2)<\/sup>, and Dominic\t\t\t Ielati(3)<\/sup>: Updated the links to\t\t\t the\t\t\t CalNexus website<\/a>.<\/p>\n Updated the legislative information\t\t\t page<\/a>. Noted the passage (veto) of the following:<\/p>\n AB 43<\/b> (Leno). Gender-neutral marriage<\/i>. AB 102<\/b> (Ma) Marriage: domestic partnerships:\t\t\t\t name.<\/i> AB 321<\/b> (Nava) Vehicles: prima facie speed limits:\t\t\t\t schools.<\/i> AB 574<\/b> (Torrico) High-occupancy toll (HOT)\t\t\t\t lanes.<\/i> AB 1672<\/b> (Nunez) California Transportation\t\t\t\t Commission.<\/i> SB 163<\/b> (Migden) Yerba Buena Island ramp\t\t\t\t connections.<\/i> SB 224<\/b> (Battin) State Highway Routes 79 and 111:\t\t\t\t relinquishment.<\/i> SB 250<\/b> (Corbett) Gift certificates.<\/i> SB 549<\/b> (Corbett) Employee’s right to bereavement\t\t\t\t leave.<\/i> SB 717<\/b> (Perata) Transportation Investment\t\t\t\t Fund.<\/i> Reviewed the October and November\t\t\t CTC Summary and Web\t\t\t Books<\/a>. As they have done throughout the year, they didn’t make this easy,\t\t\t changing the web location yet again. I noted the following items for\t\t\t inclusion:<\/p>\n 2.1b. STIP Approvals\/Amendments<\/b> <\/p>\n 2.1c. Traffic Congestion Relief (TCR) Program Application\t\t\t\t Approvals\/Amendments<\/b> <\/p>\n 2.2a. Environmental Matters \u2013 Notice of Preparation of\t\t\t\t an Environmental Impact Report (EIR)<\/b> <\/p>\n 2.2b. Environmental Matters \u2013 Comments on Documents in\t\t\t\t Circulation (Draft EIR)<\/b> <\/p>\n 2.2c. Environmental Matters \u2013 Approval of Projects for\t\t\t\t Future Consideration of Funding, Route Adoption or New Public Road<\/b> <\/p>\n 2.3a. Route Adoptions<\/b> <\/p>\n 2.3b. New Public Road Connection<\/b> <\/p>\n 2.3c. Relinquishment Resolutions<\/b><\/p>\n None<\/p>\n<\/li>\n 2.3d. Vacation Resolutions<\/b><\/p>\n None<\/p>\n<\/li>\n 4. Policy Matters<\/b><\/p>\n Based on mail from Nathan Edgars II, there appears to be some\t\t\t significant work to be done on the chronology. This will likely be done during\t\t\t “shutdown” break in December. Nathan’s work is heavily focused on section\t\t\t numbers, which appear to be the LRN plus 300, but that isn’t consistent. He\t\t\t does have\t\t\t the\t\t\t 1963 legislative definitions<\/a> as well as\t\t\t the\t\t\t initial 1964 legislative definitions after the renumbering<\/a>. In particular,\t\t\t his\t\t\t chronology<\/a> focused on when the routes were added, and appears to have some\t\t\t good information. We disagree on the timing of some of the earliest routes,\t\t\t added before there were route numbers. Another interesting page is\t\t\t this\t\t\t one<\/a> and\t\t\t this\t\t\t one<\/a>.<\/p>\n <\/lj-raw><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Today was spent doing the November updates to California Highways.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[43,1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2550","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-roadgeeking","category-lj-xfer"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cahighways.org\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2550","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cahighways.org\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cahighways.org\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cahighways.org\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cahighways.org\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2550"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/cahighways.org\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2550\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cahighways.org\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2550"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cahighways.org\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2550"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cahighways.org\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2550"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
Route\u00a057<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, Route\u00a070<\/a>(3)<\/sup>, Route\u00a0125<\/a>(2)<\/sup>, Route\u00a0149<\/a>(3)<\/sup>, Route\u00a0163<\/a>(2)<\/sup>.<\/p>\n\n
This\t\t\t\t bill would enact the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act, which\t\t\t\t would provide that marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil\t\t\t\t contract between 2 persons (as opposed to “a man and a woman”). The bill would\t\t\t\t make conforming changes with regard to the consent to, and solemnization of,\t\t\t\t marriage, and would make related findings and declarations.
