CA-58 Hinkley Bypass Project

[sparker]

All this talk about a westward extension of I-40... I don't know...

Given Caltrans' recent history about seeking Interstate designations (see routes 15, 210 and 905), I don't think an I-40 designation for CA-58 is in the cards.  Given the remoteness of the Mojave desert does it make sense, financially, to upgrade the two expressway-grade segments (Mojave to Edwards and east of Kramer to Hinkley) to a full freeway?  Here's what needs to be done IMO...

Mojave to Edwards
* Interchange at Hyundai-Kia Blvd plus a frontage road connecting to some sort of power generation plant to the east.

* Interchange at California City Blvd

east of Kramer to Hinkley
* Interchange at Harper Lake Road because it provides access to the Abengoa-Mojave Solar Project site

* Interchange at Wagner Road at the west end of the Hinkley Bypass to provide "desert" access

east of Bakersfield
* Interchange with CA-223

* Grade-separation of the Bena Rd/Bealville Rd intersection with CA-58 either with a full interchange or just an overpass because Bena Rd connects with CA-223.

Personally, I think the corridor will eventually be upgraded to Interstate standards and receive the I-40 designation -- but not in the near (I'm thinking of 20 years) term.  What'll happen will, as suggested in previous posts, likely be a piecemeal approach - a piece here, a piece there, etc.  The first parts to be done will, in all likelihood, be getting the Westside Parkway done all the way from CA 99 to I-5; this section has local benefit (the "SIU" concept) to Bakersfield & environs, so there will likely be some local pressure to complete it.  Next up will be to construct at least an expressway along the remaining 2-lane sections between Boron and Hinkley, including an interchange with US 395 at Kramer.  Replacing those sections with at minimum a divided expressway will probably be deemed to provide the most benefit (including safety) in the short term -- and that will complete the 4-lane divided facility all the way from Bakersfield to I-15.  But once that's done, unless there's external action, such as a tacked-on legal definition of this corridor as I-40, further upgrades of the expressway portions to Interstate standards might well proceed at a snail's pace -- maybe a 58/223 separation/interchange one STIP term, a widening of the route through the narrows west of Mojave the next, and so forth -- at that rate, it'd take 30+ years to complete the corridor via the usual Caltrans scheduling.  It, in all likelihood, would require a constant application of pressure -- including political wheedling, whining, and just plain coercion -- to expedite this corridor's elevation to a through Interstate 40 facility within the foreseeable future.   

[mgk920]

One question, why was CA 58 rerouted off of its original freeway routing by I-15 in Barstow?

Mike

[NE2]

One question, why was CA 58 rerouted off of its original freeway routing by I-15 in Barstow?

Why is the sky pink?

[Bickendan]

One question, why was CA 58 rerouted off of its original freeway routing by I-15 in Barstow?

Why is the sky pink?

St Nick's baking cookies, or so I hear.

[mrsman]

All this talk about a westward extension of I-40... I don't know...

Given Caltrans' recent history about seeking Interstate designations (see routes 15, 210 and 905), I don't think an I-40 designation for CA-58 is in the cards.  Given the remoteness of the Mojave desert does it make sense, financially, to upgrade the two expressway-grade segments (Mojave to Edwards and east of Kramer to Hinkley) to a full freeway?  Here's what needs to be done IMO...

Mojave to Edwards
* Interchange at Hyundai-Kia Blvd plus a frontage road connecting to some sort of power generation plant to the east.

* Interchange at California City Blvd

east of Kramer to Hinkley
* Interchange at Harper Lake Road because it provides access to the Abengoa-Mojave Solar Project site

* Interchange at Wagner Road at the west end of the Hinkley Bypass to provide "desert" access

east of Bakersfield
* Interchange with CA-223

* Grade-separation of the Bena Rd/Bealville Rd intersection with CA-58 either with a full interchange or just an overpass because Bena Rd connects with CA-223.

