California Highways: 
We've come to the end of another year, with many promises broken (where is that Infrastructure bill again?), some kept (SB1 seems to be working), and some satisfied only as an illusion. But, if you want politics, you go to my blog. If you want highway stuff with more facts and less opinion, you come to the main pages. Speaking of the main pages, a thought has begun to crop into my head: I need to do a bit of remodeling. I'm "old school", working off hard-coded HTML, minimal style sheets, and information generated through perl scripts. I'd like to bring the page frameworks into something more responsive, and something that will work better for mobile devices. I'd also like to move any internal site references to HTTPS if possible (and if Westhost gets the certificate stuff straightened out). I don't really need HTTPS, but being a cybersecurity professional, my site should probably use it even though there is no real risk to mitigate. Not to mention that I don't want browsers flagging my site as insecure or dangerous, because they can't understand the context or the purpose of a site. In any case, if readers have pointers to sites I should peruse to learn how to do this, please let me know.
Moving on to the updates: 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" and to the California Highways Facebook group) as well as any backed up email changes. I also reviewed the the AAroads forum. This resulted in changes on the following routes, with credit as indicated [my research(1), contributions of information or leads (via direct mail) from andy3175/AARoads(2), Tom Fearer/Max Rockatansky/AARoads(3), Kniwt/AARoads(4), Sparker/AARoads(5): Route 1(1,3), US 6(5), I-10(1), Route 14(1), I-15(1), Route 26(1), Route 27(1), Route 29(1), Route 33(3), Route 37(1), Route 39(1), Route 41(1,3), Route 46(1), Route 49(1), US 50(5), Route 51/Business Route 80(2), Route 58(3), Route 63(1,3), Route 64(1), Route 66(3), Route 67(1), Route 68(3), Route 70(1), Route 74(1), Route 75(3), Route 79(1), I-80(1,2), Route 91(1), Route 99(1,3), US-101(1,3), LRN 117(3), Route 120(1), Route 121(1), Route 123(1), LRN 134(3), Route 137(1,3), Route 152(1,3), Route 156(3), Route 168(4,5), Route 180(3), I-205(3), I-210(1), Route 216(3), Route 233(3), Route 241(1), I-280(1), Southern Crossing / I-380(1); I-580(3), I-680(1), I-710(1), County Sign Route J1(3), and Los Angeles County Sign Route N1(1).
Added links from Challenger66's posts on the "Sure, Why Not?" blog to the appropriate pages: Route 1, Route 24, Route 25, Route 41, Route 43, Route 58, Route 63, Route 65, Route 66, Route 68, Route 75, Route 99, US 101, Route 137, Route 140, Route 152, Route 156, Route 180, Route 183, Route 201, Route 204, I-205, Route 216, Route 218, Route 233, I-580, County Sign Route G16, County Sign Route G17, County Sign Route G20, County Sign Route J1, County Sign Route J21. Thanks to Challenger (cough) Max (cough) Tom (cough) Whatever your name is today for putting these up.
Moved all the historic route designations to the proper sections.
Fixed the links to the various resolution archives in the chronology. A tip of the hat to James White, Senior Transportation Surveyor, in Caltrans District 7 for catching that the websites had moved.
Added a question to the FAQ to provide links to sites to see how highway money is being spent.
Reviewed the Pending Legislation page, based on the new California Legislature site. As usual, I recommend to every Californian that they visit the legislative website regularly and see what their legis-critters are doing. I noted the passage/veto of the following bills and resolutions (for some of these, I've highlighted key phrases in red):
This bill would additionally authorize the commission to relinquish
all or a portion of Route 185 in the unincorporated area of the County
of Alameda to that county, as specified.
09/28/17 Chaptered by Secretary of State -
Chapter 339, Statutes of 2017.
Existing law requires the Department of Transportation to prepare a 10-year state highway rehabilitation plan for the rehabilitation and reconstruction by the State Highway Operation and Protection Program of all state highways and bridges owned by the state. This plan is required to be submitted by the department to the commission for review and comments by January 31 of each odd-numbered year, and then transmitted by the department to the Governor and Legislature by May 1 of each odd-numbered year. Existing law also requires the department to prepare a 5-year maintenance plan that addresses the maintenance needs of the state highway system, limited to maintenance activities that if not performed, could result in increased State Highway Operation and Protection Program costs in the future. Existing law requires the maintenance plan to be submitted by the department to the commission, the Governor, and the Legislature by January 31 of each odd-numbered year. Existing law provides that these plans shall be the basis for, among other things, the department’s budget request.
This bill would require the department to prepare a draft State
Highway System Management Plan, which would consist both of the
10-year state highway rehabilitation plan and the 5-year maintenance
plan. The bill would require the department to make the draft of its
proposed State Highway System Management Plan available to regional
transportation agencies for review and comment, and would require the
department to include and respond to the comments in the final plan to
the commission by February 15 of each odd-numbered year. The bill
would require the department to transmit the final State Highway
System Management Plan to the Governor and Legislature by June 1 of
each odd-numbered year.
09/27/17 Chaptered by Secretary of State -
Chapter 314, Statutes of 2017.
Existing state law authorizes the Department of Transportation to designate certain lanes for the exclusive use of HOVs. Existing law also authorizes super ultra-low emission vehicles (SULEV), ultra-low emission vehicles (ULEV), advanced technology partial zero-emission vehicles (AT PZEV), or transitional zero-emission vehicles (TZEV), as specified, that display a valid identifier issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles to use these HOV lanes until January 1, 2019, or until the date federal authorization expires, or until the Secretary of State receives a specified notice, whichever occurs first. Existing law makes the use by a driver of an HOV lane without those identifiers a crime. Existing law requires the Department of Transportation to remove individual HOV lanes, or portions of those lanes, during peak periods of congestion from access by vehicles displaying the identifiers if the department makes specified findings.
This bill would extend the authority of drivers of specified vehicles to use HOV lanes until the date federal authorization expires, or until the Secretary of State receives a specified notice, whichever occurs first. The bill would authorize the Department of Motor Vehicles to issue other identifiers until the date federal authorization expires, or until the Secretary of State receives a certain notice, whichever occurs first.
The bill would make certain existing identifiers valid until January 1, 2019, would make certain identifiers issued on or after January 1, 2019, valid until January 1, 2022, and would make other identifiers issued on or after January 1, 2019, valid until January 1 of the 4th year after the year in which they were issued, as specified. The bill would make vehicles that have been issued an identifier before January 1, 2017, ineligible for those identifiers issued on and after 2017. The bill would additionally condition eligibility for the identifiers on the applicant not having received a rebate pursuant to the Clean Vehicle Rebate Project for a vehicle purchased on or after January 1, 2018, unless the applicant meets certain income restrictions. The bill would provide that if these provisions become inoperative, the driver of a vehicle with an otherwise valid decal, label, or other identifier would not be cited for a violation of the HOV lane provisions within 60 days of the date that those provisions became inoperative. The bill would make additional conforming changes.
The bill would repeal these provisions on September 30, 2025.
10/10/17 Chaptered by Secretary of State -
Chapter 630, Statutes of 2017.
This bill would require the net proceeds from the sale of any excess
properties originally acquired for a replacement alignment for State
Highway Route 101 in the County of Monterey, known as the former
Prunedale Bypass, to be reserved in the State Highway Account for
programming and allocation by the commission, with the concurrence of
the Transportation Agency for Monterey County, for other state highway
projects in the State Highway Route 101 corridor in that county,
including, but not limited to, the construction of four express lanes
on State Highway Route 156, a major freight and regional corridor,
identified by the Governor as a key California infrastructure project
in his letter of February 7, 2017, to the National Governors
Association, and improvements to the State Highway Route 101 Corridor.
The bill would exempt these funds from the distribution formulas
otherwise applicable to transportation capital improvement funds.
