AARoads Forum

Regional Boards => Pacific Southwest => Topic started by: Tom on June 22, 2009, 09:15:00 PM

Poll
Question: With talk of changing Hwy 99 to an Interstate, do you favor this change?
Option 1: Change to I-7 votes: 10
Option 2: Keep as CA-99 votes: 1
Option 3: Change to I-9 votes: 7
Option 4: Revert to US-99 votes: 12
Option 5: Other/Unsure votes: 0
Title: Hwy 99 in California
Post by: Tom on June 22, 2009, 09:15:00 PM
What does anyone think about this?  I'm 4 restoring US-99. :coffee:
Title: Re: Hwy 99 in California
Post by: Alps on June 22, 2009, 09:39:45 PM
Edited the poll to give another choice, since we were split on I-7 versus I-9.
Title: Re: Hwy 99 in California
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 22, 2009, 09:41:47 PM
how about an option to change it back to US-99?  It's certainly more than 300 miles between Red Bluff and Wheeler Ridge, so no AASHTO rule is violated.
Title: Re: Hwy 99 in California
Post by: Hellfighter on June 22, 2009, 11:51:28 PM
I say make it I-9 from I-5 to CA-58, then I-40 can take over the rest of the way.
Title: Re: Hwy 99 in California
Post by: Bickendan on June 29, 2009, 07:10:29 PM
Revert to US 99 and then get Oregon and Washington to join in so it exists continuously to British Columbia.
Title: Re: Hwy 99 in California
Post by: myosh_tino on June 30, 2009, 02:12:53 AM
As much as I would like it to be I-9, it will probably be I-7 because CA-9 is a lengthy route over the Santa Cruz Mountains connecting Santa Cruz to Los Gatos via Saratoga, Boulder Creek and Scotts Valley and within California, route numbers cannot be duplicated regardless of route type (Interstate, US or Calif state route).  There is a CA-7 but it's a short route connecting I-8 to the Mexico border and can be easily renumbered.
Title: Re: Hwy 99 in California
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 30, 2009, 03:20:34 AM
Highway 7 is a travesty, given the history of the route number!

the first 7 came down from the Modoc County line in Oregon and followed US-395, down to US-6 at Brady, and through Mojave, Castaic Junction (where it met US-99), then down to Sepulveda Boulevard and through Los Angeles into Orange County.

Even when US-395 and US-6 came in, the 7 was a good 70 miles along, following the route that I-405 would later take... and when in 1958, the route got renumbered to 405, and the old 15 corridor needed to relinquish its number in favor of an interstate route, the new 7 was a 20 mile boulevard and freeway between Pasadena and Long Beach...

then that was renumbered to 710, and the number 7 was freed up for further allocation - and they decided to put the number 7 onto a two mile section of road that serves the Mexican border and little else??? What a total waste!

I hope they get rid of the current pathetic stub of a state route 7, and give the number back to a highway of proper length and stature. 
Title: Re: Hwy 99 in California
Post by: rebel049 on July 01, 2009, 08:17:16 AM
There are still "single state" violations:

57
92
96
130
171
175
181
192
201
264
266
290
341
350
360
Title: Re: Hwy 99 in California
Post by: rickmastfan67 on July 01, 2009, 08:54:08 AM
Quote from: rebel049 on July 01, 2009, 08:17:16 AM
There are still "single state" violations:

57
92
96
130
171
175
181
192
201
264
266
290
341
350
360

You forgot US-211 (VA).
Title: Re: Hwy 99 in California
Post by: rebel049 on July 01, 2009, 12:12:51 PM
That would explain all but one then. My question would be did US-57 get approved before the new guidelines took effect or was it approved with the new guidelines already in effect?
Title: Re: Hwy 99 in California
Post by: agentsteel53 on July 01, 2009, 12:37:09 PM
US-57 is after the new guidelines.  The guidelines were formalized in 1970, though they had been recommended before (i.e. AASHTO has never liked the split routes and has sought to eliminate them since 1926 when it first grudgingly allowed them).

US-57 was signed in 1971.  It is an extension of Mexican federal route 57, and was given the US federal designation at the behest of the Mexican government.  (Don't ask me what Colonel Travis thought of that!)
Title: Re: Hwy 99 in California
Post by: Tom on September 25, 2010, 10:19:50 PM
US-99's Ridge Route was featured in "Ripley's Believe or Not" this past Aug. 29th:
http://comics.com/zoom/333619/ :coffee:
Title: Re: Hwy 99 in California
Post by: Quillz on October 15, 2010, 05:55:09 PM
I still think I-9 makes more sense (save I-7 for those in Oregon who want US-97 upgraded to full interstate standards). Rename the existing CA-9 to CA-900. This is what I would do, anyway.
Title: Re: Hwy 99 in California
Post by: agentsteel53 on October 15, 2010, 06:30:40 PM
Quote from: Quillz on October 15, 2010, 05:55:09 PM
I still think I-9 makes more sense (save I-7 for those in Oregon who want US-97 upgraded to full interstate standards). Rename the existing CA-9 to CA-900. This is what I would do, anyway.

