![\"userpic=roadgeeking\"](\"https:\/\/cahighways.org\/wordpress\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/12\/userpicroadgeeking.jpg\")
It’s the end of the year. I’m sure snow is on the ground somewhere, and so it is time for the final set of updates to the highway pages.<\/p>\nIt’s the end of the year. I’m sure snow is on the ground somewhere, and so it is time for the final set of updates to the highway pages.<\/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> \u2014 sad to say, I’m not seeing much there other than discussions about topics that aren’t the sort of information I capture here.\u2020<\/sup> I’ve given up on misc.transport.road. This resulted in changes on the following routes, with credit as indicated [my research(1)<\/sup>, contributions of information or leads (via direct mail) from Eric Armoror(2)<\/sup>, Douglas Bright(3)<\/sup>, Chris Sampang(4)<\/sup>]: I-10<\/a>(*)<\/sup>, Route\u00a011<\/a>(2)<\/sup>, Route\u00a023<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, Route\u00a024<\/a>(1)<\/sup>, Route\u00a029<\/a>(4)<\/sup>, Route I-710<\/a>(1)<\/sup>.<\/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. We seem to be in the quiet months — there were no substantive changes, and no new bills or bill passages.<\/p>\n Reviewed the Traversable Highways document<\/a> on the Caltrans website. Updated information for the following highways: Route\u00a012<\/a>, Route\u00a013<\/a>, Route\u00a014<\/a>, Route\u00a018<\/a>, Route\u00a019<\/a>, Route\u00a024<\/a>, Route\u00a036<\/a>, Route\u00a037<\/a>, Route\u00a039<\/a>, Route\u00a047<\/a>, Route\u00a048<\/a>, Route\u00a052<\/a>, Route\u00a054<\/a>, Route\u00a056<\/a>, Route\u00a057<\/a>, Route\u00a064<\/a>, Route\u00a065<\/a>, Route\u00a074<\/a>, Route\u00a077<\/a>, Route\u00a081<\/a>, Route\u00a084<\/a>, Route\u00a087<\/a>, Route\u00a090<\/a>, Route\u00a092<\/a>, Route\u00a093<\/a>, Route\u00a0100<\/a>, Route\u00a0102<\/a>, Route\u00a0104<\/a>, Route\u00a0109<\/a>, Route\u00a0118<\/a>, Route\u00a0122<\/a>, Route\u00a0127<\/a>, Route\u00a0128<\/a>, Route\u00a0130<\/a>, Route\u00a0142<\/a>, Route\u00a0143<\/a>, Route\u00a0148<\/a>, Route\u00a0152<\/a>, Route\u00a0162<\/a>, Route\u00a0164<\/a>, Route\u00a0169<\/a>, Route\u00a0170<\/a>, Route\u00a0179<\/a>, Route\u00a0180<\/a>, Route\u00a0181<\/a>, Route\u00a0190<\/a>, Route\u00a0211<\/a>, Route\u00a0217<\/a>, Route\u00a0227<\/a>, Route\u00a0230<\/a>, Route\u00a0234<\/a>, Route\u00a0235<\/a>, Route\u00a0238<\/a>, Route\u00a0239<\/a>, Route\u00a0249<\/a>, Route\u00a0251<\/a>, Route\u00a0257<\/a>, Route\u00a0258<\/a>, Route\u00a0270<\/a>, Route\u00a0276<\/a>, Route\u00a0280<\/a>, Route\u00a0281<\/a>, Route\u00a0285<\/a>, I-380<\/a>, I-605<\/a>, Route\u00a0710<\/a>, Route\u00a0905<\/a>. Traversable highways are existing roads or streets between the termini of and approximately along the State highway routes described in the Streets and Highways Code. Most traversable highways do not comply with state highway standards and cannot be adopted into the state highway system. Whenever a traversable highway is complete over its entire route and constructed to State highway standards. The California Transportation Commission must adopt the constructed facility and the Department must maintain it with funds from the State Highway Account. If a traversable highway exists over a portion of a route is constructed to State highway standards and connects to an already maintained state highway, the Commission may adopt the constructed facility. After the Commission adopts the facility, the Department maintains that facility with funds from the State Highway Account. An existing facility meets State highway standards if it provides an acceptable level of traffic service and does not require restoration.<\/p>\n I checked the CTC Liaison page<\/a> for the results of the CTC meetings the December 11, 2013 meeting. The following items were of interest (note: \u00b0 indicates items that were below the level of detail for updating the specific route pages) :<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u2020<\/sup> If you hadn’t figured it out by now, I’m not focused on taking pictures of highways. I’m not concerned with signage, or whether Caltrans is doing it right or wrong when contrasted with other states. I try not to hypothesize where routes should<\/em> go — I focus on where they are<\/em> and where they went in the past. I try to remain focused on facts \u2014 if I talk about an adopted route, that’s because I’ve seen the specifics of the adoption. Far too often, “road scholars” want the world to have a perfect sense of order to it, with everything consistent in terms of numbering, marking, and usage; I’ve learned in my soon-to-be 54 years that the real world, alas, doesn’t have that sense of order (and wishing and discussions won’t bring it). I also understand that some changes, although reasonable, are expensive and simply do not fit within budget strictures (this is common for simple signing changes, which are often quite complicated). So I don’t try to make sense of it; I just try to report it.