 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / July 2009I-15 notes
Headed back from Vegas early enough that I decided to take I-15 (instead of my usual US 95 to I-10, which is longer but much less stressful). Even by 11am the Cajon Pass was already stop and go SB. Ugly! NDOT has really torn up I-15/US 93 north of the Spaghetti Bowl in Vegas, and they are doing something to the Spaghetti Bowl itself again, which never appears to be *not* under construction. However, the three-lane-per-direction carriageways down to Primm and the state line are wonderful. The Mountain Pass construction is still not finished. All the temporary signage and markings seem to be NDOT issue. I knew they were doing some measure of the funding, but this looks like they're actually *building* it. The SB "express lane" is actually riding on the NB carriageway connected by shooflies and separated by K-rail. There are still too many two-lane-per-direction sections, but the truck lanes are very welcome. CA 127 signage in Baker is suffering. It is very poorly marked. Also, I wonder about, with CA's tendency now to memorialize old US routes, why there is not a Historic Route US 91 push (we have 6, 40, 80, 99, 101 and 395, and, oh yes, 66, so ...). Baker Blvd is very well preserved otherwise, and even has the old US 91 bridge through town with white rails and all, so it would be perfect for that. The Yermo ag station is alive and well and congested. Surfacing projects through the Victor Valley mean everyone crams into the fast lane to avoid the rough asphalt. This persists until you crest the Cajon summit into the main downhill section. However, I was delighted to see the I-15 postmile at the state line with a whopping SBD 186.2. I'm fairly certain this is the highest postmile on any California highway (makes sense given it's the diagonal route through San Bernardino county). -- Cameron Kaiser * ckaiser@floodgap.com * posting with a Commodore 128 personal page: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ ** Computer Workshops: games, productivity software and more for C64/128! ** ** http://www.armory.com/%7Espectre/cwi/ ** > "Cameron Kaiser" <ckaiser@floodgap.com> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The SB "express lane" is actually riding on the NB carriageway connected > by shooflies and separated by K-rail. What are shooflies and K-rail? Never heard those terms. > CA 127 signage in Baker is suffering. It is very poorly marked. Also, I > wonder about, with CA's tendency now to memorialize old US routes, why [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > would > be perfect for that. Why not US-466? > The Yermo ag station is alive and well and congested. Pretty easy to get around, though. I usually get off at Harvard.  SignatureCiao, Paul D. DeRocco Paul mailto:pderocco@ix.netcom.com > What are shooflies and K-rail? Never heard those terms. http://www.justfuckinggoogleit.com/search.pl?query=shoofly http://www.justfuckinggoogleit.com/search.pl?query=k-rail SignatureRequiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. Eppure si rinfresca ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml > > What are shooflies and K-rail? Never heard those terms. http://zo-d.com/stuff/tool-history/krail-concrete-barrier.html shooflies are the short connecting roadways from the main lanes to express >> Paul D. DeRocco wrote: >> >> What are shooflies and K-rail? Never heard those terms. > "Larry Sheldon" <lfsheldon@gmail.com> wrote > http://www.justfuckinggoogleit.com/search.pl?query=shoofly > http://www.justfuckinggoogleit.com/search.pl?query=k-rail Well, that's bloody rude. As it happens, I did Google shoofly, shooflies, shoo flies, shoofly road, etc., and came up with nothing. I assumed that Cameron was referring to temporary pavement that routes traffic over to the "wrong" side of the freeway, but had never heard that lingo. As to K-rail, I was unable to find the difference between it and what I've always heard referred to as Jersey barriers. SignatureCiao, Paul D. DeRocco Paul mailto:pderocco@ix.netcom.com > Well, that's bloody rude. Sorry, I was trying to be funny. My apologies. In my experience near trains, a shoofly is a section of track built around a section of track being rebuilt or repaired. I've never heard the K-rail term--no clue. > > Well, that's bloody rude. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I've never heard the K-rail term--no clue. In "Volcano" (the motion picture with Tommy Lee Jones), the term k-rail is used (for the lava dam at Wilshire and La Cienega). >As it happens, I did Google shoofly, shooflies, shoo flies, shoofly road, >etc., and came up with nothing. I assumed that Cameron was referring to >temporary pavement that routes traffic over to the "wrong" side of the >freeway, but had never heard that lingo. Yes, that's what I'm referring to. >As to K-rail, I was unable to find the difference between it and what I've >always heard referred to as Jersey barriers. K-rail is (at least to Caltrans) a temporary prefab Jersey kerb. See http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/research/operations/roadsidesafety/staking/ -- Cameron Kaiser * ckaiser@floodgap.com * posting with a Commodore 128 personal page: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ ** Computer Workshops: games, productivity software and more for C64/128! ** ** http://www.armory.com/%7Espectre/cwi/ ** >>> Paul D. DeRocco wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > As to K-rail, I was unable to find the difference between it and what I've > always heard referred to as Jersey barriers. They're very similar with just a slight difference in shape and the specifications between the Caltrans K-rail and the standard Type 50 "Jersey Barrier". One key difference though is the K-rail is designed to be a temporary movable barrier. If it's a permanent concrete barrier, then it's probably not an actual K-rail. http://www.dot.ca.gov/newtech/operations/roadsidesafety/staking/index.htm - Peter >Why not US-466? Well, I guess the CA 58/46 portion could be Historic US 466, but the rest of it is sort of redundant. I wonder how many people remember the old routing. It doesn't seem as mentioned as frequently as the other biggies (for that matter neither does US 91). >>The Yermo ag station is alive and well and congested. >Pretty easy to get around, though. I usually get off at Harvard. Good idea. I'll do that next time. Didn't even think of that. -- Cameron Kaiser * ckaiser@floodgap.com * posting with a Commodore 128 personal page: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ ** Computer Workshops: games, productivity software and more for C64/128! ** ** http://www.armory.com/%7Espectre/cwi/ ** >> Why not US-466? > > Well, I guess the CA 58/46 portion could be Historic US 466, but the rest of > it is sort of redundant. I wonder how many people remember the old routing. > It doesn't seem as mentioned as frequently as the other biggies (for that > matter neither does US 91). CA-58 should be upgraded to Interstate status and become the continuation of I-40 from Barstow until its junction with I-5, west of Bakersfield. I never understood the reason why it wasn't done in the first place. - Peter > >> Why not US-466? > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > - Peter Upgrading as far as the 99 I can see, but buying the right of way needed to reroute 58 between the 99 and the 5 through all that built up urban sprawl would be expensive. As an alternative thou consider sr 46 from 99 to the 5 and on to the 101 as your proposed extension to I-40. SignatureMichael LeVine - mlevine@redshift.com "Thirty days hath September, April, June and November. All the rest have thirty one except for Gypsy Rose Lee and every one knew what she had" - Mel Blanc >>>> Why not US-466? >>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > sr 46 from 99 to the 5 and on to the 101 as your proposed extension > to I-40. Considering that there's real talk of upgrading CA-99 (formerly US-99) to Interstate status as I-7 from its beginning south of Bakersfield to I-80 in Sacramento it would be definitely be feasible to extend I-40 to Bakersfield via CA-58 then multiplex I-40 with the new I-7 until CA-46 and then upgrade CA-46 to Interstate status as I-40 between CA-99 (the new I-7) and I-5. I would be very pleased if they did that. I doubt though that they would want to extend I-40 further west beyond I-5 to US-101 unless it was decided to upgrade US-101 between L.A. and San Francisco to Interstate status as I-3. - Peter > I doubt though that they would want to extend I-40 further west beyond I-5 > to US-101 unless it was decided to upgrade US-101 between L.A. and San > Francisco to Interstate status as I-3. I can't see that either, but I've always wondered what the point is of ending I-40 in Barstow. :) > - Peter SignatureSteve Sobol, Victorville, California, USA sjsobol@JustThe.net > > In article <h4nmk5$qs...@news.eternal-september.org>, > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Or...CA 1: I-1? >> Considering that there's real talk of upgrading CA-99 (formerly US-99) to >> Interstate status as I-7 from its beginning south of Bakersfield to I-80 in [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Or...CA 1: I-1? Nah... There's no reason to upgrade almost any part of CA-1 to Interstate status, nor would I see any reason why Caltrans would want to renumber it to any other number to make room for an I-1. So I'm pretty confident that if US-101 was ever updated to Interstate status (which itself is doubtful for a number of reasons) it would probably be called I-3 and not I-1. - Peter > >>>> Why not US-466? > >>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > - Peter In that part of California, there are really only two MAJOR ways to cut across to the 101 from the valley, sr 46 to Paso Robles or 152/156 at Pacheco Pass. Both badly needing upgrading because of the heavy east-west traffic. So possibly make one of them I-240. SignatureMichael LeVine - mlevine@redshift.com "Thirty days hath September, April, June and November. All the rest have thirty one except for Gypsy Rose Lee and every one knew what she had" - Mel Blanc >In that part of California, there are really only two MAJOR ways to >cut across to the 101 from the valley, sr 46 to Paso Robles or >152/156 at Pacheco Pass. Both badly needing upgrading because of the >heavy east-west traffic. So possibly make one of them I-240. CA 152 would be the better choice, it's already largely expressway from I-5 to the