News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

CA-58 Hinkley Bypass Project

Started by myosh_tino, September 08, 2014, 03:49:48 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

myosh_tino

On my weekly visit to the Caltrans Office Engineer website, noticed that the long awaited CA-58 Hinkley Bypass project is going out to bid (Contract 08-043514).  This project will build a 4-lane expressway on a new alignment south of the current CA-58 that will connect the 4-lane freeway from Lenwood to I-15 to the 4-lane expressway west of Hinkley.  Once this is built, the only remaining 2-lane section of CA-58 would be the segment in and around Kramer Junction.

While Caltrans characterizes the bypass as an expressway, it most certainly looks like a freeway as there aren't any at-grade intersections until you reach the western end of the project.  Interchanges will be built at Lenwood Rd and Hinkley Rd.
Quote from: golden eagle
If I owned a dam and decided to donate it to charity, would I be giving a dam? I'm sure that might be a first because no one really gives a dam.


nexus73

Yay!  Lord knows that this section of 58 has been waiting for a long time to get upgraded.  Do you have any idea when the project will be finished Myosh?

Rick
US 101 is THE backbone of the Pacific coast from Bandon OR to Willits CA.  Industry, tourism and local traffic would be gone or severely crippled without it being in functioning condition in BOTH states.

myosh_tino

Quote from: nexus73 on September 08, 2014, 06:50:47 PM
Yay!  Lord knows that this section of 58 has been waiting for a long time to get upgraded.  Do you have any idea when the project will be finished Myosh?

Rick

The $120M contract calls for 450 working days to complete the project.  Using a 5-day week with no days off for holidays, that's 90 weeks so I would suspect that it may take 2 1/2 to 3 years.  Bidding opens in late October.
Quote from: golden eagle
If I owned a dam and decided to donate it to charity, would I be giving a dam? I'm sure that might be a first because no one really gives a dam.

nexus73

#3
Digging around showed that US 395 from Victorville to Kramer Junction is planned to be upgraded to a 4-lane expressway.  I hope the powers that be can do "left hand meet right hand" and coordinate the connecting of the two new alignments.

There was also mention of a project to do an expressway upgrade of the Kramer Junction 2-lane section of 58.  Put the three projects together and I would be very happy to see these High Desert highway gaps filled in after so many years of languishing.  Maybe  in the 2020 to 2022 timeframe they will all be done. 

Let the roads roll!

Rick
US 101 is THE backbone of the Pacific coast from Bandon OR to Willits CA.  Industry, tourism and local traffic would be gone or severely crippled without it being in functioning condition in BOTH states.

myosh_tino

Quote from: nexus73 on September 09, 2014, 01:49:27 PM
Digging around showed that US 395 from Victorville to Kramer Junction is planned to be upgraded to a 4-lane expressway.  I hope the powers that be can do "left hand meet right hand" and coordinate the connecting of the two new alignments.

There was also mention of a project to do an expressway upgrade of the Kramer Junction 2-lane section of 58.  Put the three projects together and I would be very happy to see these High Desert highway gaps filled in after so many years of languishing.  Maybe  in the 2020 to 2022 tiemframe they will all be done. 

Let the roads roll!

Rick

It appears that Kramer Junction bypass might happen sooner rather than later.  The EIR was released about a month ago with a finalized alignment that takes CA-58 north of the current 2-lane highway with a single interchange at US 395.  There doesn't appear to be any mention of a realigned US 395.

The Hinkley Bypass EIR was released in July of 2013 so I would expect the Kramer Junction Bypass to go out to bid sometime in late 2015.
Quote from: golden eagle
If I owned a dam and decided to donate it to charity, would I be giving a dam? I'm sure that might be a first because no one really gives a dam.

sdmichael

I noticed the Kramer bypass didn't show a US 395 realignment as well, which seems to be to the east of the current junction. It won't be that difficult to add later on anyway.

rschen7754


myosh_tino

Quote from: rschen7754 on September 10, 2014, 12:44:57 AM
There are documents about US 395 being realigned east of Kramer Junction: http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist8/projects/san_bernardino/sr395/pdf/395_north_8x11_B%20update2%20031214.pdf

That project is years, if not decades, away from coming to fruition as no design work has been done as of now nor has an environmental impact report been prepared.  One of the documents I ran across pegs the cost of converting US 395 from Adelanto to CA-58 from a conventional highway to a 4-lane expressway at about $500 million.