Vetoed By Governor. 10\/12\/2008<\/font><\/b> <\/p>\n<\/li>\n
This bill would require the Declaration of Domestic Partnership\t\t\t\t form to contain spaces for either party or both parties to indicate a change in\t\t\t\t name. This bill would allow, on and after January 1, 2009, one party or both\t\t\t\t parties to a marriage to elect to change the middle or last names by which that\t\t\t\t party wishes to be known after solemnization of the marriage.
Chaptered October 12, 2007. Chapter 567.<\/font><\/b><\/p>\n<\/li>\n
Existing law establishes a 25 miles per hour prima facie limit\t\t\t\t when approaching or passing a school building or the grounds thereof,\t\t\t\t contiguous to a highway and posted up to 500 feet away from the school grounds,\t\t\t\t with a standard “SCHOOL” warning sign, while children are going to or leaving\t\t\t\t the school either during school hours or during the noon recess period. The\t\t\t\t prima facie limit also applies when approaching or passing school grounds that\t\t\t\t are not separated from the highway by a fence, gate, or other physical barrier\t\t\t\t while the grounds are in use by children and the highway is posted with a\t\t\t\t standard “SCHOOL” warning sign. A violation of that prima facie limit is an\t\t\t\t infraction. Existing law allows a city or county, based on an engineering and\t\t\t\t traffic survey that the prima facie speed limit of 25 miles per hour is more\t\t\t\t than is reasonable or safe, by ordinance or resolution, to determine and\t\t\t\t declare a prima facie speed limit of 20 or 15 miles per hour, whichever is\t\t\t\t justified as the appropriate speed limit by that survey. This bill would\t\t\t\t additionally allow a city or county to establish a 15 miles per hour prima\t\t\t\t facie limit in a residence district, on a highway with a posted speed limit of\t\t\t\t 30 miles per hour or slower, when approaching, at a distance of less than 500\t\t\t\t feet from, or passing, a school building or the grounds thereof, contiguous to\t\t\t\t a highway and posted with a school warning sign that indicates a speed limit of\t\t\t\t 15 miles per hour, while children are going to or leaving the school, either\t\t\t\t during school hours or during the noon recess period. The prima facie limit\t\t\t\t would also apply when approaching, at that same distance, or passing school\t\t\t\t grounds that are not separated from the highway by a fence, gate, or other\t\t\t\t physical barrier while the grounds are in use by children and the highway is\t\t\t\t posted with one of those signs. The bill would provide that a 25 miles per hour\t\t\t\t prima facie limit in a residence district, on a highway with a posted speed\t\t\t\t limit of 30 miles per hour or slower, applies , as to those local authorities,\t\t\t\t when approaching, at a distance of 500 to 1,000 feet from, one of those areas\t\t\t\t where children are going to or leaving the school, either during school hours\t\t\t\t or during the noon recess period, that is posted with a school warning sign\t\t\t\t that indicates a speed limit of 25 miles per hour. The bill would require a\t\t\t\t city or county that adopts a resolution or ordinance establishing revised prima\t\t\t\t facie limits to reimburse the Department of Transportation for any costs\t\t\t\t incurred by that department in implementing the bill. The bill would require\t\t\t\t that these prima facie speed limits apply only to highways that meet certain\t\t\t\t conditions.