Personally, I think the corridor will eventually be upgraded to Interstate standards and receive the I-40 designation -- but not in the near (I'm thinking of 20 years) term.  What'll happen will, as suggested in previous posts, likely be a piecemeal approach - a piece here, a piece there, etc.  The first parts to be done will, in all likelihood, be getting the Westside Parkway done all the way from CA 99 to I-5; this section has local benefit (the "SIU" concept) to Bakersfield & environs, so there will likely be some local pressure to complete it.  Next up will be to construct at least an expressway along the remaining 2-lane sections between Boron and Hinkley, including an interchange with US 395 at Kramer.  Replacing those sections with at minimum a divided expressway will probably be deemed to provide the most benefit (including safety) in the short term -- and that will complete the 4-lane divided facility all the way from Bakersfield to I-15.  But once that's done, unless there's external action, such as a tacked-on legal definition of this corridor as I-40, further upgrades of the expressway portions to Interstate standards might well proceed at a snail's pace -- maybe a 58/223 separation/interchange one STIP term, a widening of the route through the narrows west of Mojave the next, and so forth -- at that rate, it'd take 30+ years to complete the corridor via the usual Caltrans scheduling.  It, in all likelihood, would require a constant application of pressure -- including political wheedling, whining, and just plain coercion -- to expedite this corridor's elevation to a through Interstate 40 facility within the foreseeable future.

I agree with the sentiments above.  In CA, the best model for high traffic rural roads is US 101 along the central coast.  A non-stop 4-lane divided expressway with occasional cross traffic.  No traffic signals or stop lights.  Grade separate any significant RR crossings.  Have interchanges where needed. Provide shoulders where needed, but there is no need to go for the full expense of a freeway in rural areas.  Run it all the way from I-5 to I-15 and many people will be happy.

[sparker]

In CA, the best model for high traffic rural roads is US 101 along the central coast.  A non-stop 4-lane divided expressway with occasional cross traffic.  No traffic signals or stop lights.  Grade separate any significant RR crossings.  Have interchanges where needed. Provide shoulders where needed, but there is no need to go for the full expense of a freeway in rural areas.  Run it all the way from I-5 to I-15 and many people will be happy.

A continuous signal-free divided expressway would likely satisfy traveler (commercial and other) needs for the CA 58 corridor; if a semi can average 55-60 over the entire Barstow-to-I-5 route, there will be little complaint from that quarter.  But as with the CA 99 "future Interstate" concept, there almost certainly will be rumblings from regional political entities to go even further, particularly when there's that continuous corridor that "only" requires partial upgrading.  Therein lies the paradox -- once a basically functional corridor is in place, the fact is that it's there as a virtual "magnet" for politically-motivated interest that can be framed as "we've gone this far; why not finish the job once and for all!".  Once plans have been cemented and contracts let for the remaining non-expressway/freeway portions of CA 58, don't be surprised to see activity in the legislative arena regarding future Interstate designation; localized politicos won't hesitate to take advantage of the opportunity to instigate that "big project" that they can tout to their constituents and colleagues.  And the ever-expandable high priority corridor designation idiom allows them to do so without having to endure derision over "earmarks" -- although some would consider that just repackaged pork!

[nexus73]

If one is going to put a ton of trucks and Vegas-bound traffic on a route, I'd say freeway all the way.  This is not going to be a lower volume route like a good part of US 395 in the High Desert is.

Rick

[sparker]

If one is going to put a ton of trucks and Vegas-bound traffic on a route, I'd say freeway all the way.  This is not going to be a lower volume route like a good part of US 395 in the High Desert is.

Rick

There's no mistaking the CA 58 corridor for "low volume" -- anyone who's experienced the backups at the Kramer Corner signal (jct. US 395) or the RR crossing a couple of miles west can attest to the high traffic level.  My point was that once those particular issues are eliminated (as they would be with the corresponding elimination of the remaining 2-lane portions), any further upgrades may not be deemed necessary from a strictly functional standpoint.  Elevating CA 58 to Interstate status will likely be the result of politically-initiated activity rather than an assessment of need (not that such activity wouldn't be welcomed by the various towns strung out along the corridor).   However, the characteristics of the mountainous section of freeway across the Tehachapi range would likely require that speed limits, even with qualifying roadway modifications, remain at the 60-65mph level -- no different than the actual speeds of the current facility.   Enhancing the full corridor to Interstate-grade freeway would at best yield marginal increases in efficiency.  The demand for Interstate status will almost certainly come from external actors rather than facility users.   

