{"id":4270,"date":"2010-12-27T14:51:00","date_gmt":"2010-12-27T22:51:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/cahighways.org\/wordpress\/?p=4270"},"modified":"2010-12-27T14:51:00","modified_gmt":"2010-12-27T22:51:00","slug":"novemberdecember-changes-to-california-highways","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cahighways.org\/wordpress\/?p=4270","title":{"rendered":"November\/December Changes to California Highways"},"content":{"rendered":"

We’ve come to the end of another year. This year saw (less by conscious decision than happenstance) this website move to bimonthly updates. It also saw some major construction projects begin (such as the reshaping of the Sepulveda Pass), some signficant completions (such as the tunnelling at Devil’s Slide), and loads of maintenance thanks to stimulus funds. It also saw the further decline of misc.transport.road into uselessness, and the growth of Facebook as a communication medium. Speaking of that, if you haven’t friended the California Highways Facebook group<\/a>, you should. I’ve set it up to get the regular Metro.Net headline posting, and I regularly highlight any highway related articles I find on the net. It is also your place to share news about California Highways, and I pick up that news from there for these updates. So join!<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The following are updates from my reading of the papers (which are \t\t\t posted to \t\t\t California \t\t\t Highways Facebook group<\/a>) as well as any backed up email changes. I also \t\t\t reviewed the the \t\t\t AAroads forum<\/a> and misc.transport.road. This resulted in changes on the \t\t\t following routes, with credit as indicated [my research(1)<\/sup>, \t\t\t contributions of information or leads (via direct mail or Usenet) from ]:Route\u00a017<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, Route\u00a020<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, Route\u00a057<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, \t\t\t Route\u00a060<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, Route\u00a091<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, US\u00a0101<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, I-5<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, \t\t\t I-10<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, I-80<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, I-110<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, I-380<\/a> [Southern \t\t\t Crossing](1)<\/sup>, I-405<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, I-580<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, I-710<\/a>[Gerald Desmond \t\t\t Bridge](1)<\/sup>, I-880<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, Los Angeles County Route N3<\/a> [Angeles Forest Highway](1)<\/sup>.<\/p>\n

Noted \t\t\t an \t\t\t interesting article from Metro.Net<\/a> that, alas, doesn’t quite fit into any \t\t\t specific highway page nor other pages I have on the site. This article reported \t\t\t on \t\t\t a \t\t\t study<\/a> exploring the feasibility of conversion of existing HOV lanes in \t\t\t Southern California to HOT lanes. The study had the following key findings:<\/p>\n

\n

Constructability:<\/b> Route\u00a060<\/a> (Brea Canyon Road to Azusa \t\t\t\tAvenue) rated the highest for ease of constructability. Others rated high for \t\t\t\tease of construction were I-105<\/a>, Route\u00a014<\/a>, and Route\u00a057<\/a>. These facilities have \t\t\t\tthe preponderance of standard land and shoulder widths, available right-of-way, \t\t\t\tflat topography, at-grade segments, and minimal interference with utilities and \t\t\t\trights-of-way. Five HOV facilities rated medium in this category: I-5<\/a>, I-210<\/a>, \t\t\t\tI-405<\/a> north of LAX, I-405<\/a> South, and Route\u00a060<\/a> (Route\u00a057<\/a>-Route\u00a071<\/a>). <\/p>\n

Revenue Potential:<\/b> I-405<\/a> North of LAX rated the highest for \t\t\t\trevenue generating potential. Four HOV facilities were rated medium in this \t\t\t\tcategory: I-105<\/a>, I-210<\/a>, Route\u00a014<\/a>, and Route\u00a091<\/a>. <\/p>\n

Connectivity:<\/b> I-605<\/a> rated the highest in this category, \t\t\t\tfollowed by I-5<\/a>, and I-105<\/a>. <\/p>\n

Transit Benefits: <\/b>I-5<\/a> rated the highest in this category, \t\t\t\tfollowed by I-10<\/a>, and I-405<\/a> north of LAX. <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Based on the Study findings, the following HOV facilities appeared \t\t\t to demonstrate comparatively strong potential for HOT conversion and were \t\t\t recommended for further assessment in the event additional studies are \t\t\t undertaken in Los Angeles County: (1) I-105<\/a>, from I-405<\/a> to I-605<\/a>; (2) I-405<\/a>, \t\t\t from I-105<\/a> to I-5<\/a> north of LAX; (3) Route\u00a091<\/a>, from I-110<\/a> to the Orange County \t\t\t Line; (4) Route\u00a057<\/a>, from Route\u00a060<\/a> to the Orange County Line. Additional \t\t\t consideration was also felt to be warranted for I-10<\/a> between I-605<\/a> and the San \t\t\t Bernardino County Line.<\/p>\n

Another interesting article of note is \t\t\t this \t\t\t one from the Sacramento Bee<\/a>, which explores the increasing use of \t\t\t auxilliary lanes on Sacramento freeways. Aux lanes are short-distance lanes \t\t\t that run from an onramp to the next offramp. They don’t require environmental \t\t\t studies. Caltrans is now linking up series of lanes in Sacramento to improve \t\t\t traffic flow at lower cost. Caltrans currently wants to link several auxiliary \t\t\t lanes on I-80<\/a> in Roseville and create similar linkages on Route\u00a099<\/a> in south \t\t\t Sacramento. <\/p>\n

Checked \t\t\t the Calnexus \t\t\t page<\/a> to see if there had been any updates. There weren’t any. <\/p>\n

Reviewed the Pending Legislation \t\t\t page<\/a>. This is a new legislative session, and only a few bills have been \t\t\t introduced yet, and no bills have even progressed out of committee.<\/p>\n

I checked \t\t\t the CTC Liaison \t\t\t page<\/a> for the results of the November meeting. The following items were of \t\t\t interest: <\/p>\n