10/04/17 Vetoed by
Governor. Veto Message: In 2016, I vetoed AB 2730, a
virtually identical bill. My reasons then were: These
revenues are used to pay existing debt service on transportation
construction projects statewide, which is an important purpose.
Maintaining this funding stream to the General Fund is even more
necessary when the state's budget remains precariously balanced. That is still my view.
This bill would revise the provisions governing leases of department
property in the City and County of San Francisco under these financial
terms to require that a lease be offered on a right of first refusal
by the department to the city and county or a political subdivision of
the city and county and would also authorize leases of property for
park, recreational, or open-space purposes, subject to certain
additional terms and conditions, including a requirement for the
department to lease property located within a priority development
area, as defined, to the city and county for up to 10 parcels, at a
specified below market value lease amount, and a requirement,
applicable to all leases, for the lessee to be responsible for all
associated maintenance costs. The bill would provide for the lease to
authorize the lessee to subsidize its maintenance costs through a
limited revenue generation model, with any revenues generated above
the maintenance costs to be shared with the state, as specified. The
bill would require the city and county or a political subdivision of
the city and county, in consultation with the department, to follow
all applicable health, environmental, safety, design, and engineering
standards.
10/15/17 Chaptered by Secretary of State -
Chapter 822, Statutes of 2017.
Existing law defines an “official traffic control signal” as any device, whether manually, electrically, or mechanically operated, by which traffic is alternately directed to stop and proceed and which is erected by authority of a public body or official having jurisdiction.
Existing law states that any required stop be made at a sign, crosswalk, or limit line indicating where the stop is to be made, but, in the absence of that sign or marking, existing law requires that the stop be made at the official traffic control signal.
This bill would also require a stop to be made at an official traffic
control signal erected and maintained at a freeway or highway on ramp.
The bill would also make technical, nonsubstantive changes to that
provision.
10/07/17 Chaptered by Secretary of State -
Chapter 555, Statutes of 2017.
This bill would authorize the commission to relinquish to the City of
Santa Clarita all or any portion of Sierra Highway, also known as
Route 14U, located within the city limits of that city, upon terms and
conditions the commission finds to be in the best interests of the
state, if the department and the city enter into an agreement
providing for that relinquishment. The bill would make legislative
findings and declarations.
09/28/17 Chaptered by Secretary of State -
Chapter 351, Statutes of 2017.
Existing law declares the intent of the Legislature to preserve, upgrade, and expand the supply of current housing to persons or families of low or moderate income through the sale of specified surplus residential property. Existing law requires an agency of the state disposing of surplus residential property to do so in accordance with specified priorities and procedures, including that priority to purchase be given to tenants that are former owners or are persons or families of low or moderate income.
This bill would, until January 1, 2020, prohibit the Department of Transportation from increasing the rent of tenants who reside in surplus residential property located within the Route 710 corridor in the County of Los Angeles and who participate in the Affordable Rent Program administered by the department.
10/07/17 Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 568, Statutes of 2017.
This bill would provide an exemption to allow for blood transport
vehicles, as defined, to use HOV lanes, regardless of the number of
occupants, however, they are not exempt from tolls. The bill would
require certain conditions be met for the new exemption to be
operative, including requiring the Director of Transportation to
determine that the exemption would not result in a loss of federal
funds or conflict with federal law, as specified, and requiring the
director to post that determination on the Department of
Transportation’s Internet Web site.
09/30/17Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter
392, Statutes of 2017.
(2) Existing law authorizes the BATA to vary the toll structure on each of the bay area state-owned toll bridges and to provide discounts for vehicles classified by the BATA as high-occupancy vehicles.
This bill would additionally authorize the BATA to provide discounts for vehicles that pay for tolls electronically or through other non-cash methods and to charge differential rates based on the chosen method.
This bill, with respect to the Regional Measure 3 toll increase, would require the BATA to provide a 50% discount on the amount of that toll increase on the 2nd bridge crossing for those commuters using a two-axle vehicle, who cross 2 bridges during commute hours, as specified.
Existing law, if the BATA establishes high-occupancy vehicle lane fee discounts or access for vehicles classified by the BATA as high-occupancy vehicles for any bridge, requires the BATA to collaborate with the Department of Transportation to reach agreement on how the occupancy requirements shall apply on each segment of highway that connects with that bridge.
This bill would instead require the BATA to establish those occupancy requirements in consultation with the department.
(4) Existing law authorizes the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) to conduct, administer, and operate a value pricing high-occupancy toll (HOT) lane program on 2 corridors included in the high-occupancy vehicle lane system in Santa Clara County. Existing law authorizes a HOT lane established as part of this program on State Highway Route 101 to extend into the County of San Mateo as far as the high-occupancy lane in the County of San Mateo existed as of January 1, 2011, subject to agreement of the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County.
This bill would delete the authorization for a HOT lane to extend
into the specified portion of San Mateo County as part of a value
pricing program established on 2 corridors in Santa Clara County. The
bill would instead authorize VTA to specifically conduct, administer,
and operate a value pricing high-occupancy toll lane program on State
Highway Route 101 in San Mateo County in coordination with the
City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County and the San
Mateo County Transportation Authority, as prescribed.
10/10/17 Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter
650, Statutes of 2017.
I checked the CTC Liaison page for the results of the CTC meetings from September 2017 through December 2017 (i.e., October (Agenda, Directory) and December (Agenda, Directory)).The following items were of interest (note: ° indicates items that were below the level of detail for updating the specific route pages; ♠ is an indicator used to keep track of what has been added to the pages) :
♠ (Oct) (1) Request to: (•) Add 36 new projects into the 2016 SHOPP totaling $192,347,000; (•) Add 90 new projects from the 2018 SHOPP advanced for programming due to SB 1 totaling $846,433,000; (•) Revise 12 projects currently programmed in the 2016 SHOPP. (•) Develop 3 Long Lead projects. // Approved, as modified
Most of these projects were road rehabilitation, environmental mitigation, repairs, straightforward bridge replacements to current standards, resurfacing, safety improvements, culvert repair, etc., that are not at the level of interest for the highway pages. This doesn't make them any less important or of interest; rather, the highway pages focus on significant widenings, route changes, and such. Changes in place that are part of what might be normal maintenance are below the level of page interest. The following did result in page changes:
♠ (Oct) (3) The Department and the Kern County Council of Governments propose to de-program $3,942,000 in TCRP funding from Project 113 – Route 46 Expressway Phase 4A project and update the funding plan. (PPNO 3386C) // Approved.
♠ (Dec) (1) SHOPP Amendments for Approval: Request to: (•) Add 22 new projects into the 2016 SHOPP totaling $89,043,000; (•) Revise 96 projects currently programmed in the 2016 SHOPP. // Approved.
Most of these projects were road rehabilitation, environmental mitigation, repairs, straightforward bridge replacements to current standards, resurfacing, safety improvements, culvert repair, etc., that are not at the level of interest for the highway pages (this collection included quite a bit of fire damage repair). This doesn't make them any less important or of interest; rather, the highway pages focus on significant widenings, route changes, and such. Changes in place that are part of what might be normal maintenance are below the level of page interest. The following did result in page changes:
♠ (Dec) (2) The Contra Costa County Transportation Authority, in concurrence with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, proposes to program an AB 3090 cash reimbursement project (PPNO 0222F) in order to use local funds for construction of the I-680 Southbound High Occupancy Vehicle Lane Completion project (PPNO 0222E) in Contra Costa County, with later reimbursement over a three year period beginning in FY 2019-20 // Information only.
♠ (Dec) (3) The Department proposes to amend the Route 11 Highway and Commercial Vehicle Enforcement Facility project – Segment 2 (PPNO 0999B) in San Diego County to replace a portion of the local funds with a federal grant (FAST Act) and segment the project into Segment 2 (PPNO 0999B) and Segment 2A (PPNO 0999D); with Segment 2A being delivered in FY 2017-18. The Department also proposes to program $3,350,000 of SAFETEA-LU Border Infrastructure Program funds to the new Segment 2A. // Information only.