CA 156 junction. However, the double fine zone from CA 156 to US 101 cannot be upgraded (well) in its current form. There has been talk about turning this into a separate alignment, probably bypassing Gilroy entirely, but any such thing is probably a decades away. For now there are upgrades to the CA 152/156 interchange, which has made it (finally!) grade separated, and the ascent to that interchange from the west now has extra lanes. -- Cameron Kaiser * ckaiser@floodgap.com * posting with a Commodore 128 personal page: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ ** Computer Workshops: games, productivity software and more for C64/128! ** ** http://www.armory.com/%7Espectre/cwi/ ** >> In that part of California, there are really only two MAJOR ways to >> cut across to the 101 from the valley, sr 46 to Paso Robles or [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > turning this into a separate alignment, probably bypassing Gilroy entirely, > but any such thing is probably a decades away. Because of funding issues, it could be decades away in constructing, but Caltrans has already had public hearings to get the public response for the alternate alignments of CA-152 between CA-156 and US-101. IIRC, I think the preferred alignment is a more northerly route than the present CA-152 with the new route intersecting US-101 just north of Gilroy proper. - Peter >>CA 152 would be the better choice, it's already largely expressway from I-5 >>to the CA 156 junction. However, the double fine zone from CA 156 to US 101 >>cannot be upgraded (well) in its current form. There has been talk about >>turning this into a separate alignment, probably bypassing Gilroy entirely, >>but any such thing is probably a decades away. >Because of funding issues, it could be decades away in constructing, but >Caltrans has already had public hearings to get the public response for the >alternate alignments of CA-152 between CA-156 and US-101. IIRC, I think the >preferred alignment is a more northerly route than the present CA-152 with >the new route intersecting US-101 just north of Gilroy proper. Actually, I was pretty sure it was south. All a southern routing would have to do is deal with Hollister, and San Benito county is pretty desperate for anything that would drive more traffic to their commercial corridor. North into Santa Clara county, OTOH, would need to deal with Morgan Hill, and further north towards Coyote Creek would just be impractically long. But that could be only one of a bunch of possible build options; I'm sure there are many alternatives under consideration. I knew about the hearings, but I don't really see any action being taken imminently (which is a shame, as anyone driving the route knows, of course). -- Cameron Kaiser * ckaiser@floodgap.com * posting with a Commodore 128 personal page: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ ** Computer Workshops: games, productivity software and more for C64/128! ** ** http://www.armory.com/%7Espectre/cwi/ ** >>> CA 152 would be the better choice, it's already largely expressway from I-5 >>> to the CA 156 junction. However, the double fine zone from CA 156 to US 101 [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > I knew about the hearings, but I don't really see any action being taken > imminently (which is a shame, as anyone driving the route knows, of course). Actually, the preferred northern alignment would connect with with US-101 just north of Gilroy in unincorporated Santa Clara County land (San Martin). A large advantage of it being kept in Santa Clara County is funding. Santa Clara County has a 1/2 cent sales tax to fund transportation/highway improvements that San Benito County does not. Upgrading CA-152 is one of the approved projects that the sales tax money could be used for. - Peter >>>> CA 152 would be the better choice, it's already largely expressway >>>> from I-5 [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > Upgrading CA-152 is one of the approved projects that the sales tax > money could be used for. After during a bit of research, the northern proposed alignment that was originally proposed by Caltrans in the late 1980's or 1990's seems to have been dropped in favor of three new southern alignments the have been proposed in the latest study that was completed in 2007. The new three alignments are indeed south of the current CA-152 and are in San Benito County. It has been proposed to use California Proposition 1B as a major funding source for the new alignment of CA-152. - Peter > >>CA 152 would be the better choice, it's already largely expressway from I-5 > >>to the CA 156 junction. However, the double fine zone from CA 156 to US 101 [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > ** Computer Workshops: games, productivity software and more for C64/128! ** > **http://www.armory.com/%7Espectre/cwi/** It really *is* a shame that the state hasn't built a much safer bypass route by now. I wish myself luck, every time I drive 152, in hopes that some inattentive driver doesn't veer off course and hits me, head- on. -Brent > It really *is* a shame that the state hasn't built a much safer bypass > route by now. I wish myself luck, every time I drive 152, in hopes > that some inattentive driver doesn't