![\"userpic=roadgeeking\"](\"https:\/\/cahighways.org\/wordpress\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/12\/userpicroadgeeking.jpg\")
What did you do over Memorial Day weekend? Me — I updated the highway pages.<\/p>\nWhat did you do over Memorial Day weekend? Me — I updated the highway pages.<\/p>\n
It’s been a busy time, and time for highway page updates have been few and far between. As always, you can keep up to date with me by following my blog at California Highways<\/a> (just follow the “Roadgeeking” category). There you will find bi-monthly collections of articles related to California Highways, as well as other items of interest. There is also a California Highways Facebook group<\/a>, where you can post updates.<\/p>\n Updates were made to the following highways, based on my reading of the papers (which are posted to the roadgeeking category at the “Observations Along The Road”<\/a> and to the California Highways Facebook group<\/a>) as well as any backed up email changes. I also reviewed the the AAroads forum<\/a>; I’ve given up on misc.transport.road. This resulted in changes on the following routes, with credit as indicated [my research(*)<\/sup>, contributions of information or leads (via direct mail) from Mike Ballard(1)<\/sup>, Henry at AARoads(2)<\/sup>, Xuan Luo(3)<\/sup>, Robert J. Pachinger(4)<\/sup>, Curtis Reeves(5)<\/sup>, Joel Windmiller(6)<\/sup>]: Route\u00a01<\/a>(*)<\/sup>, Route\u00a02<\/a>(*,1)<\/sup>, Route\u00a04<\/a>(*)<\/sup>, I-5<\/a>(*)<\/sup>, Route\u00a012<\/a>(*)<\/sup>, I-15<\/a>(*)<\/sup>, Route\u00a019<\/a>(*)<\/sup>, Route\u00a023<\/a>(*)<\/sup>, Route\u00a027<\/a>(*)<\/sup>, Route\u00a029<\/a>(*)<\/sup>, Former US\u00a040<\/a>(*,6)<\/sup>, Route\u00a048<\/a>(4,5)<\/sup>, US\u00a050<\/a>(*)<\/sup>, Route\u00a079<\/a>(*)<\/sup>, I-80<\/a>(*)<\/sup>, Route\u00a091<\/a>(*)<\/sup>, Route\u00a099<\/a>(*,6)<\/sup>, US\u00a0101<\/a>(*)<\/sup>, Route\u00a0103<\/a>(*)<\/sup>, Route\u00a0133<\/a>(*)<\/sup>, Route\u00a0134<\/a>(*)<\/sup>, Route\u00a0135<\/a>(*)<\/sup>, Route\u00a0148<\/a>(6)<\/sup>, Route\u00a0156<\/a>(*)<\/sup>, Route\u00a0170<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, Route\u00a0178<\/a>(*)<\/sup>, Route\u00a0241<\/a>(*)<\/sup>, I-280<\/a>(*)<\/sup>,I-405<\/a>(*)<\/sup>, I-580<\/a>(*)<\/sup>, I-680<\/a>(*)<\/sup>,I-710<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, I-805<\/a>(*)<\/sup>, I-880<\/a>(*)<\/sup>, El Camino Real(3)<\/sup>. For a number of the larger routes, I made an effort to get the status and structures into the correct geographical order; specifically, this was done for US\u00a050<\/a>, Route\u00a099<\/a>, Route\u00a0299<\/a>. I plan to do it for a few of the larger ones (such as US\u00a0101<\/a>) as time permits.<\/p>\n Added a link to the Western Map Co Freeway and Artery Map of Los Angeles (1963)<\/a>. Added a link to the Unbuilt Freeways of San Francisco<\/a>(2)<\/sup>. Updated the links to Mike Ballards SCV Resources<\/a> page.<\/p>\n Reviewed the Pending Legislation page<\/a>. The new California Legislature site<\/a> is very nice, but it occasionally switches to another bill when moving tabs. As usually, I recommend to every <\/em>Californian that they visit the legislative website regularly and see what their legis-critters are doing. The legislature has been busy introducting bills and resolutions (over 1,000 of them in the Assembly, and almost 700 in the State Senate). However, none of them has reached the point where they have been sent to the Governor for signature.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n I checked the CTC Liaison page<\/a> for the results of the CTC meetings held in March and May 2013. The following items were of interest:<\/p>\n2.1a. State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Amendments<\/h4>\n
![\"***\"](\"https:\/\/www.cahighways.org\/lj-images\/ca-sign-icon.gif\"){kind=icon}
[Mar] (3b) The Modoc County Transportation Commission proposes to amend the 2012 STIP to delete the Alturas Route\u00a0299<\/a> Improvements project (PPNO 3368) in Modoc County. (Deferred)<\/em><\/p>\n2.1b. STIP Amendments for Notice<\/h4>\n
