Home › News › Conejo Valley
Demolition of Reyes Adobe Road overpass planned
Agoura Hills council expected to accept bids on 101 project
STORY TOOLS 
More from Conejo ValleyAgoura Hills officials expect bulldozers to begin work sometime around Halloween, as the narrow Reyes Adobe Road bridge over Highway 101 is demolished and replaced with a new overpass.
The final $8.4 million package of federal, state and regional transportation funds is being secured, and officials expect the Agoura Hills City Council will approve going out to bid on the project next month, said Assistant City Manager Nathan Hamburger.
There will be substantial detours and road closures during the 12-month project, which will have the existing three-lane structure replaced with a six-lane deck and wider lanes.
"It will be nice when it's in, because it will pull more traffic through the intersection," said Bill Duley, who owns a running supplies shop near Reyes Adobe Road. "A lot more businesses are going in on the south side of the freeway, so there will be a lot more traffic."
The project will replace a bridge built in 1965 that has three lanes squeezed into space for two, no room for bikes, and a sidewalk on only one side of the road.
But Agoura Hills officials are unable to repeat what was done over the past few years at Kanan Road and Highway 101, where frontage roads were moved a block away from the freeway ramp intersections in a major circulation reconfiguration.
"In order to do that, we would have had to acquire a considerable amount of property, and that was ruled out early in the evaluation process," Hamburger said.
That means the signal for Canwood Street on the north side of the freeway will have to remain within a dozen yards of the northbound half of the diamond interchange.
But Hamburger said traffic projections show the wider streets and offramp will be able to handle traffic moving through the complicated geometry.
"Dual turn lanes for both directions from northbound 101 will end the frequent backups during peak times onto the freeway," he predicted.
Although traffic will be able to move through the interchange during most of the construction period, there will be numerous lane restrictions and bridge closures at all hours. Through traffic on 101 will be detoured off the freeway on the nights when scaffolding is erected or the old bridge removed.
When the freeway is closed, its traffic will exit and re-enter the freeway at Reyes Adobe, and those closures will only occur in overnight hours.
A special site will be established on the city's Web page to let drivers sign up for traffic advisories via e-mail, instant messaging or cell phone, Hamburger said.
The project will cost $11.3 million, with most of that coming from impact fees paid by developers to the city, Hamburger said.
About $3.9 million is coming from the federal treasury under two special congressional appropriations, $2.1 million from a grant from the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, and the rest from the city.
"As long as the cars don't get backed up on the other ramps I use, it should be OK," said Oak Park resident Rachel Comer, who was stopped recently near the corner to get her car washed.
"I usually use Kanan or Lindero Canyon, and I hope this doesn't affect them."
Posted by Andrew_Smolik on August 25, 2008 at 7:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Saying “no room for bikes” on a road is bigoted. What really must be meant is “no room for *cars* to *pass* bikes safely and legally.” (If a road is wide enough for an 8-foot-wide car, then it obviously must be wide enough for a 3-foot-wide bike + bicyclist, stupid!)
Posted by RebelGal on August 25, 2008 at 7:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
What a waste of money. The bridge is structuraly sound and in no way about to pose any danger to drivers, so why is it a top priority? How about county schools?
Posted by Cat on August 25, 2008 at 8:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I grew up in Agoura and that bridge has always been a nightmare....tiny, unsafe, and in desperate need of expansion. I'm soooo glad this will be done....Finally!!! There's way too much traffic-use on that bridge for people like me who like to avoid Kanan and Reyes Adobe but the area has been built up and can't safely and smoothly handle the traffic-flow of cars.
Posted by RebelGal on August 25, 2008 at 9:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Is it a safety issue or just adding traffic time to a commute? I don't use the bridge all that often so I don't know. But if it is truely that dangerous than maybe it does need to be done. I just haven't heard of many accidents occuring on the bridge.
Posted by Dawn43 on August 25, 2008 at 9:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Andrew - it isn't always about bicycles. Give me a break. You obviously have never been on that bridge. I use it daily and there is barely enough room for the cars let alone a bicycle lane.
Posted by doeshaprincess on August 25, 2008 at 10:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I am so glad they are doing this. The next year is going to stink dealing with it since I will now have to get on and off the freeway at Lindero Canyon, but in the long run I think this will be very beneficial no only for traffic, but also for safety.