900 is kind of a silly number, completely out of pattern with how CA does things.  309 would be a potentially conforming number (3xx tends to be assigned to the old alignment of xx), but given the availability of 21, I'd go with that.
Title: Re: Hwy 99 in California
Post by: Quillz on October 15, 2010, 06:59:41 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 15, 2010, 06:30:40 PM
Quote from: Quillz on October 15, 2010, 05:55:09 PM
I still think I-9 makes more sense (save I-7 for those in Oregon who want US-97 upgraded to full interstate standards). Rename the existing CA-9 to CA-900. This is what I would do, anyway.

900 is kind of a silly number, completely out of pattern with how CA does things.  309 would be a potentially conforming number (3xx tends to be assigned to the old alignment of xx), but given the availability of 21, I'd go with that.
I suggest 900 only because CalTRANS is cheap and likes to reuse signs, so they could just tack two zeros onto the end of each existing CA-9 shield.
Title: Re: Hwy 99 in California
Post by: kurumi on October 15, 2010, 07:35:41 PM
Quote from: Quillz on October 15, 2010, 06:59:41 PM
I suggest 900 only because CalTRANS is cheap and likes to reuse signs, so they could just tack two zeros onto the end of each existing CA-9 shield.

If CA decomissioned US 6, then CA 9 could become CA 6 and you could just rotate the signs. (j/k)


Fixed quote. --roadfro
Title: Re: Hwy 99 in California
Post by: agentsteel53 on October 15, 2010, 10:51:54 PM
Quote from: Quillz on October 15, 2010, 06:59:41 PM
I suggest 900 only because CalTRANS is cheap and likes to reuse signs, so they could just tack two zeros onto the end of each existing CA-9 shield.

do not give Caltrans any brilliant ideas.
Title: Re: Hwy 99 in California
Post by: deathtopumpkins on October 17, 2010, 11:34:36 AM
Quote from: Quillz on October 15, 2010, 06:59:41 PM
I suggest 900 only because CalTRANS is cheap and likes to reuse signs, so they could just tack two zeros onto the end of each existing CA-9 shield.

How, exactly, is tacking two zeros on any easier or cheaper than tacking, say, a zero and a three on? Admittedly, that does sound like more justification for CalTrans to do what you've suggested...
Title: Re: Hwy 99 in California
Post by: Alps on October 17, 2010, 06:00:54 PM
The 9 is in the middle.  You'd have to make it something like 390 or 399.  How about 090, A9A?
Title: Re: Hwy 99 in California
Post by: Quillz on October 18, 2010, 01:20:53 AM
Quote from: AlpsROADS on October 17, 2010, 06:00:54 PM
The 9 is in the middle.  You'd have to make it something like 390 or 399.  How about 090, A9A?
I have seen a few error shields from time to time with off-centered numbers.

And completely unrelated, but for many years, an exit sign for a street near where I live had the wrong suffix on the sign... "Dr." when it should have been "Blvd." The sign was erected about 1997 or so and wasn't fixed until late last year. So never underestimate the laziness of CalTRANS.
Title: Re: Hwy 99 in California
Post by: subzeroepsilon on October 20, 2010, 04:53:07 PM
What about 117 or something x17 since current CA-9 kind of acts like a scenic alternative to CA-17 to get from San Jose to Santa Cruz?
Title: Re: Hwy 99 in California
Post by: national highway 1 on October 21, 2010, 01:01:12 AM
Sure thing, as CA 117 was used for what is now CA 905 until 1986.
Title: Re: Hwy 99 in California
Post by: Quillz on October 25, 2010, 04:48:37 AM
Quote from: subzeroepsilon on October 20, 2010, 04:53:07 PM
What about 117 or something x17 since current CA-9 kind of acts like a scenic alternative to CA-17 to get from San Jose to Santa Cruz?
Don't forget about CA-236, which in turn is its own scenic alternative to CA-9, which is a scenic alternative to CA-17!
Title: Re: Hwy 99 in California
Post by: national highway 1 on October 25, 2010, 05:40:59 AM
Aren't 236, 237 & 238 bits of 9 that were broken up in 1964?
Title: Re: Hwy 99 in California
Post by: TheStranger on October 25, 2010, 10:16:35 AM
Quote from: ausinterkid on October 25, 2010, 05:40:59 AM
Aren't 236, 237 & 238 bits of 9 that were broken up in 1964?