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" It’s the end of the year. I’m sure snow is on the ground somewhere, and so it is time for the final set of updates to the highway pages. 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 Read More …<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[43],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8892","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-roadgeeking"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cahighways.org\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8892","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=8892"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/cahighways.org\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8892\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":8893,"href":"https:\/\/cahighways.org\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8892\/revisions\/8893"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cahighways.org\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=8892"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cahighways.org\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=8892"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cahighways.org\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=8892"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}2.2c. Environmental Matters \u2014 Approval of Projects for Future Consideration of Funding, Route Adoption or New Public Road<\/h4>\n
![\"***\"](\"https:\/\/www.cahighways.org\/lj-images\/ca-sign-icon.gif\"){kind=icon}
(1) Five Projects:<\/p>\n\n
(3) Approval of Project for Future Consideration of Funding and a New Public Road Connection: 06-Fre-99, PM 28.8\/30.11. Veterans Boulevard\/Route\u00a099<\/a> Interchange Project\/Veterans Boulevard Grade Separation Project. Roadway improvements including a new interchange on Route\u00a099<\/a> in Fresno County. (The Commission approved, as modified, the environmental document, Statement of Overriding Considerations and Findings of Fact and approved the project for future consideration of funding and as a New Public Road connection. (Commissioner Assemi recused himself))<\/p>\n2.3a. Route Adoptions<\/h4>\n
A Route Adoption as a freeway at: 04-Sol-680-PM 11.2\/13.1. Route\u00a0680<\/a> from Red Top Road to Route\u00a080<\/a>, in the county of Solano (Approved)<\/p>\n2.3b. New Public Road Connections<\/h4>\n
New Public Road Connection to Route\u00a099<\/a> at Veterans Boulevard, in the city of Fresno. 06-Fre-99-PM 29.5 (Approved (Commissioner Assemi recused himself))<\/p>\n2.3c. Route Relinquishments<\/h4>\n
Five Relinquishment Resolutions: (Approved)<\/p>\n\n
2.3d. Route Vacations<\/h4>\n
One Vacation Resolution: 10-Cal-4-PM R14.5\/R14.7 Right of way along Route\u00a04<\/a> at Pool Station Road, in the county of Calaveras. (Approved)<\/p>\n2.5b. Financial Allocations for SHOPP Projects<\/h4>\n
(1) Financial Allocation: $67,165,000 for 14 SHOPP projects, programmed, as follows: (Approved)<\/p>\n\n
2.5c. Financial Allocations for STIP Projects<\/h4>\n
(1a) Financial Allocation: $34,599,000 for two State administered STIP projects on the State Highway System.\u00b0 Contributions from other sources: $41,377,000. Both projects are reconstructions of existing interchanges: US\u00a0101<\/a> – $19M to reconstruct the Broadway overcrossing in Burlingame; Route\u00a0198<\/a> – $15.599M to reconstruct the 12th Ave interchange in Hanford. (Approved)<\/p>\n2.5g. Financial Allocations for Proposition 1B TCIF Projects<\/h4>\n
(5a) Financial Allocation: $4,361,000 for the locally administered TCIF Project 97-Feather River Boulevard \/ Route\u00a070<\/a> Interchange (PPNO 0363D) project, in Yuba County, on the State Highway System. Contributions from other sources: $12,139,000. (Approved)<\/p>\n
\n