♠ (Dec) (4) The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), on behalf of the City of Brea (City), proposes to program an AB 3090 cash reimbursement project (PPNO 3834A) in order to use local funds to replace $9,000,000 of Regional Improvement Program (RIP) funds programmed in FY 2019-20 for the Right of Way component of the Route 57/Lambert Road Interchange Improvements project (PPNO 3834) in Orange County. OCTA and the City are requesting reimbursement in FY 2018-19. // Information only.
No Items / No Items of Interest in the Review Period.
♠ (Oct) Comments on Documents in Circulation: 07-LA-710, PM 5.4/24.5 I-710 Corridor Project: Construct roadway improvements on a portion of I-710 in Los Angeles County. (DEIR) (EA 24990) // The Commission approved, per Staff recommendation, to send a letter of comment to Caltrans.
♠ (Oct) (1) Approval of Projects for Future Consideration of Funding: // Approved
♠ (Oct) (2) Approval of Project for Future Consideration of Funding: 07-LA-10, PM 44.9/48.3 08-SBd-10, PM 0.0/R37.0 I-10 Corridor Project: Construct additional lanes on a portion of I-10 in Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties. (FEIR) (PPNO 0134K) (Local, CMAQ, STIP) // The Commission accepted the environmental document, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations and approved the project for funding.
♠ (Oct) (3) Approval of Project for Future Consideration of Funding: 11-SD-5, PM R32.7/R34.8, 11-SD-56, PM 0.0/2.5 I-5/Route 56 Interchange Project: Construct roadway and Interchange improvements on I-5 and Route 56 in San Diego County. (FEIR) (EA 17790) (Local) // The Commission accepted the environmental document, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations and approved the project for funding.
♠ (Dec) (1) Approval of Projects for Future Consideration of Funding: // Approved.
♠ (Oct) One Rescission of Freeway Adoption for: A portion of Route 54 from Route 125 to I-8 in the county of San Diego 11-SD-54-PM 6.7/16.9 // Approved
No Items / No Items of Interest in the Review Period.
♠ (Oct) Four Relinquishment Resolutions: // Approved
♠ (Dec) Four Relinquishment Resolutions: // Approved.
♠ (Oct) Three Vacation Resolutions: // Approved
No Items / No Items of Interest in the Review Period.
No items reached the level of interest, but with the interest in SB1 and the belief that the state will still misuse funds, I want to share the introduction to the various book items in this section:
The 2016 State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP) include both support and construction capital programming for rehabilitation projects on the State Highway System. The passage of the Road Repair and Accountability Act (SB 1) necessitates that the California Department of Transportation (Department) and the California Transportation Commission (Commission) establish baseline budgets for each phase of each project in the 2016 SHOPP. In order to establish these baselines, this book item requests allocations for 17 SHOPP preconstruction support phases in the adopted 2016 SHOPP that are currently underway.
It is important to recognize that SB 1 changed the way support phases are managed. SB 1 now requires an allocation of each support phase after July 1, 2017. Prior to the passage of SB 1, the Department could commence work on pre-construction SHOPP support phases without receiving an allocation from the Commission. At adoption of the 2016 SHOPP in March 2016, the Department had the authority to set support budgets in the SHOPP. Since then the Department has identified SHOPP pre-construction phases that began before the implementation of SB 1 and will continue after June 30, 2017. The Department then reviewed and updated the project work plans to arrive at a budget allocation request for each phase. If the budget exceeded the programmed amount, the Department followed existing change control processes to validate the requested allocation amounts.
The Department began work on many SHOPP project phases before the implementation of SB 1 and is still working on those phases. Project expenditures are consistent with the adopted 2016 SHOPP and approved by the California State Legislature through the annual Budget process.
The allocation requested in this book item will ensure that the 2016 SHOPP pre-construction support phases already underway are treated in the same fashion as new phases allocated after July 1, 2017 under the auspices of SB 1. This action by the Commission will establish the baseline budgets for each phase, and will support transparency and accountability. This action will ensure that the budgets for each SHOPP project are managed in accordance with the expectations of SB 1 and the adopted Commission SHOPP guidelines.
I encourage those who find the financial and control side of all of this to be of interest to go to the CTC link above and actually look at the book items to see how your money is being spent.
♠ (Oct) (2a) Request of $8,793,000 for three locally administered STIP projects on the State Highway System. The following items reached the requisite level of interest for the highway pages: // Approved, as modified.
♠ (Dec) (1) STIP Allocations: Request of $8,157,000 for two State administered STIP projects on the State Highway System. The following items reached the requisite level of interest for the highway pages: // Approved.
No Items / No Items of Interest in the Review Period.
No Items / No Items of Interest in the Review Period.
No Items / No Items of Interest in the Review Period.
♠ (Oct) (3) Request of $3,942,000 for the State administered STIP Project: Route 46 Widening – Segment 4A in Kern County. (PPNO 3386C) // Approved.
♠ (Oct) (5a) Request of $18,000,000 for the multi –funded State administered TCIF Project 124 – US 101 Marin Sonoma Narrows B2 Phase 2 Sonoma Median Widening HOV Lanes project, in Marin and Sonoma Counties (PPNO 0360U) // Approved.
♠ (Dec) (6) Request of $49,747,000 for the Route 11/125/905 Separation SHOPP project in San Diego County. (PPNO 1035) // Approved.
No Items / No Items of Interest in the Review Period.
No Items / No Items of Interest in the Review Period.
We're up to the closing three-day weekend of the summer, and that means it is time to start on a website update. It's been a busy summer and a hot summer, with an almost 4,900 road trip from Los Angeles CA to Madison WI and back, out through the middle (Colorado, Nebraska) and back through St. Louis and the "mother road". Work has continued on California Highways, especially thanks to some tax modifications that provided a much needed infrastructure boost to the state. As for that promised Infrastructure bill from the Feds, it remains just that, a promise.
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" and to the California Highways Facebook group) as well as any backed up email changes. I also reviewed the the AAroads forum. This resulted in changes on the following routes, with credit as indicated [my research(1), contributions of information or leads (via direct mail) from Mike Ballard(2), Bill Deaver(3), Andy Field(4), Gonealookin/AARoads(5), Ron Langum(6), NE2/AARoads(7), Alex Nitzman(8), Max Rockatansky/AARoads(9), Joe Rouse(10), Sparker/AARoads(11); Michelle Sandoval(12), Richard Severeid(13): Route 1(1), Route 4(6), I-5(1), Former US 6(2), I-8(1), I-10(1), Route 12(13), I-15(1), Route 16(1), Route 25(1), Route 27(1), Route 29(1), Route 32(9), Route 36(1), LRN 36(7,9,11), Route 37(1), US 40(9), Route 41(9,11), Route 43(9), Route 49(1,9,7,11), US 50(1,5,9), Route 57(1), Route 58(1,10), Route 62(1), Route 63(7,9,11), Route 65(9), Former US 66(1), Route 70(9), Route 75(1), Route 76(1), I-80(1,9), Route 87(1), Route 88(9,11), Route 89(1), Route 91(1), Route 94(1), LRN 94(11), Route 99(1,13), US 101(1,4), Route 104(9,11), Route 108(1), Route 120(9), LRN 120(9), Route 121(1), Route 124(9,11), Route 132(1), Route 134(1), LRN 135(9), Route 136(9), Route 138(1), Route 140(9), Route 145(9), Route 146(9), Route 152(1), Route 155(11), Route 158(9), Route 163(1), Route 172(9,11,7), Route 174(1), Route 178(1,9), Route 180(9), Route 201(9), Route 203(9), Route 204(1), Route 211(11), Route 237(1), Route 269(9), Route 270(9), US 395(1), I-405(1), US 466(3), Route 480(1), I-505(8), I-580(1), I-605(1), I-680(1), I-710(1), Monterey County Sign Route G13(9), Monterey County Sign Route G14(9), Tulare County Sign Route J37(9); FAQ(12). Note: Almost all of the SB 1 projects discussed here are resurfacing or repair of infrastructure, not new construction or widening. Thus, they are below the level of detail that I normally capture in these pages.