Correct.   Other routes that were created from segments of Route 9 were the old surface street routing of Route 85, and Route 262.
Title: Re: Hwy 99 in California
Post by: Quillz on November 28, 2010, 04:17:46 AM
Well, I've changed my mind. I just came back from Three Rivers the other day, and I've come to realize just how much I like CA-99. I'd hate to see the number retired. 99 is an important number to Californians, it was once called the "Main Street of California."

I think my new opinion is to make all of CA-99 between Wheeler Ridge and Sacramento up to Interstate standards (the speed limit has recently been upped to 70 MPH), but keep the CA-99. Don't sign it as an Interstate highway at all. (Similar to how I-238 is built to Interstate standards but considered non-chargeable, so it doesn't actually require the Interstate shield.)
Title: Re: Hwy 99 in California
Post by: Roadsign199qc on November 28, 2010, 12:17:41 PM
US-99.
Title: Re: Hwy 99 in California
Post by: Interstate Trav on February 23, 2011, 10:58:29 PM
I do agree, I think that keeping it as SR 99 is fine.  they just need to upgrade the 99. I also feel the same way about the 14, I really hope they don't eventually convert that to an Interstate.
Title: Re: Hwy 99 in California
Post by: nexus73 on February 24, 2011, 11:29:07 AM
Since there are some very large sections of 99 in the Pacific Coast states, I'd like to see US 99 put back in place.  Cosign it with I-5 from Redding to Ashland and then as needed as we go north.  Feeling really ambitious?  Cosign US 99 through SoCal to SR 86S/86 and then give back US 99 to the Coachella and Calexico folks! 

To Interstate Trav: SR 14 in California could get the US 6 number back and be cosigned with US 395 when it intersects that road on the way to Bishop.  "US Highway" sounds more important than "State Route" and the Antelope Valley Freeway is certainly important!  CalTrans intends to have all of what is now 14 upgraded to 4-lanes on that road's northernmost section.

Rick
Title: Re: Hwy 99 in California
Post by: Interstate Trav on February 24, 2011, 11:55:24 AM
True the Antelope Valley Freeway is important (actually is also one of my favorite Freeways) I guess thats why I want the SR 14 to stay since I'm very used to it.
Title: Re: Hwy 99 in California
Post by: xonhulu on February 24, 2011, 03:53:57 PM
While I usually would want to see a US Route restored, putting US 6 back onto CA 14 would involve such a long duplex with 395 that it really wouldn't be practical.  But I'm totally with you on restoring US 99, and extending US 60 back to LA would also be cool.
Title: Re: Hwy 99 in California
Post by: agentsteel53 on February 24, 2011, 04:39:44 PM
the most logical place to extend US-60 is over AZ-72 and CA-62.  There'd be about a 20 mile multiplex with I-10 unless the road were put onto old 60 at Banning for the last 8 miles or so to the current CA-60 split at Beaumont.  Between Banning and 62 there really is no alternate route besides 10, as the freeway was built essentially on top of the old road.  Maybe the road through Cabazon (another old 60 alignment) and also Old Morongo Road (not old 60, but well-known as the last place to have an uncovered "US 60" sign in California, which survived until 2005), but those are fairly obscure.
Title: Re: Hwy 99 in California
Post by: Desert Man on May 18, 2011, 05:09:03 AM
"Keep it fine at 99" from Bakersfield or starting at the Ridge Route north of L.A. of Sylmar to the inland ports of Stockton or Lodi, south of Sacramento. I don't know about another interstate from Sac. Airport to Red Bluff or Redding, despite the growth around Chico and Yuba City/Marysville in a relatively lesser populated region.

To further add the I-7 and I-9 (and I believe I-11) were once proposed highway routes for the San Diego area, Imperial and Indio/Coachella valleys, except they are now Cal. routes 7, 78, 86, 111 and I-905 in San Ysidro from I-5 to the Mexican border port entry/Otay Mesa state prison.