Route 395 Expressway Project Website
Quote from: golden eagle
If I owned a dam and decided to donate it to charity, would I be giving a dam? I'm sure that might be a first because no one really gives a dam.

andy3175

I'm not sure when this document was produced, but this seems to indicate a six-lane freeway on US 395 toward the southern end was to have been built for $1.5 billion with a completion date in 2013. I don't think this has happened. However, I have seen progress toward the goal of creating a wider median on US 395, which is needed on those long, two-lane sections north of Adelanto.

http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist8/projects/san_bernardino/us395/pdf/395_map_lrg.pdf
See Project G
Regards,
Andy

www.aaroads.com

myosh_tino

Quote from: andy3175 on September 10, 2014, 11:46:27 PM
I'm not sure when this document was produced, but this seems to indicate a six-lane freeway on US 395 toward the southern end was to have been built for $1.5 billion with a completion date in 2013. I don't think this has happened. However, I have seen progress toward the goal of creating a wider median on US 395, which is needed on those long, two-lane sections north of Adelanto.

http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist8/projects/san_bernardino/us395/pdf/395_map_lrg.pdf
See Project G

Yeah, I saw that too but the project website (which I linked to in my previous post) was updated recently however, Project G is no longer listed.  Project H is the freeway/expressway north of Adelanto.
Quote from: golden eagle
If I owned a dam and decided to donate it to charity, would I be giving a dam? I'm sure that might be a first because no one really gives a dam.

admtrap

I've been traveling on that stretch of 58 quite a bit recently, and I have to say the Kramer Junction section is more annoying than the Hinkley section.  Sudden stoplight in the middle of two-lane stretch for the trucks to really clog traffic with, combined with mandatory no-passing zones that last miles... it's always such a relief to get to Kern County, and such a horror to return to the Bernardino wastelands. 

But progress is progress, I suppose. 

Henry


Quote from: admtrap on September 13, 2014, 11:36:46 AM
I've been traveling on that stretch of 58 quite a bit recently, and I have to say the Kramer Junction section is more annoying than the Hinkley section.  Sudden stoplight in the middle of two-lane stretch for the trucks to really clog traffic with, combined with mandatory no-passing zones that last miles... it's always such a relief to get to Kern County, and such a horror to return to the Bernardino wastelands. 

But progress is progress, I suppose. 
All the more reason to extend I-40 to at least Bakersfield, if not all the way to I-5, but that may not come for a few more decades.
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

Strider


sdmichael

Quote from: Henry on September 18, 2014, 12:02:33 PM
All the more reason to extend I-40 to at least Bakersfield, if not all the way to I-5, but that may not come for a few more decades.

Why? State 58 is doing well on its own. Having the requirement of a full-freeway would add a lot to the cost. There are many places an expressway is more than sufficient.

myosh_tino

#14
Quote from: Henry on September 18, 2014, 12:02:33 PM
All the more reason to extend I-40 to at least Bakersfield, if not all the way to I-5, but that may not come for a few more decades.

Making CA-58 all freeway/expressway from I-5 to Barstow might come sooner than you think.  Both the Hinkley Bypass (which like I said is going out to bid) and the Kramer Junction Bypass should be built within the next 5-7 years thus eliminating the two remaining 2-lane sections between Bakersfield and Barstow.  I'm not sure how far along the connection of the Westside Parkway to the existing 58/99 junction is in the planning but it must be far enough along that it shows up on Google Maps as "proposed".

I'm thinking an all-freeway CA-58 from I-5 to Barstow is possible within the next 10-20 years (which would make it a "couple" rather than a "few" decades).


Quote from: sdmichael on September 18, 2014, 01:08:43 PM
Why? State 58 is doing well on its own. Having the requirement of a full-freeway would add a lot to the cost. There are many places an expressway is more than sufficient.

Not really.