Noted the passing of Matthew Salek's Highways of Colorado (and updated the regional pages appropriately). If I had lights, I'd dim them in it's memory as another major roadsite disappears.
Updated the highway types page to clarify the difference between being a scenic highway in the legislative code and being an actual state scenic highway. The Q2-2017 Mile Marker explained the difference: "Many highway corridors are eligible for Scenic Highway status, but receiving an official designation requires the local government to apply to Caltrans for approval and adopt a Corridor Protection Program. The local governing body must develop and implement measures that strictly limit development and control outdoor advertising along the scenic corridor. "
Sometimes an innocent question can lead one down an interesting path. Such is the case with the question I received from David Walker, who asked "Who or what named the ditches on I-10?". This led me to UglyBridges.com and the National Bridge Inventory. This resulted in an addition to the FAQ, and a list of ditch names for I-10. I thought I might add them for some other desert routes, but the interface doesn't make that easy. Another query that didn't lead to an easy update to the site was a reporter from the OC Register, Kurt Snibbe, who wanted to do a piece explaining California's road signs. It didn't quite fit into a particular road's page, and didn't quite fit onto a specific numbering page, so it was shoehorned into the page on signing standards and the FAQ.
Reviewed the Pending Legislation page, based on the new California Legislature site. As usual, I recommend to every Californian that they visit the legislative website regularly and see what their legis-critters are doing. I noted the passage/veto of the following bills and resolutions (for some of these, I've highlighted key phrases in red):
This bill would authorize a city or county to display the Flag of the
United States of America or the Flag of the State of California, or
both, as part of a gateway monument, as defined (a “gateway
monument” means any freestanding structure or sign, or
nonintegral or nonrequired highway feature, constructed within the
state’s right-of-way, that communicates the name of the city or
county.)
09/01/17 Chaptered by Secretary of State -
Chapter 201, Statutes of 2017.
The San Bernardino County Transportation Authority Consolidation Act of 2017, within the County Transportation Commissions Act, creates the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA). The SBCTA is subject to the contracting provisions of the County Transportation Commissions Act, including the requirement that the SBCTA purchase of all supplies, equipment, and materials, and the construction of all facilities and works, in excess of $25,000, be by contract let to the lowest responsible bidder.
Existing law, until January 1, 2025, authorizes local agencies to use the design-build contracting process for public works projects. Existing law defines “local agency” as cities and counties, certain special districts relating to wastewater, solid waste, water recycling, and fire protection facilities, various governmental entities responsible for the construction of transit projects, and the San Diego Association of Governments. Existing law defines “project” specifically for each described category of local agency.
This bill would authorize the SBCTA, upon approval of its board of directors, to use the design-build contracting process for local agencies to award a contract for the construction of the Mt. Vernon Avenue Viaduct project in the City of San Bernardino (the project).
Existing law requires specified information submitted by a design-build entity, as defined, in the design-build procurement process to be certified under penalty of perjury.
By authorizing SBCTA to use design-build for the project, the bill would expand the scope of the crime of perjury and would thus impose a state-mandated local program.
This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the project.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act
for a specified reason.
07/31/17 Chaptered by Secretary of State -
Chapter 154, Statutes of 2017.
This bill would add to the list of specific roadside businesses
eligible for an information sign under these provisions a business
offering electric vehicle charging facilities.
07/31/17 Chaptered by Secretary of State -
Chapter 158, Statutes of 2017.
I started adding the following mark after images when the subject
changes, to make it easier to find where I put in the "<br
clear="right">":
⧉
I checked the CTC Liaison page for the results of the CTC meetings from June 2017 through August 2017 (i.e., June and August 2017). The following items were of interest (note: ° indicates items that were below the level of detail for updating the specific route pages) :
(Jun) (1a) Request to: [Approved.]
The bulk of these were repair or rehabilitation items, such as "Remove slide debris, reconstruct embankment slipouts, and repair drainage systems." or "Repair bridge scour." or "Stabilize slide and reconstruct roadway.". These are below the level of interest that necessitates a page change: I focus on new bridges, new lanes, significant traffic control changes, and so forth. Some, however, are quite interesting, such as Route 162's "In Oroville, from Route 70 to Lower Wyandotte Road. Repair pavement from large-scale truck haul from Oroville Dam Spillway work." The following, however, were of sufficient interest to update pages:
(Jun) (2f) The Department and the Tehama County Transportation Commission
propose unprogramming the Los Molinos - Phase III project on I-5 (PPNO
2528) and delaying PS&E from FY 18-19 to FY 19-20 and construction
from FY 19-20 to FY 20-21 and also updating the project scope and funding
plan for the 99W (Former US 99) from Gyle Road to I -5 project (PPNO 2569)
in Tehama County. [Approved.]
(Jun) (2j) Monterey County (County) proposes to amend the 2016 STIP to
delay $1,700,000 in Regional Improvement Program (RIP) construction funds
from Fiscal Year (FY) 2017-18 to FY 2018-19 for the Route 68 Safety and
Operational Improvements at Corral de Tierra project (PPNO 1813A), in
Monterey County. [Withdrawn from Consent
Calendar and Approved..]
(Jun) (2k) The Department and the Riverside County Transportation
Commission (RCTC) propose to amend the 2016 STIP to delay $31,555,000 in
Regional Improvement Program funding ($5,800,000 Construction Support and
$25,755,000 Construction Capital) from Fiscal Year (FY) 2017-18 to FY
2018-19 for the Route 60 Truck Climbing/Descending Lanes project (PPNO
0046J) in Riverside County. [Approved.]
(Jun) (3d) The Department and Kern County Council of Governments propose
to de-program $20,640,000 $26,372,000 in savings
from the TCRP Program (projects on a variety of routes that had savings or
could not be used by the June 30, 2017 deadline -- the ones on the state
highway system were Route 132 (Route 132 Expressway), an unallocated
project on Route 65, Route 10 Palm Drive Interchange, Route 10 Apache
Trail Interchange) to fund TCRP Project 113, Route 46 Expressway - Segment
4A Phase 1. (PPNO 3386A) [Approved.]
(Jun) (3e) The Department and Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority propose to de-program $35,970,000 in savings from
the TCRP Program (including projects on I-10 and I-405) to fund TCRP
Project 38.2, Los Angeles -San Fernando Valley Transit Extension and TCRP
50, Route 71. (PPNO 2741) [Approved.]
(Jun) (3h) The Department proposes to amend TCRP Project 148.1 - Widen
Route 98 between Route 111 and Route 7 in Imperial County to update the
project schedule and funding plan. (PPNO 0042A) [Approved.]
(Aug) (1a) SHOPP Amendments - Approval Request to: [Approved,
as modified. (On Attachment 2 – Corrections
to Project 4 (PNNO 3255), Project 17 (PPNO
8378) and Project 28 (PPNO 6925).) On Attachment 3 - Project 9 (08-Riverside -74 – PM 13.2/34.0) - In and near cities of Lake Elsinore, Perris, Menifee and Hemet... Withdrawn prior to CTC Meeting.]
As with June, most of these are below the interest of the highway pages -- loads of failed culverts, failed slopes, roadway rehabilitation -- all coming from either the storms, other disasters, or deferred maintenance. The following exceptions were of interest:
No Items / No Items of Interest in the Review Period.
No Items / No Items of Interest in the Review Period.
No Items / No Items of Interest in the Review Period.
(Jun) (1) Approval of Projects for Future Consideration of Funding [Approved.]