[kkt]

I agree with the sentiments above.  In CA, the best model for high traffic rural roads is US 101 along the central coast.  A non-stop 4-lane divided expressway with occasional cross traffic.  No traffic signals or stop lights.  Grade separate any significant RR crossings.  Have interchanges where needed. Provide shoulders where needed, but there is no need to go for the full expense of a freeway in rural areas.  Run it all the way from I-5 to I-15 and many people will be happy.

It's true that would make a lot of people happy, and it probably is what will happen given current levels of funding.

It makes me wonder, though, what people think interstate should be.  CA 58 here gets a considerable amount of interstate truck and car traffic, more than proposed I-11, more than I-25 in N.M. north of Santa Fe.  It easily justifies being 4 lanes divided due to traffic and safety, and would be even safer without left turns and grade crossings.  It's a logical continuation in the same direction.

[Bobby5280]

My point was that once those particular issues are eliminated (as they would be with the corresponding elimination of the remaining 2-lane portions), any further upgrades may not be deemed necessary from a strictly functional standpoint.  Elevating CA 58 to Interstate status will likely be the result of politically-initiated activity rather than an assessment of need (not that such activity wouldn't be welcomed by the various towns strung out along the corridor).   However, the characteristics of the mountainous section of freeway across the Tehachapi range would likely require that speed limits, even with qualifying roadway modifications, remain at the 60-65mph level -- no different than the actual speeds of the current facility.   Enhancing the full corridor to Interstate-grade freeway would at best yield marginal increases in efficiency.  The demand for Interstate status will almost certainly come from external actors rather than facility users.

There is certainly a political motivation for upgrading CA-58 to Interstate standards and signing it as I-40 all the way to I-5. Business interests in the San Joaquin Valley (and Bakersfield in particular) would like I-40 to start/end at I-5. It would make I-40 the state's 3rd east-west Interstate that runs (almost) coast to coast, connecting with both I-5 and I-95. The change on the map would bring more attention to the Central Valley region. Right now the interior valley might as well be fly-over territory.

From the perspective of safety there's no reason why CA-58 between Bakersfield and Barstow shouldn't be 100% Interstate quality. A tremendous amount of heavy truck traffic uses that route. Whether or not the route is eventually signed as I-40, it certainly needs to be fully limited access at some point. Kramer Junction is the most serious issue that has to be addressed. From that point it should be relatively easy to upgrade the highway to Interstate quality between Barstow and Mojave. The upgrade between Mojave and Bakersfield is a pain due to both road geometry issues and dozens of dirt road driveways connecting to it at grade. That trash either has to be eliminated or the road given some kind of variance, just like I-40 with its at grade crossings in the Texas Panhandle and all the dirt road driveways built along I-10 in West Texas. I would be all for eliminating the driveways if at all possible. It's dangerous to use some dirt access road to enter or exit a very busy highway packed with speeding semi trucks.

[kkt]

I don't think they'll give a waver for the driveways, and I don't think they should.  While CA 58 goes through rural areas, they are not some completely empty desert.  If it's just ranch roads used by trucks, a dirt frontage road should be ample.

[silverback1065]

why didn't 40 go to 5 in the first place?

[kkt]

why didn't 40 go to 5 in the first place?

California did propose it...

[sparker]

I don't think they'll give a waver for the driveways, and I don't think they should.  While CA 58 goes through rural areas, they are not some completely empty desert.  If it's just ranch roads used by trucks, a dirt frontage road should be ample.

Most of the grade-access roads intersecting CA 58 are between the west end of the Mojave bypass and the Monolith RR overcrossing east of Tehachapi; all are railroad maintenance access points for the parallel UP/BNSF joint line.  As there is ample dirt shoulder for RR vehicle pull-off at these intersection points outside the paved shoulder of the main traffic lanes, these would likely be given a waiver, as they don't require any break in the median, are protected by locked gates (presumably the RR employees have the keys) and probably don't get used all that often -- no chance of farm equipment coming on or off the freeway lanes here!  Since railroads tend to run dedicated work trains for any maintenance work, these turnoffs are likely for spot inspections; this particular line, shared by the two major Western U.S. railroads, features several trains per hour -- enough to make inspections via "hi-rail" trucks equipped with flanged wheels problematic; here, access from the outside is probably considered necessary and is accommodated by Caltrans with gate access from CA 58.  The only other gate access is west of Woodfords and provides a road up the hill to a radar installation; as this is in a section of 58 without any parallel surface roads, it would likely also qualify for a waiver. 

why didn't 40 go to 5 in the first place?