Not only have I been hit on this overpass before (hit and run, large SUV trying to squeeze past me while I was in the turn lane) but I have also seen some very close call with bikers. No matter how careful you are, their is not room bot both a bike and a car in the same lane on this overpass...period.
In addition, has anyone ever watched a large truck try to get off the off-ramp and onto Reyes Adobe? From either direction. Either they use about 5 light cycles to do a 50 point turn OR they give up and just get back on the freeway by going straight, get off at the next exit and come back on side streets. The ones who do choose to do a 50 point turn and get off at that exit, come very close to hitting cars and I am sure they have in the past.
If you look at the overpass, you can see how poorly built it is. It's crumbling away at the edges. Literally.
So I definitely think that the city is doing the right thing by replacing it.
Even though it will cause a year of inconvenience for me driving to and from work, I think it will be well worth the trouble.
Posted by Hi_Def_Ultra_Realism on August 25, 2008 at 12:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
RebelGal,
Transportation Funding and Education Funding have absolutely nothing to do with one another. They come from completely different places and completely different government entities. Go ahead---look it up.
If more people actually spent thirty seconds properly informing themselves, we wouldn't waste so much time dealing with non-issues. This is one of the projects the government got right. Researching a government project that might affect you is relatively simple. All of the pertinent information on this project is public record. We as a society have become too reliant on media and punditry to get our "information" and it often causes one to react before thinking. Go to the source---then make a decision.
We should count ourselves extremely lucky that our interchange is actually getting fixed. The infrastructure all over this country is rapidly deteriorating. Thanks to the tenacity of the local government, we finally have the resources to complete this project. The resources for this came from local, state, and federal governments. Without ignoring all of the imperfections of said agencies, that in and of itself is a major accomplishment.
As someone who uses this interchange everyday, I know that it will be incredibly difficult to deal with the construction over the next year or so, but ultimately the pay off is well worth the inconvenience.
Posted by RebelGal on August 25, 2008 at 1:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hi Def, I am compleatley aware of that.... however they all come from a total budget do they not? Why are we allocating that much to roads considering the state of our shchools was what I was implying.
Posted by RebelGal on August 25, 2008 at 1:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
school*
Posted by Hi_Def_Ultra_Realism on August 25, 2008 at 4:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It's not as simple as coming from a "total budget"...What you are implying is that if we chose not to spend the thirteen million dollars on this overpass we could in turn spend that money on our schools. It does not work like that.
There is no "total budget"---there is a separate budget for each branch of government, which acts to fund different agencies and government endeavors, such as infrastructure, education, social services etc. That’s one of the many reasons why funding and budgeting are so complicated. It would be impossible to run everything through one place.
Regarding your comment about the state of education---I think we can all agree that things are in a dire state, both on a state and national level. I agree with you wholeheartedly that we should be funding education in a more significant manner---it is our social infrastructure. But just as our social infrastructure is in severe disrepair, so is our literal infrastructure.
With bridges falling and people dying as evidenced in Minneapolis last summer, the argument that our transportation infrastructure has reached a critical point should be abundantly clear.
Since the funding comes from many different places, one does not have to choose between education and infrastructure---and in a more functional federal government structure, both would be top priorities.
The real question is where are we going to get funding for anything in the future? The citizens of this country are very quick to blame government for the inadequacies of certain services, such as transportation infrastructure and basic education---yet at the same time they are unwilling to fund any improvements in said services via tax increases or other revenue generating means.
Posted by sparks240 on August 25, 2008 at 8:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Nathan Hamburger? I thought he made hot dogs.
Posted by Andrew_Smolik on August 25, 2008 at 11:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Dawn43 — I was only commenting on that single point made in the article about “no room for bikes” without other judgments; it is an oxymoronic phrase which certain people say enough about plenty of other roads of various designs, narrow or wide, yet obviously take for granted the bigoted implications. Every lane is a potential bike lane per the road and traffic conditions existing at a given time and place, since bicycle operators legally have the same rights and duties as vehicle drivers.