(Aug) (1) Approval of Projects for Future Consideration of Funding: [Approved.]
(Aug) (3) Approval of Project for Future Consideration of Funding:
09-Iny-395 PM 29.2/41.8 Olancha/Cartago Four-Lane Project: Widen and
realign a portion of US 395 in Inyo County. (FEIR) (PPNO 0170) (STIP) [Approved.]
(Aug) (4) Approval of Project for Future Consideration of Funding:
09-Mno-395 PM 88.42/91.55 Aspen Fales Shoulder Widening Project: Widen
shoulders on a portion of US 395 in Mono County. (FEIR) (PPNO 2600)
(SHOPP) [Approved.]
(Aug) (5) Approval of Projects for Future Consideration of Funding:
03– Placer El Dorado County Western
Placerville Interchange Project: Construct interchange improvements to
Placerville Drive and Forni Road on US 50. (MND) (PPNO 1217A) (STIP)
(SHOPP) [Approved, as modified.]
(Aug) (7) Approval of Project for Future Consideration of Funding:
07-LA-110, PM 24.0/30.4 Route 110 Safety Enhancement Project: Construct
roadway improvements on a portion of Route 110 in Los Angeles County.
(FEIR) (PPNO 4617 & PPNO 4588) (SHOPP) [Approved.]
No Items / No Items of Interest in the Review Period.
No Items / No Items of Interest in the Review Period.
(Jun) Three Relinquishment Resolutions: [Approved.]
(Aug) Two Relinquishment Resolutions: [Approved.]
No Items / No Items of Interest in the Review Period.
No Items / No Items of Interest in the Review Period.
(Jun) (1) Request of $261,557,000 $242,128,000 for
27 26 SHOPP projects. [Approved,
as modified: Project 7, PPNO 04-0064Q San Francisco Oakland Bay Bridge
Toll Plaza withdrawn prior to the meeting.] Most projects were
pavement rehabilitation, erosion controls, and other things below the
interest of the specific route pages. The following allocations were of
interest:
(Aug) (2) Request of $5,542,000 for the locally administered Western
Placerville Interchanges Phase 2 STIP project in El Dorado County, on the
State Highway System. (PPNO 1217A) [Approved.]
(Aug) (1) Request to allocate $192,630,000 for the Kramer Junction STIP
project on Route 58 in San Bernardino County; construction capital for
$172,630,000 (23.8 percent over the programmed amount) and construction
support for $20,000,000 (27.6 percent over the programmed amount). (PPNO
0215C) [Approved.]
(Aug) (2) Request to allocate $9,491,000 for one SHOPP Collision Reduction
project on Route 110 in Los Angeles County; construction capital for
$8,660,000 (43.6 percent over the programmed amount) and construction
support for $831,000. (PPNO 4617) [Approved, as
modified.]
No Items / No Items of Interest in the Review Period.
(Jun) Informational Reports on Allocations Under Delegated Authority [Information Only.]
(Aug) Informational Reports on Allocations Under Delegated Authority [Information Only.]
Most of the above were not of interest, again, being storm repairs, minor repairs, no route changes. The following, however, were of interest:
(Jun) (1a-1p) Allocation Amendments to deallocate CMIA funding on the
following projects: [Approved.] These
all reflect savings when the project was closed out, freeing funding for
other purposes. They don't really rise to the level of things I capture on
my pages, but are interesting none-the-less.
(Jun) (1q) Request to remove $11,760,000 in TFA funding, reducing the
original construction allocation to $0 and increasing the original CMIA
construction allocation by $11,760,000, to $22,057,000 for the I-15/I-215
Interchange to Scott Road project in Riverside County. (PPNO 9991A)
[Specifically: amend Resolutions CMIA-AA-1011-012 and STIP1B-AA-1011-005
to deallocate $11,760,000 in STIP and reallocate $11,760,000 in CMIA for
the Route 15/215 Interchange to Scott Road project (PPNO 9991A) in
Riverside County, thereby reducing the STIP construction allocation of
$11,760,000 to $0, and increasing the CMIA construction allocation of
$10,297,000 to $22,057,000.] [Approved.]
This was below the level of interest for my pages.
(Aug) (5) Request for $3,600,000 for TCIF Project 126 – I-80/Route 65 Interchange Phase 1-Third Lane project, Placer County. (PPNO TC126) [Approved.]
(Jun) (2a) Request of $10,800,000 for three State administered Tier 2 TCRP
projects, on the State Highway System. Resolution TFP-16-21 [Approved.]
The following projects were of interest:
(Jun) (2f) Request of $24,669,000 $28,001,000 for
the State administered multi-funded TCRP/STIP
Project 113-Route 46 Widening – Segment 4A project, in Kern
County, on the State Highway System. (PPNO 3386C) [Approved.]:
Kern 06-Ker-46 30.5/33.5 $28,001,000 Project 113 - Route 46 Widening -
Segment 4A. In and near Lost Hills, from Lost Hills Road to 0.9 mile east
of I-5. Widen from 2 to 4 lanes. Future Consideration of Funding approved
under Resolution E-06-30; October 2006 This is a Tier 2 TCRP Project
allocation consistent with the Commission's TCRP Close-out policy approved
May 2017.
(Jun) (2m) Allocation Amendment - TCRP Project. Request the reallocation
of $536,000 for Environmental on TCRP Project 87.2 – Build two new
freeway connector ramp projects in San Diego County. (PPNO 0356) [Approved.]:
This is a financial re-allocation of $536,000 for TCRP Project 87.2
– Route 94/Route 125; build two new freeway connector ramps project
(PPNO 0356) in San Diego County. Re-allocate $536,000 in previously
allocated funds for PA&ED.
(Aug) (4.17) Trade Corridors Improvement Fund Program Amendment: Add
Project No. 126, I-80/Route 65 Interchange Phase 1-Third Lane Project in
Placer County Resolution TCIF-P-1718-01 [Approved.]
(Aug) (4.19) Trade Corridors Improvement Fund Baseline Agreement: Approve
the Baseline Agreement for Project No. 126, I-80/Route 65 Interchange
Phase 1-Third Lane Project in Placer County Resolution TCIF-P-1718-03B [Approved.]
Much as I tell myself that I won't wait more than two months between updates, life gets away from me, my weekends get booked with theatre, and (boom) five months have passed. So it goes, I guess. Let's start with the important numbers first: 40,818 songs on the iPod, up from 39,653 since December, with 582 songs on the "5 or Less" list (including two cast albums about Los Angeles, including one about Freeway Dreams), and about 6636 on the "10 or Less" list.
So far, in 2017, we've seen the passage of a gas tax proposal to fund roads (if it survives, hopefully), the inauguration of Donald Trump's administration (which hopefully won't survive), a proposal for a gazillion bajillion dollars -- trust me, it's yuge -- in infrastructure funding in the administration's spending proposal (which won't survive in its present form, and would include more toll roads), and the seeming death of Route 1 due to actual weather, and Route 710 due to political weather -- and when and whether either will return as a zombie is unknown. Depends on the brains available.
But this site does not work on political opinion. We work on facts: news reports, reports from the fields, legislative actions, transportation commission actions. But before I go into that, a question for those reading this on my website. At times I've had the urge to redo the website into something responsive, which would likely take a lot of time. I've also worried about the fact that I don't serve everything via https://. But this is primarily an information site, that doesn't handle any personal or sensitive data. Going responsive would require Javascript to resize and rearrange pages for phones, as opposed to full width web pages as in the current design. There's no content management system to do this for me (although the blog is Wordpress). My tools still generate hand-coded HTML, at some generation before HTML4 (pretty-much before CSS). I'm inclined not to change things if they work, but if you think I need to do the effort, please drop me a note.
