CA-58 Hinkley Bypass Project

[TheStranger]

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

I'm not sure I agree with that - both are medium-sized centers of the Inland Empire that have major freeway junctions in them and were in the old days, junctions of several important US routes. 

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

What seems to have driven the local emphasis: long before the Interstate system, most of today's major freeways in California were already complete to particular destinations that remain as control cities into this era, but NOT to longer-distance destinations.  (i.e. the Bayshore Freeway going to San Jose - stoplights in that area were not even bypassed until 1982! - or SoCal specific, the San Bernardino Freeway).

There is also the fact that California simply has way more sizeable cities that CAN be used as destinations at junctions - Sacramento isn't mentioned at all at the 80/101 split even though that is less than 82 miles away; Oakland rarely gets noted on I-80 west until Vallejo, and (as it was smaller than San Francisco until the 1990s tech boom) San Jose is not signed at all on 101 north as a mainline control city until Salinas. 

There's a couple of CalTrans employees on here and I'm kinda curious if they have more info on what determines what cities get used by the individual CalTrans districts, and how often (if ever) that changes - the only time I recall it being changed wholesale was the switch for the Golden State Freeway/I-5 north destination from "Bakersfield" (dating to when that part of the freeway was US 99) to "Sacramento" in the 1980s.

---

Also, here's an interesting side thought I just had:

Is the "ideal control city" choice something that can change with time?  i.e. 405 south as the San Diego Freeway, obviously "San Diego" would be the easy southbound suggestion - but for traffic from the San Fernando Valley, 5 south likely is the best option once the Norwalk widening is complete (and if the 710 tunnel is ever finished, 210/710 an even better alternative).

[Henry]

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.

Ah...so the L.A.-SF rivalry runs much deeper than a certain baseball rivalry that has been staged annually since 1958!

[kkt]

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.

Caltrans is right, in my opinion, not to sign L.A. as a control city for 101 in S.F.  From S.F., much the best way to L.A. is via I-5, except for drivers whose criteria is "prettier than I-5 but not as slow as CA 1".

[TheStranger]

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.

Caltrans is right, in my opinion, not to sign L.A. as a control city for 101 in S.F.  From S.F., much the best way to L.A. is via I-5, except for drivers whose criteria is "prettier than I-5 but not as slow as CA 1".

Though I see your point - I will note that the 101 route to SF is only an hour longer than 5/580 - to be fair, and more relevant to CalTrans's short-distance urban control city approach...San Francisco is not signed from ANY freeway in Los Angeles.  Sacramento is (because I-5 directly goes there, unlike the former US 99 control city of Bakersfield), but compared to all other Los Angeles-area control cities, Sacramento is absolutely an anomaly.

From San Francisco, none of the long-distance controls (Sacramento, Eureka, Reno, Los Angeles) are acknowledged at any point, with the furthest control city being San Jose 40 miles away.  Two of the control cities at the 101/80 split are less than 4 miles away (Bay Bridge, Golden Gate Bridge), and a similar occurrence can be found at the Alemany Maze (Port of SF/Daly City, Civic Center/Bay Bridge).

[sdmichael]

US 101 gets San Francisco as a control starting at the State 126 interchange in Ventura, FWIW. I would gather that the Sacramento control heading out of Los Angeles is due it being the next major city on I-5. 99 goes through quite a few cities that would work, but may be confusing as they aren't on I-5. I-5 retains the Sacramento control at the 99 split, with 99 getting Fresno. Mileage signs right after the split still reflect Sacramento as a control city on 99, with a 7 mile difference between the 5 and 99.

[kkt]

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.

Caltrans is right, in my opinion, not to sign L.A. as a control city for 101 in S.F.  From S.F., much the best way to L.A. is via I-5, except for drivers whose criteria is "prettier than I-5 but not as slow as CA 1".