Interstate-11 is now for a proposed freeway from either Reno, Nevada or Las Vegas to Kingman, Arizona or Phoenix.
Title: Re: Hwy 99 in California
Post by: Quillz on May 18, 2011, 06:12:28 AM
Quote from: xonhulu on February 24, 2011, 03:53:57 PM
While I usually would want to see a US Route restored, putting US 6 back onto CA 14 would involve such a long duplex with 395 that it really wouldn't be practical.  But I'm totally with you on restoring US 99, and extending US 60 back to LA would also be cool.
I really don't see the issue with this concurrency. It's a bit long, yes, but looking at a map, it makes perfect sense. There are far worse concurrencies that are either longer or make less logical sense to be together in the first place (like two east-west routes sharing a road). There is already a concurrency shared between US-395 and CA-168, so what's one more?

Besides, CA-14 doesn't even fit, as it's almost an entirely north-south route. Free up the number for use elsewhere and bring back US-6 (as well as restoring its status as the longest road in America.)
Title: Re: Hwy 99 in California
Post by: TheStranger on May 18, 2011, 12:07:47 PM
Quote from: Quillz on May 18, 2011, 06:12:28 AM
yes, but looking at a map, it makes perfect sense. There are far worse concurrencies that are either longer or make less logical sense to be together in the first place (like two east-west routes sharing a road).

The whole purpose of the 1964 renumbering - good or bad - was to remove excessive amounts of concurrencies and excessively long concurrencies, of which US 6 to Long beach fit both categories at times.

Route 14 is far from the only even north-south route in California, for that matter.
Title: Re: Hwy 99 in California
Post by: NE2 on May 18, 2011, 01:40:36 PM
Quote from: Quillz on May 18, 2011, 06:12:28 AM
Besides, CA-14 doesn't even fit, as it's almost an entirely north-south route. Free up the number for use elsewhere and bring back US-6 (as well as restoring its status as the longest road in America.)
Last I checked, US 6 was also an even-numbered north-south route in California.
Title: Re: Hwy 99 in California
Post by: Quillz on May 18, 2011, 03:59:21 PM
Quote from: NE2 on May 18, 2011, 01:40:36 PM
Quote from: Quillz on May 18, 2011, 06:12:28 AM
Besides, CA-14 doesn't even fit, as it's almost an entirely north-south route. Free up the number for use elsewhere and bring back US-6 (as well as restoring its status as the longest road in America.)
Last I checked, US 6 was also an even-numbered north-south route in California.
Yes but the vast majority of the route is east-west, or diagonal. Caltrans generally assigns numbers based on the route's overall orientation.

Although they have given "east" and "west" cardinals directions to some freeway entrance locations for US-101 in the S.F. Valley because of a lengthy east-west alignment.
Title: Re: Hwy 99 in California
Post by: NE2 on May 18, 2011, 04:22:12 PM
Quote from: Quillz on May 18, 2011, 03:59:21 PM
Yes but the vast majority of the route is east-west, or diagonal.
Until you enter California.

Quote from: Quillz on May 18, 2011, 03:59:21 PM
Caltrans generally assigns numbers based on the route's overall orientation.
Really? Does the "1926-1964" to the left mean that you're talking about pre-renumbering?
Title: Re: Hwy 99 in California
Post by: Quillz on May 18, 2011, 04:34:42 PM
Yes, that was the last year US-99 was recognized in CA, although I think it may have continued to exist on paper until around 1972 or so.
Title: Re: Hwy 99 in California
Post by: agentsteel53 on May 18, 2011, 04:43:16 PM
Quote from: Quillz on May 18, 2011, 04:34:42 PM
Yes, that was the last year US-99 was recognized in CA, although I think it may have continued to exist on paper until around 1972 or so.

I think the last US-99 signs were put up in 1969.
Title: Re: Hwy 99 in California
Post by: Quillz on May 18, 2011, 04:44:49 PM
Oh, they were? I didn't know that, I thought all new signage would have ended around '64 or so.

Although I figure signage would have continued until I-5 was fully completed through the state.
Title: Re: Hwy 99 in California
Post by: Desert Man on October 03, 2011, 05:32:40 AM
The topographic-road map of the Coachella Valley, updated from the first sketch in the 1950s to final upgrade in the late 1970s. Use the arrows and re-sizing method, to see what the area looked like from downtown Palm Springs...east to Palm Desert and Indio, by following the US routes 60-70-99 (the railroad bypasses Palm Springs) and state route 111 meets the US highway again in Coachella.

http://www.trails.com/topo.aspx?lat=33.8303&lon=-116.54529&s=50&size=s&style=drgsr
Title: Re: Hwy 99 in California
Post by: OCGuy81 on December 16, 2011, 10:01:20 AM
The Western I-99  :-P

If Pennsylvania gets a numbering error, we can too!