veer off course and hits me, head- > on. Fortunately, with all the highway improvements on CA-152, the dangerous stretch is now down to only about eight miles (about 10 minutes worth of driving). - Peter >> It really *is* a shame that the state hasn't built a much safer bypass >> route by now. I wish myself luck, every time I drive 152, in hopes [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >stretch is now down to only about eight miles (about 10 minutes worth of >driving). Now THAT would be a video of extreme interest! How pathetic that none of the road-related websites within an hour's drive of that area can be bothered to cover this long-awaited relief project. In message <8329e446-4ca8-48de-9c1c-c85e01ee6131@d9g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, >It really *is* a shame that the state hasn't built a much safer bypass >route by now. I wish myself luck, every time I drive 152, in hopes >that some inattentive driver doesn't veer off course and hits me, head- >on. The portion of CA-152 west of the 101 is a lot more fun to drive; you owe it to yourself to try it at least once. The two-lane portion between Casa De Fruta and the 101 is usually a nightmare, with some shithead in a Winnebago (or a dually pickup truck towing a horse trailer) driving Slothily at the head of a huge traffic snake. >>It really *is* a shame that the state hasn't built a much safer bypass >>route by now. I wish myself luck, every time I drive 152, in hopes [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > shithead in a Winnebago (or a dually pickup truck towing a horse > trailer) driving Slothily at the head of a huge traffic snake. Excellent reason to stop at CdeF. Not cheap, but good. At least that's the way it was 15 years ago... SignatureCheers, Bev ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "The way England treats her prisoners, she doesn't deserve to have any." --Oscar Wilde >Excellent reason to stop at CdeF. Not cheap, but good. At least that's the >way it was 15 years ago... It's still good. It's still not cheap. :) -- Cameron Kaiser * ckaiser@floodgap.com * posting with a Commodore 128 personal page: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ ** Computer Workshops: games, productivity software and more for C64/128! ** ** http://www.armory.com/%7Espectre/cwi/ ** > "Michael N. LeVine" <mlevinespmfltr@redshift.com> wrote > > Upgrading as far as the 99 I can see, but buying the right of way > needed to reroute 58 between the 99 and the 5 through all that built > up urban sprawl would be expensive. Faigin's site (cahighways.org) has a lot about the proposals for this. The best alternative for assisting trucks traveling from the western valley along I-5, over the Tehachapis to points east, would be a new highway further north, perhaps along 7th Standard Rd., which doesn't pass through any urbanized areas. Not surprisingly, the locals are more interested in constructing highways that serve their burgeoning residential areas, so most plans suggest a route a little south of the current alignment. But they'll never turn Rosedale Hwy (the current routing) into a freeway. SignatureCiao, Paul D. DeRocco Paul mailto:pderocco@ix.netcom.com > However, the three-lane-per-direction > carriageways down to Primm and the state line are wonderful. Carriageways? Are you channeling Carl by any chance? - Peter >>However, the three-lane-per-direction >>carriageways down to Primm and the state line are wonderful. >Carriageways? >Are you channeling Carl by any chance? Um, no? -- Cameron Kaiser * ckaiser@floodgap.com * posting with a Commodore 128 personal page: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ ** Computer Workshops: games, productivity software and more for C64/128! ** ** http://www.armory.com/%7Espectre/cwi/ ** > >Carriageways? > >Are you channeling Carl by any chance? > > Um, no? I use the term, too; and I've been posting(under a few pseudonyms) since 1997 or so, when CalSmog was still getting his arse kicked for lunch money. By Cheerleaders. SignatureDimitry Megadeath(AKA (insert nym here) Rockin' ovar Russia with a big ole Atom Bomb! >>? >>> However, the three-lane-per-direction [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Um, no? Just wondering... Carriageway is a British term that Carl is particularly fond of. It's a term I never seen Caltrans or any other DOT use. - Peter > >>? > >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Carriageway is a British term that Carl is particularly fond of. It's a > term I never seen Caltrans or any other DOT use. I had the same thought four years ago :) "Roadway" vs "carriageway" (9/20/05) http://groups.google.com/group/misc.transport.road/browse_frm/thread/8ea5bebecc027d69 (For those who hate Google Groups with a passion, ID of the initial message of the thread is 1127257623.591339.79270 (at) g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com ) _________________________________________________________________________ Marc Fannin|musxf579 @hotmail.com|http://roadfan.com/ (m.t.r FAQ, etc.) What they should do is just expand the whole thing to 4 lanes each direction. Expanding to 3 lanes means in 10 years (if not sooner), they'll be expanding it again. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.