As usual, I started this update cycle by processing backed up email \t\t\t changes, notes from my reading of the papers, as well as updates from \t\t\t misc.transport.road. This resulted in changes on the following routes, with \t\t\t credit as indicated [my research(1)<\/sup>, contributions of information or \t\t\t leads (via direct mail or Usenet) from Erin Armourer(2)<\/sup>, Mike \t\t\t Ballard(3)<\/sup>, Casey Cooper(4)<\/sup>, Dominic \t\t\t Ielati(5)<\/sup>, Hong Wang(6)<\/sup>, Joel Windmiller(7)<\/sup>]:Route\u00a058<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, Route\u00a070<\/a>(5)<\/sup>, Route\u00a071<\/a>(2)<\/sup>, \t\t\t Route\u00a074<\/a>(4)<\/sup>, Route\u00a099<\/a>(7)<\/sup>, Route\u00a0149<\/a>(5)<\/sup>, Route\u00a0210<\/a>(3)<\/sup>, I-215<\/a>(3)<\/sup>, I-405<\/a>(6)<\/sup>.<\/p>\n While working on my messages, I wrote again to my state senator and \t\t\t assemblycritter regarding the problem with the definition of Route\u00a01<\/a> I noted \t\t\t during the last updates (see AB 2326, SB 1366, and SB 432 (vetoed))–see Route\u00a01<\/a> for the details of the problem. My \t\t\t state \t\t\t senator’s webpage<\/a> had a link to an article about \t\t\t a \t\t\t proposal to use the Changeable Message Signs (CMSs) for advertising<\/a>. Having \t\t\t had experience with those signs and their effect on traffic, I think this is a \t\t\t bad idea, and if you agree, I encourage you to write your state legislators as \t\t\t well. <\/p>\n Checked the Calnexus page to see if there had been any updates. Last \t\t\t I heard (in September), updates had been on hiatus due to the State of \t\t\t California budget situation. They had hoped to resume updates with the signed \t\t\t budget, but it looks like this never happened.<\/p>\n Looked for updates for the legislative information page<\/a>. But the \t\t\t California legislative information page appeared to be unavailable until \t\t\t December 1, 2008. It is unlikely anything was done since the last update, as \t\t\t the legislature was only called in for a special session. <\/p>\n Reviewed the October \t\t\t CTC \t\t\t Summary and Web Books<\/a> (there was no November meeting). I noted the \t\t\t following items for inclusion:<\/p>\n 2.1c. Traffic Congestion Relief (TCR)Program Application \t\t\t\t Approvals\/Amendments, Proposition 1B CMIA Program\/Project 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 \t\t\t <\/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 \t\t\t \t\t\t <\/p>\n 2.5g. State-administered STIP Transportation Enhancement \t\t\t\t Projects — Financial Allocation<\/b><\/p>\n <\/lj-raw><\/p>\n [Posted to cahwyguy<\/a> and roadgeeks<\/a>]<\/font><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Well this is it. The penultimate update for 2008. Amazing to think that just a year ago I had original route statutes on the brain \ud83d\ude42<\/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-3153","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\/3153","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=3153"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/cahighways.org\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3153\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cahighways.org\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3153"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cahighways.org\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3153"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cahighways.org\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3153"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}} \t\t\t \t\t\t <\/p>\n
![\"***\"](\"https:\/\/www.cahighways.org\/lj-images\/ca-sign-icon.gif\"){kind=icon}