The way I see it, to convert CA-58 between CA-99 in Bakersfield to Barstow, would mean building probably 5 interchanges.  One at the 58/223 junction east of Bakersfield, two along the 4-lane expressway portion east of Mojave and two along the 4-lane expressway portion just west of Hinkley.  Plans already call for 2 interchanges on the Hinkley Bypass and 1 interchange on the Kramer Junction Bypass at US 395.

NOTE: I just thought of one reason why Caltrans will not push to have CA-58 renumbered as I-40... exit numbering.  Because I-40's exit numbering begins in Barstow, if it's extended west to either CA-99 or I-5, *all* existing exits would require renumbering because of the change in the western terminus of I-40.
Quote from: golden eagle
If I owned a dam and decided to donate it to charity, would I be giving a dam? I'm sure that might be a first because no one really gives a dam.

andy3175

Quote from: myosh_tino on September 18, 2014, 01:15:07 PM
NOTE: I just thought of one reason why Caltrans will not push to have CA-58 renumbered as I-40... exit numbering.  Because I-40's exit numbering begins in Barstow, if it's extended west to either CA-99 or I-5, *all* existing exits would require renumbering because of the change in the western terminus of I-40.

I think Caltrans is in no hurry to promote state routes into Interstates. CA 15 into I-15 CA 905 into I-905 and CA 210 into I-210 have not happened, and heaven know when/if those will happen. Exit numbers are already consistent for these three routes. It will take leadership from the top of Caltrans HQ or from politicians to make these route conversions happen. Under this line of thought, I think CA 58 will simply upgrade to full freeway over the next decade or two, and it will stay that way with no I-40 extension. I would hope Caltrans would move toward Interstate promotion for these routes, and maybe that will happen someday. I had spoken one time with the local Caltrans district director, and she said that her agency does not plan any Interstate designation for I-15 and I-905, even though both designations are already AASHTO approved.
Regards,
Andy

www.aaroads.com

admtrap

#16
Which is really dumb in the case of CA 15, given how short the SR section is, and where it is located.  If there's one section of roadway in California that desperately needs the blue and red shield, it's that one.

https://www.google.com/maps/@32.688851,-117.1157583,3a,75y,316.39h,89.77t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sWOVGf-arHGlRGl4OhVykNg!2e0

NB I-5 @ CA 15.  This does not scream "Hey, if you're a long range driver going pretty much anywhere other than the cities of the west coast, exit here now."  Riverside's not the greatest control city, being basically unknown by people not from SoCal, but by California standards ("Other desert cities") it could be much worse...

https://www.google.com/maps/@32.7302743,-117.1082601,3a,75y,319.59h,93.87t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sKKWirPVEAdpUk0QInz8beg!2e0

And the signage at NB I-805 @ CA 15 IS worse.  "Junction?"  Really?  Go home, CalTrans, you're drunk. 


Going back to CA 58, which is at least not insanely signed,* I'm going to agree that the two existing Kern County expressway portions really aren't a hindrance, and probably not worth the expense of upgrading right now.

The first, going westbound, is between Boron and Mojave, through the southern edge of that thriving metropolis of California City.  There's at least four at-grade intersections there, but all I remember is cruising past them at a velocity that I will assert my 5th amendment rights with respect to.  Occasionally you see a car waiting to turn onto the expressway from one of the side routes, but that's about it.

The other is for the Bealville/Caliente cutoff.  There are two exits, but the two roadways are linked by a frontage road, and there's a relatively flat section between the two existing at-grade intersections, so it looks to me like you could get away with just one interchange there, if you really had to upgrade the section.  I'd rather see a third lane, personally - slow trucks passing each other all around that area.



* The exit for 58 EB from SB CA 99 really should have Barstow as a control city rather than Mojave, when you're considering cities of navigational importance.  But the city name comes from the desert it stands near the edge of, so while it's a poor city, it's not a bad choice of words.)

JustDrive

I've always found it interesting that Barstow is mentioned as far west as I-5 along the 58 corridor.  Maybe they're subconsciously promoting a freeway upgrade of 58?

sdmichael

Mojave is a junction point, however, with State 14. It isn't a bad city to use as a control point. Yes, there aren't many sections of expressway to upgrade, but the NEED to do it, simply for another color sign, isn't there. I personally prefer a highway that is freeway where it needs to be, instead of everywhere along it. US 101 from San Francisco to Los Angeles is a good example of this.