Though I see your point - I will note that the 101 route to SF is only an hour longer than 5/580 - to be fair, and more relevant to CalTrans's short-distance urban control city approach...San Francisco is not signed from ANY freeway in Los Angeles.  Sacramento is (because I-5 directly goes there, unlike the former US 99 control city of Bakersfield), but compared to all other Los Angeles-area control cities, Sacramento is absolutely an anomaly.

From San Francisco, none of the long-distance controls (Sacramento, Eureka, Reno, Los Angeles) are acknowledged at any point, with the furthest control city being San Jose 40 miles away.  Two of the control cities at the 101/80 split are less than 4 miles away (Bay Bridge, Golden Gate Bridge), and a similar occurrence can be found at the Alemany Maze (Port of SF/Daly City, Civic Center/Bay Bridge).

Yes, using the bridges as control points reflect S.F. being at the end of a peninsula, where the first question is "Which way do we want to get off this peninsula?"  The bridges are landmarks in themselves, and all of them have too many major destinations after crossing to list them all.  The Bay Bridge would be the direction for three of the four long distance control cities you list...

For the Golden Gate, I guess they could put San Rafael or Santa Rosa or Marin County.

Port of S.F. makes sense for 280; there are no other control cities on 280 past it.  I guess they could add the ball park now, but not at the time 280 was built.

Daly City is one of few cities that's clearly shorter via 280 than 101.  I'm not sure what you'd use instead that would clarify the difference from Bayshore.  "Prettier and fewer traffic tieups, usually"?  A VMS with Redwood City via 280 and via 101 in minutes?

[JustDrive]

US 101 gets San Francisco as a control starting at the State 126 interchange in Ventura, FWIW. I would gather that the Sacramento control heading out of Los Angeles is due it being the next major city on I-5. 99 goes through quite a few cities that would work, but may be confusing as they aren't on I-5. I-5 retains the Sacramento control at the 99 split, with 99 getting Fresno. Mileage signs right after the split still reflect Sacramento as a control city on 99, with a 7 mile difference between the 5 and 99.

San Francisco is first mentioned in Thousand Oaks at the 23 freeway junction, some 15 miles north/west of the L.A. city limits, though not on overhead signs until the 126 and 33 junctions in Ventura (oddly enough, almost all exits within Ventura city limits are signed for Santa Barbara).

[kkt]

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.

If only that were true.  It seems more like the inexpensive rural sections were built, and the worst of the urban sections were bypassed, but the intermediate sections -- urban areas too big to bypass easily yet too expensive to build through the city -- are what remain.  And a few farm roads with their own driveway on one direction of the expressway.

[TheStranger]

Yes, using the bridges as control points reflect S.F. being at the end of a peninsula, where the first question is "Which way do we want to get off this peninsula?"  The bridges are landmarks in themselves, and all of them have too many major destinations after crossing to list them all.  The Bay Bridge would be the direction for three of the four long distance control cities you list...

Thinking out loud: not everywhere uses this approach where the toll crossing is a destination in its own right:

- In Tacoma, along I-5, SR 16 is signed for "Bremerton" instead of "Tacoma Narrows Bridge".
- At the Route 4/I-680 junction north of Concord, 680 north is signed from Route 4 for "Benicia/Sacramento" with no mention of the bridge
- At Route 4's western terminus, I-80 east is signed for "Vallejo/Sacramento".
- In Antioch, Route 160 north is signed from Route 4 east for "Rio Vista/Sacramento"

Now for comparison, the George Washington Bridge is one of the control destinations for I-95 south at I-87 in the Bronx.  I also recall the Delaware Memorial Bridge as a control destination at the 495/295/95 split in Wilmington. 

In San Rafael, 580 east is signed as "Richmond Bridge/Oakland" off of 101; in San Mateo, "San Mateo Bridge" is a destination for 92 east from 101 (and further south, Dumbarton Bridge gets noted for the exits for Route 84 east).

For the Golden Gate, I guess they could put San Rafael or Santa Rosa or Marin County.

Over in the East Bay, 580 west DOES have more signage for San Rafael than "Richmond Bridge" (i.e. at the Hoffman Split, it is signed specifically as "Point Richmond/San Rafael".