(2) The Department, the Metropolitan \t\t\t\t Transportation Commission, and the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency \t\t\t\t propose to amend the CMIA Project and Baseline Agreement for the Route\u00a0580<\/a> \t\t\t\t Isabel Interchange Project (PPNO 0115B) to split the project into three \t\t\t\t contracts.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n (1) Route\u00a058<\/a> in Kern County \u2013 route \t\t\t\t adoption study for future location of Route\u00a058<\/a> roadway extension near \t\t\t\t Bakersfield. (NOP)<\/p>\n (2) I-80<\/a> in San Francisco County \u2013 Yerba \t\t\t\t Buena Island Ramps Improvement Project (NOP)<\/p>\n<\/li>\n (1) Salinas Road Interchange Project in \t\t\t\t Monterey County \u2013 Construct an interchange and make operational \t\t\t\t improvements to Route\u00a01<\/a> between Jensen Road and Trafton Road undercrossing. \t\t\t\t (MND)<\/p>\n (2) Route\u00a0180<\/a> and DeWolf Avenue Interchange \t\t\t\t Freeway Agreement Project in Fresno County \u2013 Update the freeway agreement \t\t\t\t and seek route adoption and location of a future interchange between Temperance \t\t\t\t Avenue to De-Wolf Avenue. (MND)<\/p>\n (3) Route\u00a011<\/a> and Otay Mesa East Port of Entry \t\t\t\t Project in San Diego County \u2013 Identifies corridor for consideration of the \t\t\t\t future Route\u00a011<\/a> and the associated port of entry. (FEIR) <\/p>\n (4) Kings and Tulare Counties Route\u00a0198<\/a> \t\t\t\t Expressway \u2013 Widen Route\u00a0198<\/a> in Kings and Tulare Counties from 0.5 miles \t\t\t\t east of Route\u00a043<\/a> near Hanford to 0.4 miles west of Route\u00a099<\/a> near Visalia. (ND) \t\t\t\t <\/p>\n (5) Route\u00a099<\/a> in the County of Madera \u2013 \t\t\t\t Reconstruction of Route\u00a0145<\/a>\/Route\u00a099<\/a> and Gateway Drive\/Route\u00a099<\/a> Interchanges. \t\t\t\t (ND)<\/p>\n (6) Route\u00a0580<\/a> in Alameda County – Roadway \t\t\t\t improvements in the city of Livermore. (FND)<\/p>\n (7) Public Road Connection for new \t\t\t\t interchange at Isabel Avenue (I-580<\/a>). (MND) <\/p>\n<\/li>\n One Route Adoption as a Freeway on Route\u00a0180<\/a> \t\t\t\t at 06-Fre-180-PM R66.3\/R66.9 in the county of Fresno<\/p>\n<\/li>\n (1) One New Public Road Connection to Route\u00a020<\/a> at 03-Nev-20-PM R14.3 (Dorsey Drive) in the city of Grass Valley, north of \t\t\t\t Idaho-Maryland Road.<\/p>\n (2) One New Public Road Connection to Route\u00a0580<\/a> at 04-Ala-580-PM 14.2 (Isabel Avenue) in the city of Livermore.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n 2-Sha-5-PM R50.4\/R50.9 Right of Way in the \t\t\t\t county of Shasta near the Pollard Flat overcrossing along Route\u00a05<\/a>, consisting \t\t\t\t of relocated or reconstructed county roads or frontage roads.<\/p>\n 11-SD-125-PM 19.0\/19.2 Right of way in the \t\t\t\t city of San Diego along Route\u00a0125<\/a> near Fletcher Parkway on East Lake Drive \t\t\t\t between Flume Road and Lake Angela Drive, consisting of relocated and \t\t\t\t reconstructed city streets. <\/p>\n 8-Riv-86S-PM R2.54\/R18.27 Right of way in the \t\t\t\t county of Riverside along Route\u00a086<\/a>S south of the Coachella city limits between \t\t\t\t Avenue 52 and Avenue 82, consisting of relocated or reconstructed county \t\t\t\t roads.<\/p>\n 5-SLO-227-PM 0.00\/0.97 Right of way in the \t\t\t\t city of Arroyo Grande on Route\u00a0227<\/a> from Route\u00a0101<\/a> to 250 feet north of Huasna \t\t\t\t Road. Authorized by Chapter 787, Statutes of 2000, which amended Section 527 of \t\t\t\t the Streets and Highways Code.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n (1a) $31,500,000 for Segment 3 of the Route\u00a0580<\/a> Isabel Interchange Project in Livermore programmed in the CMIA.<\/p>\n (1b) $29,709,000 for Segment 2 of the Route\u00a0580<\/a> HOV project in Livermore programmed in the CMIA ($20,435,000) and STIP \t\t\t\t ($9,274,000).<\/p>\n (3a) $5,100,000 for one state-administered \t\t\t\t STIP project on Route\u00a0145<\/a> in the city of Madera at Route\u00a099<\/a>. Contributions from \t\t\t\t other sources: $3,499,000.<\/p>\n (3b) Reduce original allocation of \t\t\t\t $23,404,000 to $18,055,000, per AB 608, for one State-administered STIP Project \t\t\t\t for Route\u00a099<\/a>\/Whitmore Avenue Interchange Project in Ceres. <\/p>\n (3c) Reduce original allocation of \t\t\t\t $33,000,000 to $25,900,000, per AB 608, for one State-administered STIP Project \t\t\t\t for Route\u00a099<\/a> Widen to 4 lanes with a Median (Segment 4) Project in Sutter \t\t\t\t County.<\/p>\n (5) $84,038,000 for one State administered \t\t\t\t project on Route\u00a0905<\/a> in San Diego east of the Route\u00a0805<\/a>\/905 separation to east \t\t\t\t of Britannia overcrossing. Contributions from other sources: $11,062,000. <\/p>\n (6) $14,172,000 for roadway improvements on \t\t\t\t Route\u00a0580<\/a> in Livermore programmed in the SHOPP.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n