[May] (19) The Department and the Orange County Transportation Authority propose to amend the 2012 STIP for the I-5<\/a> HOV Lane – South of Avenida Vista Hermosa to South of Pacific Coast Highway project (PPNO 2531E) to reduce RIP construction by $10,000,000, from $56,779,000 to $46,779,000 and backfill with CMAQ funding. It is also proposed to reprogram the $10,000,000 in RIP funds to the design phase of a new STIP project, I-5<\/a> Widening \u2013 El Toro Road to Route\u00a073<\/a> (PPNO 2640B) in Orange County. (Information only. )<\/em><\/p>\n [May] (20) The Orange County Transportation Authority proposes to amend the 2012 STIP to delay $224,000 in RIP PA&ED from FY 2013-14 to FY 2014-15 for the I-405<\/a> Southbound Auxiliary Lane \u2013 University to Sand Canyon project (PPNO 4956) in Orange County. (Information only. )<\/em><\/p>\n [May] (23) The Department, the City of Alturas and the Modoc County Transportation Commission propose to amend the 2012 STIP to reduce the scope of the Alturas Route\u00a0299<\/a> Improvements project (PPNO 3368), decreasing the programmed RIP funding by $1,010,000, from $3,244,000 to $2,234,000 and removing $1,052,000 of programmed RIP TE funds. It is also proposed to program $1,173,000 of RIP funding to a new Pedestrian Improvements project along the Alturas Central Business District (PPNO 2534) in Modoc County (Information only. )<\/em><\/p>\n [May] (27) The Department and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) propose to amend the 2012 STIP, the CMIA Baseline Agreement, and TCRP Project #42 for the Route\u00a05<\/a> Carpool Lane-Orange County Line to I-605<\/a> project (I-5<\/a> South Corridor project) in Los Angeles County to program an additional $35,709,000 from Los Angeles County\u2019s share balance and to update the project funding plan and schedule for the corridor. (Information only. )<\/em><\/p>\n2.1c Proposition 1B Amendments for Action<\/h4>\n
[Mar] (1b) Financial Allocation: $840,000 in supplemental funds for one previously voted multi-funded project to complete construction of the La Barr Meadows Widening project (PPNO 4107) in Nevada County. The current total allocation is $9,607,000 in CMIA\/STIP funds. The request for $840,000 ($420,000 IIP and $420,000 RIP) is an increase of 8.7 percent over the current budget. (Approved.)<\/em><\/p>\n [May] (1b) Financial Allocation: $2,000,000 in STIP supplemental funds for Segment 2 (Napa County contract) of the Route\u00a012<\/a> Jameson Canyon Widening \u2013 Phase 1 project in Napa and Solano Counties to complete construction. The Department also proposes to amend the CMIA baseline to update the project funding plan. (Approved.)<\/em><\/p>\n(2) Proposition 1B Route\u00a099<\/a> Bond Program Amendments<\/h4>\n
[May] (2a) Financial Allocation Amendment: Reduce the original Route\u00a099<\/a> Corridor allocation to reflect award savings, reduce construction by $1,072,000, from $9,600,000 to $8,528,000, for the North Bakersfield Widening project (PPNO 6267) in Kern County, and revise the project funding plan. (Approved)<\/em><\/p>\n [May] (2b) Financial Allocation Amendment: Reduce the original Route\u00a099<\/a> Corridor allocation to reflect final expenditures savings, reduce design by a combined total of $2,192,000, from $6,300,000 to $4,108,000, from four projects located in Sutter, Fresno, Tulare and Merced Counties, and revise the project funding plans. (Approved)<\/em><\/p>\n [May] (2c) Financial Allocation Amendment: Reduce the original Route\u00a099<\/a> Corridor allocation to reflect final expenditures savings, reduce environmental by $7,000, from $500,000 to $493,000, and reduce the original Route\u00a099<\/a> Corridor allocation for design by $1,000, from $1,500,000 to $1,499,000, for the North Fresno 6-Lane project (PPNO 6274A) in Fresno County, and revise the project funding plan. (Item removed from the Consent <\/em>Calendar and approved.)<\/em><\/p>\n [May] (2d) Financial Allocation Amendment: Reduce the original Route\u00a099<\/a> Corridor allocation to reflect final expenditures saving, reduce design by $8,000, from $500,000 to $492,000, for the Goshen to Kingsburg Landscape project (PPNO 6480Y) in Tulare County, and revise the project funding plan.. (Item removed from the Consent <\/em>Calendar and approved.)<\/em><\/p>\n(5) Proposition 1B TCIF Project Amendments for Action<\/h4>\n
[Mar] (5f) The Department and the Port of Los Angeles propose to amend the TCIF baseline agreement for Project 19 (Route\u00a0110<\/a> Freeway\/Route\u00a047<\/a> Interchange project [PPNO TC19]) in Los Angeles County to revise the project funding plan. (Approved, including the Yellow <\/em>Replacement Item for Page 2.)<\/em><\/p>\n [May] (5a) The Department and the San Diego Association of Governments propose to amend the TCIF Baseline Agreement for Segment 1 of Project 68 (Route\u00a011<\/a>\/Route\u00a0905<\/a> Freeway to Freeway Connectors project [PPNO 0999A]) to update the project funding plan. (Approved<\/em>.)<\/em><\/p>\n [May] (5b) The City of Los Angeles Harbor Department (Port of Los Angeles) proposes to amend the TCIF Baseline Agreement for Project 20 (I-110<\/a> Freeway & C Street Interchange Improvements project [PPNO TC20]) to update the project funding plan and schedule. (Approved<\/em>.)<\/em><\/p>\n2.2a. Environmental Matters \u2014 Notice of Preparation for Comments<\/h4>\n