Port of S.F. makes sense for 280; there are no other control cities on 280 past it.  I guess they could add the ball park now, but not at the time 280 was built.

The reconstruction of 280 to feed into King Street occurred around the time the ballpark was approved, IIRC.  I do remember getting a drive along the old viaduct to 4th Street back in 1995-1996, about a year or so after it reopened following post-Loma Prieta repairs.

Not sure what control city 280 north had before the earthquake.  Post-1995, it has been signed for "Downtown SF" as well too, probably to encourage usage of the usually less-busy extension instead of the somewhat closer (but much busier) 101/80 routing into the Financial District.

It seems more like the inexpensive rural sections were built, and the worst of the urban sections were bypassed, but the intermediate sections -- urban areas too big to bypass easily yet too expensive to build through the city -- are what remain.

Any examples of the latter?  Would you classify Prunedale in that category?  Seems to me that in the LA-SF stretch of 101, any area over about 15K in population has a freeway bypass until you get to Mission/Duboce in San Francisco.

San Francisco is first mentioned in Thousand Oaks at the 23 freeway junction, some 15 miles north/west of the L.A. city limits, though not on overhead signs until the 126 and 33 junctions in Ventura (oddly enough, almost all exits within Ventura city limits are signed for Santa Barbara).

In comparison, the first time Los Angeles pops up in any signage on 101 south is at the split with Route 85 in Mountain View, approximately 30 miles south of downtown SF.

[mrsman]

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)

....

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.

With regard to Santa Ana on NB I-5, this is a fairly recent phenomenon.  When I was growing up, you'd only see Los Angeles on the northbound BGS, all the way from San Diego to the East LA Interchange. 

Apparently, Dist. 12 had the idea that this was a good way to promote Orange County.

I agree that control cities for US 101 and the 2dis should be cities of national importance.  Using two control cities on the BGS would also be OK.

For roads that act like bypasses or beltways, 2 control cities would also be ideal.  One is a suburb that the road actually reaches and the second is a city of national importance that can be reached via interchange.

For other roads, local destinations are OK.  Better a destination that you never heard of, then no destination at all.

[MarkF]

With regard to Santa Ana on NB I-5, this is a fairly recent phenomenon.  When I was growing up, you'd only see Los Angeles on the northbound BGS, all the way from San Diego to the East LA Interchange. 

Apparently, Dist. 12 had the idea that this was a good way to promote Orange County.

I think the city of Santa Ana requested the I-5 northbound control city change.

[TheStranger]

For roads that act like bypasses or beltways, 2 control cities would also be ideal.  One is a suburb that the road actually reaches and the second is a city of national importance that can be reached via interchange.

At what distance would the national-level destination be "near enough" for signage?  i.e. would you have Route 85 south in Mountain View signed for "Los Angeles" (due to its role as a US 101 bypass)?  Would Reno be a viable control city in the Bay Area by this metric?

[kkt]

Yes, using the bridges as control points reflect S.F. being at the end of a peninsula, where the first question is "Which way do we want to get off this peninsula?"  The bridges are landmarks in themselves, and all of them have too many major destinations after crossing to list them all.  The Bay Bridge would be the direction for three of the four long distance control cities you list...

Thinking out loud: not everywhere uses this approach where the toll crossing is a destination in its own right:

- In Tacoma, along I-5, SR 16 is signed for "Bremerton" instead of "Tacoma Narrows Bridge".
- At the Route 4/I-680 junction north of Concord, 680 north is signed from Route 4 for "Benicia/Sacramento" with no mention of the bridge
- At Route 4's western terminus, I-80 east is signed for "Vallejo/Sacramento".
- In Antioch, Route 160 north is signed from Route 4 east for "Rio Vista/Sacramento"

Now for comparison, the George Washington Bridge is one of the control destinations for I-95 south at I-87 in the Bronx.  I also recall the Delaware Memorial Bridge as a control destination at the 495/295/95 split in Wilmington. 