Chaptered October 10, 2007. Chapter\t\t\t\t 384.<\/b><\/font><\/p>\n<\/li>\n
(1) Existing law authorizes the San Diego Association of\t\t\t\t Governments (SANDAG) to conduct, administer, and operate a value pricing and\t\t\t\t transit development demonstration program on a maximum of 2 transportation\t\t\t\t corridors in San Diego County involving high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes.\t\t\t\t Existing law authorizes this program for each corridor for a period of 4 years\t\t\t\t after SANDAG first collects revenues for that corridor. This bill would\t\t\t\t authorize the SANDAG program to operate indefinitely by deleting the 4-year\t\t\t\t limitation provision. The bill would also authorize SANDAG to issue bonds\t\t\t\t backed by program revenues. (2) Existing law authorizes the Sunol Smart Carpool\t\t\t\t Lane Joint Powers Authority, consisting of the Alameda County Congestion\t\t\t\t Management Agency, the Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority, and\t\t\t\t the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, to conduct, administer, and\t\t\t\t operate a value pricing high-occupancy vehicle (HOT lane) program on the Sunol\t\t\t\t Grade segment of State Highway Route\u00a0680<\/a> in Alameda and Santa Clara Counties\t\t\t\t and authorizes the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency to conduct,\t\t\t\t administer, and operate a program on a corridor within Alameda County for a\t\t\t\t maximum of 2 transportation corridors in Alameda County. Existing law\t\t\t\t authorizes the operation of these programs for a period of 4 years after the\t\t\t\t administering agency first collects revenues for any of the authorized\t\t\t\t corridors. The bill would also authorize the administering agency to issue\t\t\t\t bonds, refunding bonds, or bond anticipation notes backed by program revenues.\t\t\t\t This bill would authorize these programs to operate indefinitely by deleting\t\t\t\t the provisions that limit the operation of these programs to a period of 4\t\t\t\t years after the administering agency first collects revenues for any of the\t\t\t\t authorized corridors. (3) Existing law authorizes the Santa Clara County Valley\t\t\t\t Transportation Authority (VTA) to conduct, administer, and operate a HOT lane\t\t\t\t program on any 2 of the corridors included in the high-occupancy lane system in\t\t\t\t Santa Clara County. Existing law authorizes the operation of this program for a\t\t\t\t period of 4 years after VTA first collects revenues from a HOT lane under the\t\t\t\t program. This bill would authorize the program to operate indefinitely by\t\t\t\t deleting the provisions that limit the operation of the program to a period of\t\t\t\t 4 years after VTA first collects revenues from a HOT lane under the program.\t\t\t\t The bill would also authorize VTA to issue bonds backed by program\t\t\t\t revenues.
Chaptered October 11, 2007. Chapter\t\t\t\t 498.<\/b><\/font><\/p>\n<\/li>\n
(1) Existing law, the Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction,\t\t\t\t Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006, approved by the voters as\t\t\t\t Proposition 1B in the November 2006 general election, establishes the Highway\t\t\t\t Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Fund of 2006 in the\t\t\t\t State Treasury. Existing law requires specified moneys in the fund to be\t\t\t\t deposited in designated accounts and funds to be available, upon appropriation\t\t\t\t by the Legislature, for allocation by the California Transportation Commission\t\t\t\t for certain transportation-related purposes. This bill would require the\t\t\t\t commission to provide written notification to the chairs of the appropriate\t\t\t\t policy committees of the Legislature not less than 30 days prior to adopting\t\t\t\t changes to any guidelines for the expenditure of funds pursuant to the Highway\t\t\t\t Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality and Port Security Act of 2006. (2)\t\t\t\t Existing law creates the California Transportation Commission, with specified\t\t\t\t powers and duties relating to allocation of transportation capital funds\t\t\t\t through the state transportation improvement program process and various other\t\t\t\t responsibilities. Existing law provides for a commission of 11 members, with 9\t\t\t\t members appointed by the Governor with the advice and consent of the Senate and\t\t\t\t 2 ex officio nonvoting legislative members. Voting members serve terms of 4\t\t\t\t years. This bill would expand the commission to 13 members, with one additional\t\t\t\t voting member each appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly and the Senate\t\t\t\t Committee on Rules, who would not be subject to Senate confirmation. The bill\t\t\t\t would also require vacancies to be filled by the appointing authority, as\t\t\t\t specified.