California did propose it...

None of the original plans, including the 48.3K system considered to be the most comprehensive of the original network options, showed an extension of what was to become I-40 west of Barstow along then-US 466.  Whether access to northern California from the "southern tier" wasn't considered vital -- or the California congressional delegation didn't have the clout it (ostensibly) does today due to sheer population (most of the growth of which was well after the first iterations of the Interstate system were laid out in the late '30's) could constitute reasons for this oversight.  The first Interstate corridor along this route was proposed for the first comprehensive batch of Interstate additions in 1968; about 4500 miles of new Interstate routes were included nationwide, including this one.  However, the system was cut back to 1500 miles by the time the legislation hit the House floor -- largely because of the Tet offensive in Vietnam that winter, which brought about a substantial increase in the Pentagon's budget to respond to the action (which had to come from reductions elsewhere; the Interstate-addition bill bore much of the brunt of that).  Barstow-Bakersfield was one of the corridors that didn't make the final cut; what was left was primarily predicated on nationwide distribution, and California had already received the I-15 extension to San Diego, along with the I-105 Century Freeway in greater L.A.     

[Bobby5280]

That is interesting history about what could have been in terms of additional Interstate miles, like I-40.

It may take some really hard political arm twisting to make this happen, but once the Westside Parkway is completed and (assuming) is extended to I-5 then two important chunks of CA-58 could be legitimately signed as I-40. One segment would start at I-5 run through Bakersfield and then end at the intersection of CA-223 about 16 miles East of Bakersfield. The other segment would be CA-58 from Barstow to the CA-14 intersection North of Mojave. The "gap" of CA-58 running through Warren and Tehachapi could be considered Future I-40 until brought up to Interstate standards. In other states this signing would happen pretty quickly. But we all know how Caltrans likes to drag its feet on highways that should carry Interstate shields (like CA-210, CA-905). Hence the need for political arm twisting, maybe until that rotator cuff is shredded!

[sparker]

That is interesting history about what could have been in terms of additional Interstate miles, like I-40.

It may take some really hard political arm twisting to make this happen, but once the Westside Parkway is completed and (assuming) is extended to I-5 then two important chunks of CA-58 could be legitimately signed as I-40. One segment would start at I-5 and through Bakersfield and then end at the intersection of CA-223 about 16 miles East of Bakersfield. The other segment would be CA-58 from Barstow to the CA-14 intersection North of Mojave. The "gap" of CA-58 running through Warren and Tehachapi could be considered Future I-40 until brought up to Interstate standards. In other states this signing would happen pretty quickly. But we all know how Caltrans likes to drag its feet on highways that should carry Interstate shields (like CA-210, CA-905). Hence the need for political arm twisting, maybe until that rotator cuff is shredded!

If current signing standards are applied, there are several CA 58 sections (beside the Westside Parkway) that could get I-40 signage if legislatively designated.  From east to west, these are:

(1) I-15 to the "End Freeway" sign west of Hinkley (once the Lenwood interchange is
     done).
(2) The beginning of the freeway section east of Boron west to California City Blvd.
(3) The Mojave bypass between both Business 58 interchanges.
(4) From east of Monolith to the CA 202 interchange around Tehachapi.
(5) From just west of CA 223 all the way to CA 99.

The "narrows" section between Mojave and Monolith will require a pavement realignment in order to provide an inner shoulder; there's already a K-rail median.  Much the same applies for the freeway portion from CA 202 to the Caliente/Bealville intersection:  shoulder work, both inside & outside, would be necessary to achieve minimal Interstate standards.  That being said, that section is not that much different than I-80 from Colfax to Gold Run; waivers were granted to that facility, so some deviation from standard may be tolerated. 

It certainly would be in the best interest of the legislators through which this corridor runs -- and their constituents -- to seek Interstate designation sooner than later -- to get the ball rolling a bit faster than it currently is.  But given the proclivities of politicos to ignore those interests for the sake of ideology or party line (both parties being guilty of such), it's difficult to see this happening anytime soon!