In San Rafael, 580 east is signed as "Richmond Bridge/Oakland" off of 101; in San Mateo, "San Mateo Bridge" is a destination for 92 east from 101 (and further south, Dumbarton Bridge gets noted for the exits for Route 84 east).

Yeah, the Bay and Golden Gate Bridges are particularly well known.  The GGB is better known than any of the Marin suburbs it connects to.  I would add Oakland to the list of I-80 control cities eastbound.

For the Golden Gate, I guess they could put San Rafael or Santa Rosa or Marin County.

Over in the East Bay, 580 west DOES have more signage for San Rafael than "Richmond Bridge" (i.e. at the Hoffman Split, it is signed specifically as "Point Richmond/San Rafael".

Port of S.F. makes sense for 280; there are no other control cities on 280 past it.  I guess they could add the ball park now, but not at the time 280 was built.

The reconstruction of 280 to feed into King Street occurred around the time the ballpark was approved, IIRC.  I do remember getting a drive along the old viaduct to 4th Street back in 1995-1996, about a year or so after it reopened following post-Loma Prieta repairs.

Not sure what control city 280 north had before the earthquake.  Post-1995, it has been signed for "Downtown SF" as well too, probably to encourage usage of the usually less-busy extension instead of the somewhat closer (but much busier) 101/80 routing into the Financial District.

It seems more like the inexpensive rural sections were built, and the worst of the urban sections were bypassed, but the intermediate sections -- urban areas too big to bypass easily yet too expensive to build through the city -- are what remain.

Any examples of the latter?  Would you classify Prunedale in that category?  Seems to me that in the LA-SF stretch of 101, any area over about 15K in population has a freeway bypass until you get to Mission/Duboce in San Francisco.

Yes, I was particularly thinking of Prunedale.  At the back of my mind was also how long it took to get the bypass from south San Jose past Gilroy.  Also, the north state portions of 101 where it's still city streets (Eureka) or is expressway with farm exits along one side or the other.

San Francisco is first mentioned in Thousand Oaks at the 23 freeway junction, some 15 miles north/west of the L.A. city limits, though not on overhead signs until the 126 and 33 junctions in Ventura (oddly enough, almost all exits within Ventura city limits are signed for Santa Barbara).

In comparison, the first time Los Angeles pops up in any signage on 101 south is at the split with Route 85 in Mountain View, approximately 30 miles south of downtown SF.

That's just silly.  San Jose would be a better choice of control point there.  From Mountain View to Los Angeles it would be quicker to go 237-680-580-5, barring especially bad traffic.

[TheStranger]

Yeah, the Bay and Golden Gate Bridges are particularly well known.  The GGB is better known than any of the Marin suburbs it connects to.  I would add Oakland to the list of I-80 control cities eastbound.

80 east is indeed signed for "Bay Bridge/Oakland" at 101.  Wondering if Sacramento not being mentioned until after the Bay Bridge is just a matter of a lack of signage space (it isn't particularly common to use more than 2 control destinations in the Bay Area, and even the examples elsewhere I can think of - i.e. 405 south at 101 for Santa Monica, LAX, and Long Beach - are rare).

Yes, I was particularly thinking of Prunedale.  At the back of my mind was also how long it took to get the bypass from south San Jose past Gilroy.  Also, the north state portions of 101 where it's still city streets (Eureka) or is expressway with farm exits along one side or the other.

For the former: wasn't the area between South San Jose and Gilroy much more rural around the time the freeway was extended south from the old Y at Monterey Road to just north of Route 25?  Certainly it still took until a few years ago before that stretch of freeway was widened to adequately handle the suburban commute there.

That's just silly.  San Jose would be a better choice of control point there.  From Mountain View to Los Angeles it would be quicker to go 237-680-580-5, barring especially bad traffic.

At the 85 split, 101 is signed for "Los Angeles/San Jose". 