Chaptered October 14, 2007. Chapter\t\t\t\t 717.<\/b><\/font><\/p>\n<\/li>\n
This bill would require the department to work in\t\t\t\t cooperation with the Treasure Island Development Authority on design and\t\t\t\t engineering of replacement ramps connecting Yerba Buena Island to the San\t\t\t\t Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge and to work in cooperation with the authority and\t\t\t\t the San Francisco County Transportation Authority to ensure that the design of\t\t\t\t the ramps is compatible with the design of the new eastern span of the bridge.\t\t\t\t The bill would authorize the department, upon the transfer to the authority\t\t\t\t from the federal government of the ramp connections, to accept from the\t\t\t\t authority title, easements, and other interests in land necessary for the state\t\t\t\t to own and operate the one or more of the ramps. The bill would make transfer\t\t\t\t of a ramp from the authority to the state contingent upon completion of work on\t\t\t\t the ramp in accordance with specified standards and upon the commission making\t\t\t\t certain findings and approving the transfer agreement. The bill would also\t\t\t\t require a project study report on the reconstruction of the ramps to be\t\t\t\t finalized by December 31, 2008, would require the San Francisco Transportation\t\t\t\t Authority to be the lead agency for the development of the project study\t\t\t\t report, would require the San Francisco Transportation Authority to work in\t\t\t\t coordination with the Treasure Island Development Authority, the Mayor of San\t\t\t\t Francisco, and the Bay Area Toll Authority.
Chaptered October 13, 2007. Chapter 637.<\/font><\/b><\/p>\n<\/li>\n
This bill would authorize the commission to relinquish\t\t\t\t the portion of Route\u00a079<\/a> in the City of Hemet and the portion of Route\u00a0111<\/a> in\t\t\t\t the City of La Quinta to the applicable city under certain conditions.
Chaptered October 14, 2007. Chapter 718.<\/b><\/font><\/p>\n<\/li>\n
Existing\t\t\t\t law prohibits the sale of any gift certificate, as defined, that contains an\t\t\t\t expiration date or service fee, with specified exceptions, including, but not\t\t\t\t limited to, for a gift certificate issued for a food product. Existing law also\t\t\t\t provides that any gift certificate sold after January 1, 1997, is redeemable in\t\t\t\t cash or subject to replacement with a new gift certificate. This bill would\t\t\t\t allow any gift certificate with a cash value of less than $10 to be redeemed in\t\t\t\t cash (defined as, but not limited to, currency or check. If accepted by both\t\t\t\t parties, an electronic funds transfer is permissible) for its cash value, and\t\t\t\t would exempt donated gift certificates from the above-described prohibitions .\t\t\t\t The bill would also delete the exception described above for food product gift\t\t\t\t certificates, thereby prohibiting those gift certificates from containing an\t\t\t\t expiration date or service fee, unless issued for perishable food\t\t\t\t products.
Chaptered October 13, 2007. Chapter\t\t\t\t 640.<\/font><\/b><\/p>\n<\/li>\n
Existing law provides employees with the right to take time off\t\t\t\t work without discharge or discrimination for a number of reasons. This bill\t\t\t\t would add the right to inquire about, request, and take time off for\t\t\t\t bereavement leave. For state employees, if this leave conflicts with a\t\t\t\t memorandum of understanding, the terms of the memorandum of understanding would\t\t\t\t be controlling.