ARMOURERERIC

Is there even ANY thinking about finishing off 14 NB to the 58?

TheStranger

#20
Quote from: admtrap on September 20, 2014, 12:44:43 PM
Which is really dumb in the case of CA 15, given how short the SR section is, and where it is located.  If there's one section of roadway in California that desperately needs the blue and red shield, it's that one.

I HAVE read that the interstate shields won't go up on that section until the 15/94 junction (which has left exits) is reconfigured to more modern standards.

Quote from: admtrapNB I-5 @ CA 15.  This does not scream "Hey, if you're a long range driver going pretty much anywhere other than the cities of the west coast, exit here now."  Riverside's not the greatest control city, being basically unknown by people not from SoCal, but by California standards ("Other desert cities") it could be much worse...

But for the most part, in urban areas in California...large local destinations seem to have take precedence as a control city choice unless there simply is no other alternative, which is why Phoenix and San Francisco are not signed at freeway junctions in Los Angeles, and Los Angeles is not signed along 101 in San Francisco.

(5 north signed for Los Angeles in San Diego is a bit of an anomaly, since Santa Ana returns as a control city once you cross the Orange County line)
Chris Sampang

sdmichael

Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on September 20, 2014, 03:12:05 PM
Is there even ANY thinking about finishing off 14 NB to the 58?

It is already an expressway and doesn't get nearly the traffic that 58 has. I haven't seen or heard of any plans beyond the initial one from the 1970's, which called for a western bypass, which no longer fits with the current Mojave bypass freeway. Those stub lanes, http://socalregion.com/highways/us_6/us6042/, will remain so for many years to come.


mgk920

Checking the aerial images and older maps of the area, I'm kind of curious as to why the originally-planned routing of the CA 58 freeway at Barstow (it would have crossed through the middle of the now BNSF yard) was abandoned in favor of the routing farther west that was completed.

Mike

admtrap

Quote from: sdmichael on September 20, 2014, 01:57:49 PM
Mojave is a junction point, however, with State 14. It isn't a bad city to use as a control point. Yes, there aren't many sections of expressway to upgrade, but the NEED to do it, simply for another color sign, isn't there. I personally prefer a highway that is freeway where it needs to be, instead of everywhere along it. US 101 from San Francisco to Los Angeles is a good example of this.

Not disagreeing with respect to the expressway upgrade idea.  Rather, pointing out where those sections actually are, and that they don't impede travel at all, unlike the two-lane sections at Kramer Jct and Hinkley. 

Quote from: TheStranger on September 20, 2014, 04:21:33 PM
But for the most part, in urban areas in California...large local destinations seem to have take precedence as a control city choice unless there simply is no other alternative, which is why Phoenix and San Francisco are not signed at freeway junctions in Los Angeles, and Los Angeles is not signed along 101 in San Francisco.

(5 north signed for Los Angeles in San Diego is a bit of an anomaly, since Santa Ana returns as a control city once you cross the Orange County line)

If Mojave didn't happen to share its name with the vast desert it sits in, it'd be an awful control city.  ("Local", check.  "Large?")  I think signage should allow the driver to recognize the correct road to take to get to their destination, and the more important (nationally or locally) the destination, the more clear the indication should be.  I know what California's policy is; I grew up in SoCal.  And until I lived in other states, I had no idea that control cities could actually be useful for navigation when you're disoriented. 

But even by California standards, Riverside is a better control city for I-15 than Mojave is for CA 58.  At least Riverside is a significant traffic generator in its own right.  There are at least five worse control cities there I can think of which would not shock me to see on a CalTrans guide sign (Corona?  Temecula?  Perris?  Escondido?  Moreno Valley?  Any of those could have been the choice instead). 

But at that particular point, you have traffic coming NB from Mexico, San Diego locals, and visitors to San Diego, all passing that sign.  Only the San Diego locals can really be expected to think "Riverside.. I know where that is."  And they already should know that State 15 is the continuation of I-15.  As an aid to navigation for long range travelers at that point, however, all they see is the state shield, and a destination which does not indicate a place of any real importance.  If I was navigating by the rules that govern signage in the other lower 47, I'd pass that sign by and keep looking for one that had a blue shield and "Vegas" on it.   