[Mar] (1) Two Notices of Preparation for Comments: (Report accepted. Staff is directed <\/em>to send a letter on behalf of the <\/em>Commission to the Department <\/em>stating that there are no <\/em>comments to the Notice of <\/em>Preparation; and recommending <\/em>that funding to complete the <\/em>project is secured, and if <\/em>applicable, that consideration of <\/em>funding be brought forward to the <\/em>Commission for approval.)<\/em><\/p>\n\n
2.2b. Environmental Matters \u2014 Notice of Availability of Draft Environment Impact Report (EIR)<\/h4>\n
[Mar] 08- Riverside County Mid County Parkway Project Construction of a divided highway between I-215<\/a> and Route\u00a079<\/a> between the cities of Perris and San Jacinto in Riverside County (RDEIR\/RDEIS). (Report accepted. Staff is directed <\/em>to send a letter on behalf of the <\/em>Commission to the Riverside <\/em>County Transportation <\/em>Commission stating that there are <\/em>no comments to the Notice of <\/em>Preparation; and recommending <\/em>that funding to complete the <\/em>project is secured, and if <\/em>applicable, that consideration of <\/em>funding be brought forward to the <\/em>Commission for approval. )<\/em><\/p>\n [May] (1) Submittal of Notice of Documents Available for Comment (DEIRs): (Report accepted. Staff is directed to <\/em>send a letter on behalf of the <\/em>Commission to the Department <\/em>stating that there are no comments <\/em>to the Notice of Preparation; and <\/em>recommending that funding to <\/em>complete the projects is secured, <\/em>and if applicable, that consideration <\/em>of funding be brought forward to the <\/em>Commission for approval. <\/em>)<\/em><\/p>\n\n
[May] (2) Submittal of Notice of Availability for Comments: 07-LA-5 PM R45.4\/R59.0 I-5<\/a> HOT Lane Project Implement High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes on a portion of I-5<\/a> in and near the city of Santa Clarita. (Report accepted. Staff is directed to <\/em>send a letter on behalf of the <\/em>Commission to the Department <\/em>stating that there are no comments <\/em>to the Notice of Preparation; <\/em>recommending that funding to <\/em>complete the project is secured, and <\/em>if applicable, that consideration of <\/em>funding be brought forward to the <\/em>Commission for approval; and also <\/em>encouraging the Department and its <\/em>partners to ensure early <\/em>communication and coordination <\/em>with the Commission in the event it <\/em>is anticipated that approval will be <\/em>requested for delivery through a <\/em>design-build or public private <\/em>partnership procurement or <\/em>financing by the California <\/em>Financing Authority.<\/em><\/em>)<\/em><\/p>\n2.2c. Environmental Matters \u2014 Approval of Projects for Future Consideration of Funding, Route Adoption or New Public Road<\/h4>\n
[Mar] (1) Five Projects for Future Consideration of Funding: (The Commission accepted each <\/em>of the environmental documents <\/em>and approved the five projects for <\/em>future consideration of funding. )<\/em><\/p>\n\n
[Mar] (3) 08 \u2013 Riverside County Route\u00a0111<\/a> Improvements Project. Widen Route\u00a0111<\/a> from four to six lanes in the City of Indian Wells. (MND) (SLPP) . (The Commission accepted the <\/em>environmental document and <\/em>approved the project for future <\/em>consideration of funding. )<\/em><\/p>\n [May] (21) Approval of Projects for Future Consideration of Funding and\/or New Public Road Connection: (The Commission accepted the three <\/em>environmental documents and <\/em>approved the projects for future <\/em>consideration of funding<\/em>)<\/em><\/p>\n\n
[May] (23) Approval of Project for Route Adoption 06-Fre-180, PM R3.5\/R54.2 Route\u00a0180<\/a> Westside Expressway Route Adoption Study Proposed route adoption to provide a corridor for future transportation projects in Fresno County. (Item added to the Consent Calendar <\/em>and approved. <\/em>)<\/em><\/p>\n2.3a. Route Adoptions<\/h4>\n
[May] (1) Route Adoption as a controlled access highway 6-Fre-180-PM R3.5\/R53.6 Route\u00a0180<\/a> from I-5<\/a> to Brawley Avenue in the county of Fresno . (Approved.)<\/em><\/p>\n [May] (2) Rescission of Freeway Adoption Route\u00a0120<\/a> from Valley Home Road to 2.8 miles east of Lancaster Road in the county of Stanislaus 10-STA-120-PM 3.0\/R13.3 (Approved.)<\/em><\/p>\n