From 101/85, a routing of 237-680-84-580-5 adds 20 miles (and leads you right into commuter corridors such as the Altamont Pass) compared to a 101-152-5 routing southward.  Then again, even in Gilroy, 101 is still marked for Los Angeles southbound.

[kkt]

Yeah, the Bay and Golden Gate Bridges are particularly well known.  The GGB is better known than any of the Marin suburbs it connects to.  I would add Oakland to the list of I-80 control cities eastbound.

80 east is indeed signed for "Bay Bridge/Oakland" at 101.  Wondering if Sacramento not being mentioned until after the Bay Bridge is just a matter of a lack of signage space (it isn't particularly common to use more than 2 control destinations in the Bay Area, and even the examples elsewhere I can think of - i.e. 405 south at 101 for Santa Monica, LAX, and Long Beach - are rare).

CalTrans has never been fond of making big new signs when greenout would do...

Yes, I was particularly thinking of Prunedale.  At the back of my mind was also how long it took to get the bypass from south San Jose past Gilroy.  Also, the north state portions of 101 where it's still city streets (Eureka) or is expressway with farm exits along one side or the other.

For the former: wasn't the area between South San Jose and Gilroy much more rural around the time the freeway was extended south from the old Y at Monterey Road to just north of Route 25?  Certainly it still took until a few years ago before that stretch of freeway was widened to adequately handle the suburban commute there.

It was more rural than it is now, certainly, but still suburban enough that traffic was clogged most hours every day from at least the mid 1970s on.  Lots of truck traffic for Pacheco Pass and some for the Salinas Valley and Monterey, car traffic both for Pacheco Pass and continuing south for Salinas Valley and LA by the prettier route, local traffic both for farms and the housing that was starting to spring up, back then it was inexpensive housing by Bay Area standards so people in low wages jobs in the city could commute from there, lots of fruit stands, a fair amount of cross traffic.  Sometimes cross traffic would get stuck in the intersections waiting for a train on the parallel tracks.  Fun and games.

That's just silly.  San Jose would be a better choice of control point there.  From Mountain View to Los Angeles it would be quicker to go 237-680-580-5, barring especially bad traffic.

At the 85 split, 101 is signed for "Los Angeles/San Jose". 

Still an odd choice for that location.

From 101/85, a routing of 237-680-84-580-5 adds 20 miles (and leads you right into commuter corridors such as the Altamont Pass) compared to a 101-152-5 routing southward.  Then again, even in Gilroy, 101 is still marked for Los Angeles southbound.

I haven't been on the stretch of 84 from Sunol to Livermore in donkey's years.  Is that a pretty fast road now?  Subject to what the traffic report says; yes, at commute hours 101-152-5 would likely be faster.

[TheStranger]

Yeah, the Bay and Golden Gate Bridges are particularly well known.  The GGB is better known than any of the Marin suburbs it connects to.  I would add Oakland to the list of I-80 control cities eastbound.

80 east is indeed signed for "Bay Bridge/Oakland" at 101.  Wondering if Sacramento not being mentioned until after the Bay Bridge is just a matter of a lack of signage space (it isn't particularly common to use more than 2 control destinations in the Bay Area, and even the examples elsewhere I can think of - i.e. 405 south at 101 for Santa Monica, LAX, and Long Beach - are rare).

CalTrans has never been fond of making big new signs when greenout would do...

Certainly, they are a lot more conscious of sign height aesthetics than other states!

It was more rural than it is now, certainly, but still suburban enough that traffic was clogged most hours every day from at least the mid 1970s on.  Lots of truck traffic for Pacheco Pass and some for the Salinas Valley and Monterey, car traffic both for Pacheco Pass and continuing south for Salinas Valley and LA by the prettier route, local traffic both for farms and the housing that was starting to spring up, back then it was inexpensive housing by Bay Area standards so people in low wages jobs in the city could commute from there, lots of fruit stands, a fair amount of cross traffic.  Sometimes cross traffic would get stuck in the intersections waiting for a train on the parallel tracks.  Fun and games.