Even co-indicating San Bernardino as a second control city would help - San Bernardino is at least a bit more well known than Riverside.



Back to 58, Kern does in microcosm what California does nationally.  Going WB from Barstow, 58's control city is Bakersfield all the way in - as it should be.  EB from Bakersfield, on the other hand, we have signage for Tehachapi, then Mojave, then Boron.   I'm sure if Kramer Jct was in Kern county, it'd be the next control city.  Or maybe we can get them to sign "Other Traffic Lights" past Boron, to reflect the two stop lights ahead.  That at least gives more useful information than "Other Desert Cities" does along I-10. 

Barstow isn't a big city by any stretch of the imagination.  Indeed, for any other California roadway, I'd be saying Barstow is an insane choice of control city.  (At least Baker isn't signed next, I tell myself)  But it's bigger than any of the cities between itself and Bakersfield, and its regional importance is magnified by its I-15/I-40 junction (and the US 91/66 junction before that).    Mojave is to Barstow as Indio is to Phoenix, in terms of population. 


Santa Ana on I-5 isn't a great control city either.  It's not even the most important traffic generator along the 5 in Orange County.  San Diego signing I-5 NB for Los Angeles is sensible.  It's so unusually sensible that you needed to point it out for the anomaly that it is.   Santa Ana would make a decent secondary control city, but only between downtown LA and Oceanside.  Irvine or Anaheim would actually be an even better choice.  (Although Irvine didn't really exist when the Santa Ana signs went up in the first place, and Anaheim wasn't as well known back then either, so that can certainly be forgiven) 

Which really ought to be the way it's done - secondary control cities.  Although going back to 58, they _did_ that.  The exit there is signed for both Mojave and Tehachapi (although the way its done there implies you pass through Mojave on your way to Tehachapi, when in fact it's the other way around... so Mojave is actually the primary control city, and Tehachapi is secondary.  Which itself is... CalTrans.)

tl;dr version - California control cities are useless, always have been, and always will be.

Occidental Tourist

Quote from: admtrap on September 21, 2014, 12:05:43 PM
tl;dr version - California control cities are useless, always have been, and always will be.

That's been true forever.  The adopt a "local" signing mentality in arbitrary places.  ("Highland" as a control city?)  And it's only getting worse.  See the thread on here about District 7 attempting to remove all control cities because somebody misinterpreted the signing guide.  Local is fine with me if you're consistent about it (e.g., why Pomona on the 60 but San Bernardino on the 10?), same with going regional or interstate instead.  But you have to be consistent about it.  A classic example of this inconsistency is the 5 (ignore Burbank, Santa Clarita and Stockton going north, but sign Santa Ana going south).

Quote from: admtrap on September 21, 2014, 12:05:43 PM
There are at least five worse control cities there I can think of which would not shock me to see on a CalTrans guide sign (Corona?  Temecula?  Perris?  Escondido?  Moreno Valley?  Any of those could have been the choice instead). 

It depends on whether you're doing the "local" vs. "regional" vs. "interstate" method of signing.
If you're doing local or regional, Corona is a great control city - It's population is over 200k and it's at the crossroads of another major highway.  In fact, it's a better fit as a control city than Barstow using the same justification you gave for Barstow.  Temecula is not bad either - 100k plus and at the split of a parent and 3di interstate.

If you're doing the interstate method, then 15 really should be "Las Vegas," "San Diego," and "Tijuana, BC, Mex."
 
Quote from: admtrap on September 21, 2014, 12:05:43 PM
Even co-indicating San Bernardino as a second control city would help - San Bernardino is at least a bit more well known than Riverside.

Maybe it once was.  But between its decline and Riverside's growth in the 90s and oughts, I think the opposite is true now.  The more important thing is that Caltrans "local" and "regional" control city signing seems to have been influenced by identifying county seats and areas where local government is transacted.  Hence, Riverside, San Bernardino, Pomona, Santa Ana, etc.  It also likely explains Indio's prominence as a control city over a more historically-popular destination city like Palm Springs.  All of eastern Riverside County's government (courts, GSA, etc.) is sited in Indio.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.