Vetoed by Governor.\t\t\t\t 10\/13\/2007.<\/font><\/b><\/p>\n<\/li>\n
Existing law specifies the allocation of funds in the\t\t\t\t Transportation Investment Fund, derived from a portion of the sales tax on\t\t\t\t gasoline, to various transportation projects and programs. Article XIX B of the\t\t\t\t California Constitution requires, commencing with the 2003-04 fiscal year, that\t\t\t\t sales taxes on motor vehicle fuel that are deposited into the General Fund be\t\t\t\t transferred to the Transportation Investment Fund for allocation for those\t\t\t\t transportation purposes until the end of the 2007-08 fiscal year. Thereafter,\t\t\t\t Article XIX B requires these revenues to be allocated to broad categories of\t\t\t\t transportation purposes, including 20% for programs funded by the Public\t\t\t\t Transportation Account, 40% for transportation capital improvement projects in\t\t\t\t the State Transportation Improvement Program, and 40% for apportionment to\t\t\t\t cities and counties pursuant to certain formulas for road maintenance and\t\t\t\t construction purposes. This bill would continue the Transportation Investment\t\t\t\t Fund in existence and would specify the use of revenues deposited in that fund\t\t\t\t from gasoline sales tax revenues subject to Article XIX B beginning in the\t\t\t\t 2008-09 fiscal year. Moneys in the fund would be continuously appropriated\t\t\t\t without regard to fiscal year.<\/i>
Chaptered\t\t\t\t October 14, 2007. Chapter 733.<\/font><\/b><\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n
![\"***\"](\"https:\/\/www.cahighways.org\/lj-images\/ca-sign-icon.gif\"){kind=icon}
(1) (November) The Department proposes to\t\t\t\t amend the STIP to reprogram $1,206,000 of RIP Environmental (PA&ED) for the\t\t\t\t Route\u00a0118<\/a> Widening project (New Los Angeles Avenue to Tapo Canyon Road, PPNO\t\t\t\t 3002) in Ventura County to the Route\u00a0118<\/a> Widening Phase 2 project (Tapo Canyon\t\t\t\t Road to the Los Angeles County Line, PPNO 4006). Ventura County Transportation\t\t\t\t Commission concurs with this request.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n (1) (November) The Contra Costa\t\t\t\t Transportation Authority requests a TCRP Application Amendment to redistribute\t\t\t\t $14,000,000 in TCRP funds from Construction to R\/W, and update the project\t\t\t\t schedule and funding plan for TCRP Project #16.2 \u2013 Route\u00a04<\/a>; construct one\t\t\t\t or more phases of improvements to widen freeway to eight lanes from Railroad\t\t\t\t Avenue through Loveridge Road, including two high-occupancy vehicle lanes, and\t\t\t\t to six or more lanes from east of Loveridge Road through Hillcrest.<\/p>\n (3) (November) The Department requests a TCRP\t\t\t\t Application Amendment to redistribute $37,250,000 in TCRP funds from\t\t\t\t Construction to R\/W, and update the project schedule and funding plan for TCRP\t\t\t\t Project #43 \u2013 Route\u00a05<\/a>; Improve Carmenita Road Interchange in Norwalk in\t\t\t\t Los Angeles County.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n (1) (November) Notice of Preparation of an\t\t\t\t Environmental Impact Report (EIR): State Route\u00a094<\/a> in San Diego County – roadway\t\t\t\t improvements near Dulzura (NOP).<\/p>\n<\/li>\n (1) (November) Comments on Draft EIR: Route\u00a0156<\/a> in San Benito County \u2013 roadway improvements near Hollister. <\/p>\n (2) (November) Comments on Draft EIR: Route\u00a047<\/a> in Los Angeles County \u2013 replace existing bridge near Long Beach\t\t\t\t (Schuyler Heim Bridge). <\/p>\n (3) (November) Comments on Draft EIR: Route\u00a0101<\/a> in Humboldt County \u2013 roadway improvements near Arcata. <\/p>\n (4) (November) Comments on Draft EIR: Route\u00a029<\/a> in Lake County \u2013 roadway improvements near Kelseyville.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n (1) (November) Approval of project for future\t\t\t\t consideration of funding: Route\u00a0152<\/a> in Merced County \u2013 new bypass near Los\t\t\t\t Banos (EIR).<\/p>\n (2) (November) Approval of project for future\t\t\t\t consideration of funding: Route\u00a05<\/a> in Los Angeles County \u2013 Reconstruct\t\t\t\t interchange at Carmenita Road in the cities of Norwalk and Santa Fe Springs\t\t\t\t (MND). <\/p>\n<\/li>\n (November) One Route Adoption for a Freeway\t\t\t\t at 10-Mer-152 PM 16.0\/24.8 in the county of Merced.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n (November) New Public Road Connection to\t\t\t\t Route\u00a0101<\/a> at 05-Mon-101 PM 92.5 (Sala Road) in the county of Monterey.\t\t\t\t <\/p>\n<\/li>\n (October 4.2) Adoption of 2008 State\t\t\t\t Transportation Improvement Program Guidelines<\/p>\n (October 4.3) Presentation and Consideration\t\t\t\t of AB 1467 HOT Lane Guidelines and Application<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n