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" and to the California Highways Facebook group) as well as any backed up email changes. I also reviewed the the AAroads forum. This resulted in changes on the following routes, with credit as indicated [my research(1), contributions of information or leads (via direct mail) from Max Rockatansky(2): Route 1(1), Route 4(1), I-5(1), I-8(1), Route 9(1), I-10(1), Route 12(1), Route 29(1), Route 35(1), Route 37(1), Route 39(1), Route 46(1), US 50(1), Route 55(1), Route 58(1), Route 65(1), Former US 66(1), Route 67(1), Route 74(1), Route 75(1), Route 76(1), Route 79(1), I-80(1), Route 84(1), Route 91(1), Route 94(1), Route 99(1), US 101(1), I-110(1), Route 121(1), Route 125(1), Route 142(1), Route 174(1), Route 190(1), I-210(1), Route 273(1), I-405(1), I-580(1), Route 710(1), I-805(1), I-980(1), County Sign Route J1(2). Note: I was out of it, and didn't pick up that much from AAroad (so folks there should just email me desired changes), and no one really emailed me anything during this change period.
Gribblenation.com supposedly closed as of the end of 2016, and Gribblenation.net actually closed as of January 2017. However, gribblenation.com still seems to be up. Per the discussion over on AAroads, a number of pieces will be moving to new sites as of January 2017. Those so identified have been updated. If you were at gibblenation.com or .net and have a new site, please mail me information on the corrected link. Otherwise, your entry has been deleted. As always, if you have a regional road page, please send me the link. If you had a page, please make sure I have the correct link.
Reviewed the Pending Legislation page, based on the new California Legislature site. As usual, I recommend to every Californian that they visit the legislative website regularly and see what their legis-critters are doing. I noted the passage/veto of the following bills and resolutions (for some of these, I've highlighted key phrases in red):
This bill would reinstate the operation of the latter provision. The bill would repeal that provision on January 1, 2020.
This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an
urgency statute.
03/29/17 Chaptered by Secretary of State -
Chapter 4, Statutes of 2017.
This bill would create the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program to address deferred maintenance on the state highway system and the local street and road system. The bill would require the California Transportation Commission to adopt performance criteria, consistent with a specified asset management plan, to ensure efficient use of certain funds available for the program. The bill would provide for the deposit of various funds for the program in the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account, which the bill would create in the State Transportation Fund, including revenues attributable to a $0.12 per gallon increase in the motor vehicle fuel (gasoline) tax imposed by the bill with an inflation adjustment, as provided, 50% of a $0.20 per gallon increase in the diesel excise tax, with an inflation adjustment, as provided, a portion of a new transportation improvement fee imposed under the Vehicle License Fee Law with a varying fee between $25 and $175 based on vehicle value and with an inflation adjustment, as provided, and a new $100 annual vehicle registration fee applicable only to zero-emission vehicles model year 2020 and later, with an inflation adjustment, as provided. The bill would provide that the fuel excise tax increases take effect on November 1, 2017, the transportation improvement fee takes effect on January 1, 2018, and the zero-emission vehicle registration fee takes effect on July 1, 2020.
This bill would annually set aside $200,000,000 of the funds available for the program to fund road maintenance and rehabilitation purposes in counties that have sought and received voter approval of taxes or that have imposed fees, including uniform developer fees, as defined, which taxes or fees are dedicated solely to transportation improvements. These funds would be continuously appropriated for allocation pursuant to guidelines to be developed by the California Transportation Commission in consultation with local agencies. The bill would require $100,000,000 of the funds available for the program to be available annually for expenditure, upon appropriation by the Legislature, on the Active Transportation Program. The bill would require $400,000,000 of the funds available for the program to be available annually for expenditure, upon appropriation by the Legislature, on state highway bridge and culvert maintenance and rehabilitation. The bill would require $5,000,000 of the funds available for the program that are not restricted by Article XIX of the California Constitution to be appropriated each fiscal year to the California Workforce Development Board to assist local agencies to implement policies to promote preapprenticeship training programs to carry out specified projects funded by the account. The bill would require $25,000,000 of the funds available for the program to be annually transferred to the State Highway Account for expenditure on the freeway service patrol program. The bill would require $25,000,000 of the funds available for the program to be available annually for expenditure, upon appropriation by the Legislature, on local planning grants. The bill would authorize annual appropriations of $5,000,000 and $2,000,000 of the funds available for the program to the University of California and the California State University, respectively, for the purpose of conducting transportation research and transportation-related workforce education, training, and development, as specified. The bill would require the remaining funds available for the program to be allocated 50% for maintenance of the state highway system or to the state highway operation and protection program and 50% to cities and counties pursuant to a specified formula. The bill would impose various requirements on the department and agencies receiving these funds. The bill would authorize a city or county to spend its apportionment of funds under the program on transportation priorities other than those allowable pursuant to the program if the city’s or county’s average Pavement Condition Index meets or exceeds 80.
(2) Existing law creates the Department of Transportation within the Transportation Agency.
This bill would create the Independent Office of Audits and Investigations within the department, with specified powers and duties. The bill would provide for the Governor to appoint the director of the office for a 6-year term, subject to confirmation by the Senate, and would provide that the director, who would be known as the Inspector General, may not be removed from office during the term except for good cause. The bill would specify the duties and responsibilities of the Inspector General with respect to the department and local agencies receiving state and federal transportation funds through the department, and would require an annual report to the Legislature and Governor.
This bill would require the department to update the Highway Design Manual to incorporate the “complete streets” design concept by January 1, 2018. The bill would require the department to develop a plan by January 1, 2020, to increase by up to 100% the dollar value of contracts awarded to small businesses, disadvantaged business enterprises, and disabled veteran business enterprises, as specified.
(3) Existing law provides for loans of revenues from various transportation funds and accounts to the General Fund, with various repayment dates specified.
This bill would identify the amount of outstanding loans from certain transportation funds as $706,000,000. The bill would require the Department of Finance to prepare a loan repayment schedule and would require the outstanding loans to be repaid pursuant to that schedule, as prescribed. The bill would appropriate funds for that purpose from the Budget Stabilization Account. The bill would require the repaid funds to be transferred, pursuant to a specified formula, to various state and local transportation purposes.
(4) The Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006 (Proposition 1B) created the Trade Corridors Improvement Fund and provided for allocation by the California Transportation Commission of $2 billion in bond funds for infrastructure improvements on highway and rail corridors that have a high volume of freight movement and for specified categories of projects eligible to receive these funds.
This bill would deposit the revenues attributable to 50% of the $0.20 per gallon increase in the diesel fuel excise tax imposed by the bill into the Trade Corridor Enhancement Account, to be expended on corridor-based freight projects nominated by local agencies and the state.
(5) Article XIX of the California Constitution requires gasoline excise tax revenues from motor vehicles traveling upon public streets and highways to be deposited in the Highway Users Tax Account, for allocation to city, county, and state transportation purposes. Existing law generally provides for statutory allocation of gasoline excise tax revenues attributable to other modes of transportation, including aviation, boats, agricultural vehicles, and off-highway vehicles, to particular accounts and funds for expenditure on purposes associated with those other modes, except that a specified portion of these gasoline excise tax revenues is deposited in the General Fund. Expenditure of the gasoline excise tax revenues attributable to those other modes is not restricted by Article XIX of the California Constitution.
This bill, commencing November 1, 2017, would transfer the gasoline excise tax revenues attributable to boats and off-highway vehicles from the new $0.12 per gallon increase, and future inflation adjustments from that increase, to the State Parks and Recreation Fund, to be used for state parks, off-highway vehicle programs, or boating programs. The bill would allocate revenues from future inflation adjustments of the existing gasoline excise tax rate attributable to the nonhighway modes pursuant to existing law.
(6) Existing law, as of July 1, 2011, increases the sales and use tax on diesel and decreases the excise tax, as provided. Existing law requires the State Board of Equalization to annually modify both the gasoline and diesel excise tax rates on a going-forward basis so that the various changes in the taxes imposed on gasoline and diesel are revenue neutral.