I drove down Monterey Road as part of a SF-LA roadtrip in 2010 (in which I and a friend tried to take as much of old 101 as we could) and it amazed me how quiet that divided road is nowadays (with all of the commuter traffic on the newer freeway).

Going back to an earlier thing you noted: Eureka not being bypassed is the specific result of the city blocking any plans to either have a freeway built through it, or around it at all.

That's just silly.  San Jose would be a better choice of control point there.  From Mountain View to Los Angeles it would be quicker to go 237-680-580-5, barring especially bad traffic.

At the 85 split, 101 is signed for "Los Angeles/San Jose". 

Still an odd choice for that location.

My guess as to why 85 isn't signed for "Los Angeles" instead: truck restrictions along the newer bypass.

From 101/85, a routing of 237-680-84-580-5 adds 20 miles (and leads you right into commuter corridors such as the Altamont Pass) compared to a 101-152-5 routing southward.  Then again, even in Gilroy, 101 is still marked for Los Angeles southbound.

I haven't been on the stretch of 84 from Sunol to Livermore in donkey's years.  Is that a pretty fast road now?  Subject to what the traffic report says; yes, at commute hours 101-152-5 would likely be faster.

I've taken it many times as part of a San Mateo County-Sacramento (and Sacramento-SJ) route and 84 is a lot better between 580 and 680 than it ever has been.  Portions are still being actively widened but I think there's only one or two stoplights left on that segment.

[I94RoadRunner]

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.

Agreed Andy. If you may recall, I started a thread last spring about debating whether Caltrans should consider renumbering CA 58 between I-15 and I-5 as CA 40 in anticipation of a westward extension of I-40 to I-5 west of Bakersfield. It looks like Caltrans is in fact trying to build the seamless freeway in piecemeal fashion by building the Hinkley bypass, the Kramer junction bypass, as well as the Centennial corridor/Westside Parkway in Bakersfield proper. I noticed that Google maps even is showing the planned alignment of the CA 58 Centennial corridor: https://www.google.com/maps/@35.3540664,-119.0441788,17z
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.3686286,-119.0582677,17z

[sdmichael]

It isn't so much a "seamless freeway" as a seamless four-lane highway. In many areas, an expressway is more than sufficient where others a grade-separation is needed. These last two - Hinkley and Kramer - will create that needed four-lane roadway.

[I94RoadRunner]

It isn't so much a "seamless freeway" as a seamless four-lane highway. In many areas, an expressway is more than sufficient where others a grade-separation is needed. These last two - Hinkley and Kramer - will create that needed four-lane roadway.

I will agree with you on this point, however Caltrans will probably be more aggressive pursuing the I-40 designation as these projects become completed .....

[ARMOURERERIC]

Do they really think they will get away with punching through that short section west of 99 anytime soon.

[roadfro]

I will agree with you on this point, however Caltrans will probably be more aggressive pursuing the I-40 designation as these projects become completed .....

I somehow doubt this, since Caltrans has seemingly been in no hurry to get I-shields posted on CA 15...

[sdmichael]

Or 210, or 905... I think Caltrans is just trying to get a roadway upgraded. A different sign isn't a part of that. The push for an Interstate shield for 99 isn't through Caltrans, but through the local groups wanting it. Otherwise, there is no point to it.

[TheStranger]

I will agree with you on this point, however Caltrans will probably be more aggressive pursuing the I-40 designation as these projects become completed .....

I somehow doubt this, since Caltrans has seemingly been in no hurry to get I-shields posted on CA 15...

Going back to something I noted earlier: if signed Interstate status on the portion of 15 between 5 and 8 is dependent on the 94/15 interchange being rebuilt...when is that project supposed to happen?

[JustDrive]

I think it's dependent on the HOV lanes that are going to be added on 94 and the direct connection to 805 southbound.  That would necessitate getting rid of the left exits on 94 at 15.

[I94RoadRunner]

And for that matter the left exits are on CA 94 not 15. So what is the issue that 15 could not have interstate status since there are no left exits on the road in question .....?