For the record, I bicycle on Agoura Rd. past the Reyes Adobe Rd. traffic light every day (after overpassing the 101 freeway at Chesebro Rd. — also a relatively narrow bridge); have bicycled on that Reyes Adobe Rd. overpass of the 101 several times; and used to drive my minivan on that Reyes Adobe Rd. overpass from the 101 freeway offramp almost every day back in 2000 to 2001 when I worked at Teradyne on Agoura Rd. between Reyes Adobe Rd. and Lindero Canyon Rd.
I say *you* give me a break.
Posted by Dawn43 on August 26, 2008 at 12:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Glad to know, Andrew. You are always very vocal and have an opinion on any article that makes any reference to bicycles, bike lanes, etc. Can you please explain to me why the majority of bikers fail to obey basic traffic laws, such as stopping at stop signs and traffic lights, passing on the right and failing to signal for turns?
Posted by djentuckyham on August 26, 2008 at 1:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
As a resident of Agoura Hills who rides his bike to work daily, the expansion of the Reyes Adobe bridge is welcome news. Expensive? Yes. But needed. Kanan and Lindero are expanded and it is time for RA to accommodate its share of peak hour traffic. I live near the Kanan bridge and hope the new RA bridge will alleviate some of its peak traffic.
Posted by Andrew_Smolik on August 26, 2008 at 6:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Dawn43 — I do not practice nor condone the types of traffic law disobedience which you mention, so I cannot speak for the lawbreakers, but I should point-out that it is easy to find motorists around here who practice those very same bad behaviors. I won't say the majority of motorists but rather the majority of trips. Failure to use turn signals is by far the most prevalent, but those who stick their nose out into cross traffic and/or fail to yield at stop signs and rights-on-red are also a serious problem.
It's also important to note that motorists have less of an excuse to do some of these behaviors than bicyclists. Bicyclists need to multitask with their hands for operation and control much more than most motorists, including braking, shifting gears, balancing / steering, and giving hand turn signals. In contrast, modern motor vehicles have foot brake pedals, automatic tranmissions, and automatic “set and forget” self-cancelling electronic turn signals.
In addition, bicyclists generally need to be more aware and observant than motorists if they want to avoid getting stuck at a never-ending (a.k.a., “defective” or “inoperative”) red light during off-peak traffic times. See http://www.bikexprt.com/bicycle/actua... and http://www.humantransport.org/bicycle... . When something doesn't seem to work for someone who doesn't know why, then he or she is more likely to disregard such a device altogether.
Take the Reyes Adobe Rd. and Agoura Rd. traffic signal as a good example of various detectors used. Note the octagonal inductive loop detectors in the southbound direction, circular inductive loop detectors (paved over older octagonal loop detectors) in the westbound direction, and video detector camera hanging on the street lamp (replacing previously-used loop detectors — at least for the left-turn lane — since the construction road narrowing) facing the eastbound-direction traffic. I'd bet that the majority of motorists and bicyclists alike would not have known what they are for, have known how to “use” them, or have even noticed them in the first place. Yet with a motor vehicle being bigger than a bicycle, it is more likely (if no special effort is made) to cover a detection area and hence be detected in order to get an eventual green light.
Posted by Andrew_Smolik on August 26, 2008 at 6:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
That should be “transmissions” not the “tranmissions” typo.
Posted by Andrew_Smolik on August 26, 2008 at 7:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Regarding bicyclists who squeeze-by-pass on the right of motor vehicles near intersections, abusive, exaggerated, or ignorant interpretation of the so-called bicycling “far right rule” ( VC 21202(a), http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/... ) — despite its important safety qualifications and exceptions, sometimes even neglected by the police — would probably highly be to blame.
Posted by Bob30 on August 29, 2008 at 10:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Those of you who oppose this improvement obviously don't use the bridge on a regular basis. My office is nearby on Agoura Rd., so I use this bridge twice every day. There is only one through lane in each direction, with a middle lane for left turns onto the freeway. During rush hour, the left turn lane spills onto the through lanes and traffic cannot pass.
This improvement is long overdue.
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
- Posts that degrade others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation or disability.
- Disparaging remarks, abusive language or obscene comments.
- Threats, whether obvious or veiled.
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
There are 18 comments to this article.
Comments are found beneath the Yahoo! ad below.