Chatsworth-Newhall Link: The Road That Never Was

Dear Street Smart:

There is a real need for roads to link the Simi, Santa Clarita and west San Fernando valleys. Years ago, several plans emerged, including the Chatsworth-Newhall State Highway. Although the route was laid out, it was removed from state highway system plans by Gov. Edmund G. Brown Jr.

The Chatsworth-Newhall State Highway was to start at De Soto Avenue and the Simi Valley Freeway, crossing over the Santa Susana Mountains west of Oat Mountain, with one leg going northeast to Newhall and the other west to Val Verde. A leg from Simi Valley would join the crossover west of Oat Mountain to form a giant “X” connecting the four areas by direct routes.

My question is: What is being done about reinstating this highway? It is vital to the economy and welfare of our three valleys.

Charles Smith

Northridge

Dear Reader:

The short answer to your question is: Nothing. Nil. Nada. Zero. Zilch.

Now let me give you the long answer as provided by Wally Rothbart, chief of project studies for Caltrans:

In 1958, the state Legislature adopted a long-range plan that called for construction of 1,500 miles of new freeways in Ventura, Los Angeles and Orange counties. The Chatsworth-Newhall Highway was part of this regionwide network.

But ultimately, only about 750 miles were built, mainly due to public opposition to the new roadways. Such opposition continues today in South Pasadena, where Caltrans is fighting tooth and nail to complete the Long Beach Freeway through that community.

Caltrans is currently completing what is expected to be the last new freeway in Los Angeles for many years: the 17.3-mile Glen Anderson Freeway from Norwalk to the Los Angeles International Airport.

With today’s real estate costs and that ever-present state budget crisis, resurrecting the Chatsworth-Newhall Highway is about as likely as the possibility that Jerry Brown will be elected governor again.

Dear Street Smart:

Every time there are high winds on the Grapevine, about 50 miles north of the city on the Golden State Freeway, some individual decides to turn on the large Traffic Condition sign at the top of Sepulveda Pass on the northbound San Diego Freeway after Getty Circle Drive. Whenever they do this, drivers slowing to see what the sign says cause traffic to back up all the way down to the Marina Freeway. After you pass the sign, the freeway is usually wide open. Isn’t it possible to have the sign turned off during rush hour?

David R. Alison

Northridge

Dear Reader:

I can see how the message sign can create an “Excedrin headache” for motorists like you. But to drivers of high-profile vehicles, like motor homes, it’s the best thing since cruise control. Here is why:

When the winds on the Grapevine start blowing cars around like tumbleweed, the sign on the Sepulveda Pass issues a warning so that northbound RVs, tractor-trailer trucks and the like have a chance to turn onto the Ventura Freeway instead, avoiding a possible wind-provoked disaster. Sepulveda Pass is the last place they can be warned in time to make the change.

Caltrans spokesman Russ Snyder said Caltrans uses the sign sparingly, only when there is a truly important message. He said Caltrans cannot turn off the sign during rush hour because it could lead to accidents, injuries and deaths--and lawsuits against Caltrans--if drivers of those high-profile vehicles are allowed to continue unsuspectingly toward an area with winds strong enough to blow them off the road.

But as you have noticed, when the message sign goes on, traffic backs up because motorists feel they must slow to read the message. Obviously, we need more drivers who can read faster than they drive.

Dear Street Smart:

We live in the 1100 block of North Everett Street, a two-way residential street in Glendale. Our driveway was designed for 1920s cars and is too narrow for us to go in and out with a wide car. So, we always park in front of the house.

If we come home by way of Stocker Street, the car is facing the wrong way and we have to turn around to park in front of the house. It would be much simpler for us, with less wear and tear on neighbors’ driveways, if we could park in front of our house but with the car facing against traffic.

Is it ever permissible to park an auto facing against traffic?

Allan Farson

Glendale

Dear Reader:

I see your problem. By now, you must be an expert at the three-point turn.

Unfortunately, you are going to have to continue making that turn because the California Vehicle Code says “every vehicle stopped or parked upon a roadway where there are adjacent curbs shall be stopped or parked with the right-hand wheels . . . parallel with and within 18 inches of the right-hand curb.”

That’s the long way of saying you must park your car facing with traffic. Failure to do so is an infraction.

My only suggestions are the obvious ones: Come home from the other direction and park in front of your house or come home by way of Stocker Street and park across the road.

You can always buy a thinner car, park in the driveway and avoid the entire problem. A Dodge Dart or Shadow? An Olds Cutlass?

Dear Street Smart:

In a recent column, you wrote about nifty gadgets observed on the freeways and streets in Los Angeles. If I may, I’d like to add a few more “contrivances” which I have noticed:

* A device that prevents turn signals from working;

* A device that permits the car being driven with one hand hanging out the driver’s window;

* A device that can turn a rear-view mirror into a vanity mirror at any speed, at any moment;

* A device that prohibits a vehicle from coming to a complete stop at a posted STOP sign.

Harry Reis

Encino

Dear Reader:

I’ve seen those devices too, Harry. I know some of them by name. But someone has installed even more aggravating devices in my car:

* One that disables my windshield wipers just as storm clouds form overhead;

* One that jams my tape player just as I set off on a five-hour trek;

* One that kills my air conditioner during a heat wave so intense it melts the vinyl seat to my jeans.