This bill would eliminate, effective July 1, 2019, the annual rate adjustment to maintain revenue neutrality for the gasoline and diesel excise tax rates and would reimpose on that date the higher gasoline excise tax rate that was in effect on July 1, 2010, in addition to the increase in the rate described in (1) above that becomes effective on November 1, 2017.
Existing law, beyond the sales and use tax rate generally applicable, imposes an additional sales and use tax on diesel fuel at the rate of 1.75%, subject to certain exemptions, and provides for the net revenues collected from the additional tax to be transferred to the Public Transportation Account. Existing law continuously appropriates these and other revenues in the account to the Controller for allocation by formula to transportation agencies for public transit purposes under the State Transit Assistance Program. Existing law provides for appropriation of other revenues in the account to the Department of Transportation for various other transportation purposes, including intercity rail purposes.
This bill would increase the additional sales and use tax rate on diesel fuel by an additional 4%. The bill would continuously appropriate revenues attributable to the 3.5% rate increase to the Controller for allocation to transportation agencies for public transit purposes under the State Transit Assistance Program. The bill would require the revenues attributable to the remaining 0.5% rate increase to be continuously appropriated to the Transportation Agency for intercity rail and commuter rail purposes.
The bill would also allocate portions of the revenue from the new transportation improvement fee to the State Transit Assistance Program and to the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program. The bill would restrict expenditures of the fee revenues made available to the State Transit Assistance Program to transit capital purposes and certain transit services, and would require a recipient transit agency to comply with various requirements, as specified.
(7) Existing law provides for the state to receive certain compact assets, as defined, from designated tribal compacts relative to Indian gaming, and authorized the compact assets to be sold by the Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank to a special purpose trust in order to generate state revenues. Existing law designated certain of these revenues to be used to repay certain loans of transportation funds that were made to the General Fund.
This bill would delete the references to the special purpose trust and revise payments to various transportation accounts to be made from compact assets. The bill would repeal various other related provisions.
(8) Existing law creates the Traffic Congestion Relief Program and identifies various specific projects eligible to receive funding.
This bill would deem the Traffic Congestion Relief Program to be complete and final as of June 30, 2017, and would provide that projects without approved applications are no longer eligible for funding.
(9) Existing law requires the Department of Transportation to prepare a state highway operation and protection program every other year for the expenditure of transportation capital improvement funds for projects that are necessary to preserve and protect the state highway system, excluding projects that add new traffic lanes. The program is required to be based on an asset management plan, as specified. Existing law requires the department to specify, for each project in the program the capital and support budget and projected delivery date for various components of the project. Existing law provides for the California Transportation Commission to review and adopt the program, and authorizes the commission to decline and adopt the program if it determines that the program is not sufficiently consistent with the asset management plan.
This bill would require the commission, as part of its review of the program, to hold at least one hearing in northern California and one hearing in southern California regarding the proposed program. The bill would require the department to submit any change to a programmed project as an amendment to the commission for its approval.
This bill, on and after July 1, 2017, would also require the commission to make an allocation of capital outlay support resources by project phase for each project in the program, and would require the department to submit a supplemental project allocation request to the commission for each project that experiences cost increases above the amounts in its allocation. The bill would require the commission to establish guidelines to provide exceptions to the requirement for a supplemental project allocation requirement that the commission determines are necessary to ensure that projects are not unnecessarily delayed.
(10) Existing law generally provides for transportation capital improvement projects to be nominated and programmed through the state highway operation and protection program, relative to state highway rehabilitation and similar projects, or through the state transportation improvement program, relative to capacity enhancements and other capital projects.
This bill would create the Solutions for Congested Corridors Program, with funding appropriated for the program from a portion of the new transportation improvement fee to be allocated by the California Transportation Commission to projects designed to achieve a balanced set of transportation, environmental, and community access improvements within highly congested travel corridors throughout the state and that are part of a comprehensive corridor plan. The bill would provide for regional transportation agencies and the Department of Transportation to nominate projects, with preference to be given to projects that demonstrate collaboration between the regional agencies and the department.
(11) The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of, an environmental impact report on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the environment.
This bill would establish the Advance Mitigation Program in the Department of Transportation to enhance communications between the department and stakeholders to, among other things, protect natural resources and accelerate project delivery. The bill would require the department to set aside not less than $30,000,000 annually for 4 years for the program from capital outlay revenues.
(12) Existing law imposes various limitations on emissions of air contaminants for the control of air pollution from vehicular and nonvehicular sources. Existing law generally designates the State Air Resources Board as the state agency with the primary responsibility for the control of vehicular air pollution.
This bill would prohibit, except as specified, the requiring of the retirement, replacement, retrofit, or repower of a self-propelled commercial motor vehicle during a specified period. The bill would require the state board to, by January 1, 2025, evaluate the impact of these provisions on state and local clean air efforts to meet state and local clean air goals, as provided.
(13) Existing law prohibits a person from driving, moving, or leaving standing upon a highway any motor vehicle, as defined, that has been registered in violation of provisions regulating vehicle emissions.
This bill, effective January 1, 2020, would require the Department of Motor Vehicles to confirm, prior to the initial registration or the transfer of ownership and registration of a diesel-fueled vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 14,000 pounds, that the vehicle is compliant with, or exempt from, applicable air pollution control technology requirements, pursuant to specified provisions. The bill would require the department to refuse registration, or renewal or transfer of registration, for certain diesel-fueled vehicles, based on weight and model year, that are subject to specified provisions relating to the reduction of emissions of diesel particulate matter, oxides of nitrogen, and other criteria pollutants from in-use diesel-fueled vehicles. The bill would authorize the department to allow registration, or renewal or transfer of registration, for any diesel-fueled vehicle that has been reported to the State Air Resources Board, and is using an approved exemption, or is compliant with applicable air pollution control technology requirements, pursuant to specified provisions.
Existing law authorizes the department, in its discretion, to issue a temporary permit to operate a vehicle when a payment of fees has been accepted in an amount to be determined by the department and paid to the department by the owner or other person in lawful possession of the vehicle.
This bill would additionally authorize the department to issue a temporary permit to operate a vehicle for which registration is otherwise required to be refused under the provisions of the bill, as prescribed.
(14) The bill would enact other related provisions.
(15) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as
an urgency statute.
04/28/17 Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter
5, Statutes of 2017.
I checked the CTC Liaison page for the results of the CTC meetings from December 2016 through June 2017 (i.e., January, March, and May 2017). The following items were of interest (note: ° indicates items that were below the level of detail for updating the specific route pages) :
(Jan) (1) °Request to: (a) Add 15 new projects into the 2016 SHOPP. Click here for details. [Approved, as modified.]
(Mar) (1) Request to: (a) Add 63 new projects into the 2016 SHOPP; (b)
Revise 15 projects currently programmed in the 2016 SHOPP; and (c) Develop
1 Long Lead project.°Most of these were storm or other damage repairs
or minor projects, highway safety, rumble strips, bridge replacement in
place, and so on; click here for the details on those. Larger projects of interest (generally, those that went beyond cleaning the damage, drain repair, retaining walls
and slope stabilization, and roadway reconstruction to the level of
geotechnical investigations, which indicate significant damage and
reconstruction or rerouting will be required) were on the following
routes: Route 175, Route 9 [Approved, as
modified.]
(May) (1) Request to: (a) Add 132 new projects into the 2016 SHOPP; (b)
Revise 49 projects currently programmed in the 2016 SHOPP; and (c) Develop
2 Long Lead projects. Again, most of these were storm damage and minor
repairs -- you can see the details here and here. [Approved, as modified.]
(May) (2) STIP Amendment for Approval: The Contra Costa Transportation
Authority (CCTA) and the Department, propose to revise the implementing
agency from CCTA to the Department for the Right-of-Way phase on the
I-680/Route 4 Interchange - Widen Route 4 (Phase 3) project (PPNO 0298E)
in Contra Costa County. [Approved]
(Mar) STIP Amendment for Notice: The Department and the Contra Costa
Transportation Authority (CCTA) propose revising the implementing agency
for the Right-of-Way phase of the I-680/Route 4 Interchange - Widen Route 4 (Phase 3) project in Contra Costa County, from CCTA to the Department.
(PPNO 0298E) [Information only.]
(May) (6) The Department and the Tehama County Transportation Commission
propose unprogramming the Los Molinos - Phase III project (PPNO 2528) and
delaying PS&E from FY 18-19 to FY 19-20 and construction from FY 19-20
to FY 20-21 and also updating the project scope and funding plan for Route 99W from Gyle Road to I-5 project (PPNO 2569) in Tehama County. [Information
only]
(May) (11) The Department and the Riverside County Transportation
Commission propose delaying $31,555,000 in RIP construction and
construction support funds from FY 2017-18 to FY 2018-19 for the Route 60
Truck Climbing/Descending Lanes project, in Riverside County. (PPNO 0046J)
[Information only]
No Items / No Items of Interest in the Review Period.
No Items / No Items of Interest in the Review Period.
(Jan) (1) Approval of Project for Future Consideration of Funding: [Approved]
(Jan) (2) Approval of Project for Future Consideration of Funding and
Route Adoption: 01-Lak-29, PM 23.6/31.6 Lake 29 Improvement Project:
Construct roadway improvements including lane additions in each direction
on a portion of Route 29 in Lake County. (FEIR) (PPNO 3099 & 3100)
(SHOPP & STIP) [Note: This included confirmation of Lake Country Road
502 as Route 281] [The Commission approved the
environmental document, Finding of Facts, and approved the project for
funding]
(Jan) (3) Approval of Project for Future Consideration of Funding:
02-Sis-96, PM 103.00/103.6, 02-Sis-263, PM 56.7/57.2 Klamath River Bridge
Project: Replace existing bridge on Route 263 (near the intersection with
Route 96) in Siskiyou County. (FEIR) (PPNO 3242) (SHOPP) [The
Commission approved the environmental document, Finding of Facts,
Statement of Overriding Considerations, and approved the project for
funding.]
(Mar) (1) Approval of Projects for Future Consideration of Funding: [Approved]
(May) (1) Approval of Projects for Future Consideration of Funding: [Approved]
(May) (2) Approval of Projects for Future Consideration of Funding:
01-Hum-101, PM 79.9/86.3 Eureka-Arcata Route 101 Corridor Improvement
Project Construct roadway improvements on a portion of US 101 in Humboldt
County. (FEIR) (PPNO 0072) (SHOPP/STIP) [The
Commission approved the environmental document, Statement of Overriding
Considerations, Finding of Facts and approved the project for funding]
(Jan) One Route Adoption: [Approved]
No Items / No Items of Interest in the Review Period.
(Jan) Six Relinquishment Resolutions: [Approved]
(Mar) Four Relinquishment Resolutions: [Approved]
(May) Four Relinquishment Resolutions: [Removed
from the consent calendar and approved after Tab 58.]
No Items / No Items of Interest in the Review Period.
(May) SHOPP Program Minor Program Allocations: Request of $470,000 for the
US 50 at Ray Lawyer Drive Minor project, in El Dorado County. (EA 37281) [Approved]
(Jan) (1) Request of $46,870,000 for 13 SHOPP projects. °Most of
these projects did not reach the level of interest for the pages (being
efforts such as pedestrian curb ramps, pavement rehabilitation, worker
safety areas, landscape restoration, environmental mitigation, and bridge
preventative maintenance); click here for the details. Updates were made to Route 46 for a bridge
replacement at Route 99. [Approved, as
modified]
(Mar) (1) Request of $102,397,000 for 13 SHOPP projects. °None of
these projects reached the level of interest for which page changes were
necessary; click here for the details. [Approved]
(Mar) (3) Request of $8,000,000 for two SHOPP projects. These projects
were the financial contributions associated with relinquishment of Route 74 in Lake Elsinore and the unincorporation portion in Riverside County
between Lake Elsinore and Perris. [Approved]
(May) (1) SHOPP Allocations: Request of $189,237,000 for 25 SHOPP
projects.°None of these projects reached the level of interest for
which page changes were necessary; click here for the details. [Approved, as modified]
(Mar) (2) Advance - STIP Allocation: Request of $3,000,000 for the locally
administered STIP Route 1 Operational Improvements project, in Monterey
County. (PPNO 1814) [Approved]
(May) (2) Request of $550,000 for the locally administered STIP Route 60
Truck Climbing/Descending Lanes project in Riverside County, on the State
Highway System. (PPNO 0046J) [Approved]
(May) (2) Request of $4,500,000 to relinquish Route 19/Lakewood Boulevard
in Los Angeles County. This is an adjustment of 54.6 percent over
the original programmed amount. (PPNO 4485) [Approved]
(Mar) (2) Request for additional programming in the amount of $1,255,000
for the Plans, Specifications and Estimate phase for a Safety SHOPP
project on I-8 in San Diego County. (PPNO 1068) [Approved]
(May) (2) Request for an additional $1,779,000 in Construction Support to
complete construction of the STIP Operational Improvement project on Route 246 in Santa Barbara County. (PPNO 6400) [Approved]
(Jan) Informational Reports on Allocations Under Delegated Authority Click here for the details. [Information only]
(Mar) Informational Reports on Allocations Under Delegated Authority. Click here for the details. At this point, much of this was storm damage from Winter 2017, of which there were significant items for Route 1 near
Westport (01-Men-1 78.0/83.5), Route 1 near Leggett (01-Men-1 104.4);
Route 20 near Willits (01-Men-20 20.8); Route 299 near Big French Creek
(02-Tri-299 23.3). I didn't put all of these in, but reading through these
emergency allocations really gives you an idea of the scope of the Winter
2017 storms. [Information only.]
(May) Informational Reports on Allocations Under Delegated Authority. Click here for the details. Again, much of this was storm damage, and I was looking primarily for those projects that would become truly major
projects because of significant geologic instability. Changes were made to
the following routes: Route 36, US 101, Route 299. There's loads of storm
damage (as you can tell by 126 projects), and it makes for interesting
reading. [Information only.]
No Items / No Items of Interest in the Review Period.
(Mar) (2a) Traffic Congestion Relief Program (TCRP) TCRP Tier 2 -
Allocations: Request of $395,000 in Tier 2 TCRP funding for the State
administered Project: Route 71 Expressway to Freeway Conversion (Route 10
to Route 60) in Los Angeles County, on the State Highway System. (PPNO
2741) [Approved]
No Items / No Items of Interest in the Review Period.
FREQUENTLY USED TERMS IN CTC MINUTES: California Transportation Commission (Commission or CTC), California Department of Transportation (Department or Caltrans), Regional Improvement Program (RIP), Interregional Improvement Program (IIP), State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP), Traffic Congestion Relief Program (TCRP), Public Transportation Account (PTA), Clean Air and Transportation Improvement Act of 1990 (Proposition 116), High Speed Passenger Train Bond Program (Proposition 1A), Highway Safety, Traffic Re-duction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006 (Proposition 1B), Corridor Mobility Improvement Account (CMIA), State Route 99 Bond Program (RTE or SR 99), Local Bridge Seismic Retrofit Account (LBSRA), Trade Corridors Improvement Fund (TCIF), Highway-Railroad Crossing Safety Account (HRCSA), State-Local Partnership Program (SLPP), Traffic Light Synchronization Program (TLSP), Letter of No Prejudice (LONP), Environmental Phase (PA&ED), Design Phase (PS&E), Right of Way (R/W), Fiscal Year (FY)
© 1996-2020 Daniel P.
Faigin.
Maintained by: Daniel P. Faigin <webmaster@cahighways.org>.
2016 Changes