With construction of the Hinkley Bypass nearing completion (it's expected to open sometime late this year), I was poking around the Caltrans District 8 website and found that the Kramer Junction Bypass project is ready to list in FY2016/17. This project will construct a 4-lane expressway that will connect the 4-lane freeway east of Boron to the 4-lane expressway between Kramer Junction and Hinkley and include an interchange at US 395. This will close the last 2-lane conventional highway portion of CA-58 between Bakersfield and Barstow.
A map showing all ready-to-list project in District 8 is available here...
http://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=280565fdc5854b6e93f3e8d9e8f0936d&extent=-119.2153,32.7378,-113.0465,35.8547
I have been to watching this expressway bypass of California state route 58 too from the Kern County/San Bernardino County line to east of Kramer Jct. at the interchange of what is being constructed at U.S. 395 too.
Scott C. Presnal
Morro Bay, CA
This is over 3 months ahead of schedule for the originally proposed RTL date. I guess the design finished quickly.
Which routing alternative did they go with?
What does RTL mean?
Scott C. Presnal
Morro Bay, CA
Ready To List
Too bad the non-freeway segments of CA-58 isn't being built to interstate standards. Given the truck traffic on CA-58 and it's use as a bypass of Los Angeles for traffic headed to the SF Bay area and points north from the Southeast and vice versa, extending I-40 from Barstow to I-5 near Bakersfield seems like a no-brainer to me. :hmm:
I am more thinking off that some of that traffic would enter the central California coast too, and the San Joaquin Valley also. For California state route 58, AASHTO just is not up to having the highway for an Interstate 40 extension as of now, but they have to change their minds.
Scott C. Presnal
Morro Bay, CA
I hope Caltrans is at least reserving sufficient right of way for a future conversion to interstate standards.
Me too.
Scott C. Presnal
Morro Bay, CA
About friggin time, too bad it's not looking like it won't be well into 2017 when the Kramer Junction bypass will be finished. That intersection with US 395 always has problems eastbound unless you get through ass early in the morning.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 09, 2016, 10:53:16 PM
About friggin time, too bad it's not looking like it won't be well into 2017 when the Kramer Junction bypass will be finished.
2017? It will go out to bid sometime over the next 12 months so I wouldn't expect it to be completed before 2019 at the earliest. The Hinkley Bypass is going to take about 2 1/2 years to build.
Quote from: myosh_tino on July 10, 2016, 12:48:50 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 09, 2016, 10:53:16 PM
About friggin time, too bad it's not looking like it won't be well into 2017 when the Kramer Junction bypass will be finished.
2017? It will go out to bid sometime over the next 12 months so I wouldn't expect it to be completed before 2019 at the earliest. The Hinkley Bypass is going to take about 2 1/2 years to build.
Guess that I misread what the map said. My mistake, pretty good chance I won't be taking advantage by the time 2019 rolls around.
With the completion of (upgradeable) expressway (and the Boron freeway segment) along the High Desert portion of 58, perhaps conversion of the last portion of the route featuring at-grade intersections between Mojave and Bakersfield to a full freeway -- the 223 junction/Caliente Road segment -- could at long last find its way onto the Caltrans STIP! I've driven that road more times than I can recall -- and I've personally witnessed some horrendous collisions at 58/223 over the last 49 years (drove 58 first in '67!).
Perhaps some enterprising soul with a decent CAD program could, within this forum's "Redesigning Interchanges" Fictional subtopic, come up with a viable design to combine the two adjacent intersections at 223 and Caliente into a single facility (remember, this would be a Caltrans rural facility, so keep it simple, straightforward, and as cheap to construct as possible!).
You can surmise from the shield on my posts what I'd like to happen to the 58 corridor in my lifetime :nod:!
Quote from: ACSCmapcollector on July 09, 2016, 10:08:41 PMFor California state route 58, AASHTO just is not up to having the highway for an Interstate 40 extension as of now, but they have to change their minds.
An I-40 extension was last rejected in the 1960's, I believe. Bakersfield is a lot bigger than it was then and CA-58 also carries more traffic than it used to. If Caltrans were to apply again for an I-40 extension to I-5, I think it's very likely that AASHTO and FHWA will approve it now, as long as the remainder of the non-freeway segments are upgraded to interstate standards. If the remainder of the Westside Parkway in Bakersfield is built, I-40 could use that through the city. The section of the Westside Parkway that's already open appears to be interstate standard based from what I can tell using Google Streetview.
Quote from: kkt on July 09, 2016, 10:13:00 PM
I hope Caltrans is at least reserving sufficient right of way for a future conversion to interstate standards.
I hope so too. It would be stupid of Caltrans if they don't reserve enough ROW.
Quote from: LM117 on July 10, 2016, 09:44:01 AM
Quote from: ACSCmapcollector on July 09, 2016, 10:08:41 PMFor California state route 58, AASHTO just is not up to having the highway for an Interstate 40 extension as of now, but they have to change their minds.
An I-40 extension was last rejected in the 1960's, I believe. Bakersfield is a lot bigger than it was then and CA-58 also carries more traffic than it used to. If Caltrans were to apply again for an I-40 extension to I-5, I think it's very likely that AASHTO and FHWA will approve it now, as long as the remainder of the non-freeway segments are upgraded to interstate standards. If the remainder of the Westside Parkway in Bakersfield is built, I-40 could use that through the city. The section of the Westside Parkway that's already open appears to be interstate standard based from what I can tell using Google Streetview.
Really it's probably going to take an Interstate quality design all the way to I-5 for something like an I-40 extension to get traction. Given the recent tact of Caltrans there is probably a pretty decent chance that they wouldn't pursue the designation anyways. Don't forget you still got the CA 15s and CA 210s of the world floating around there. We're talking something that is still a long ways away from even being a slight possibility. I'm just happy that Kramer Junction being bypassed is looking like a near future event. I'm fairly certain I won't be in Bakersfield by 2019...but hey it will sure make things more interesting if I ever come for a visit.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 10, 2016, 10:27:25 AM
Given the recent tact of Caltrans there is probably a pretty decent chance that they wouldn't pursue the designation anyways.
Exactly. There's no reason at all for Caltrans to pursue an interstate designation. It would, of course, be in Kern County's interest to get this, but Kern County tends to not have much clout in state politics, and I don't think they'd be enough to push Caltrans as a whole (as opposed to just District 6).
CA 58 still has a lot of work needed for it to be even freeway standards the whole way. And not just the unbuilt section and the Kramer Junction Bypass: there are several non-freeway sections between Bakersfield and Barstow. Even if those were built up, I'm fairly certain that a lot of the curves and grades in Tehachapi Pass are not up to interstate standards, not to mention the shoulders. Any work on Tehachapi Pass - which is, in my mind, a perfectly fine roadway as it is - would be extremely expensive.
As a line on a map, Interstate 40 makes sense, but I don't think it'll ever happen because of all of these factors.
Quote from: coatimundi on July 10, 2016, 03:08:31 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 10, 2016, 10:27:25 AM
Given the recent tact of Caltrans there is probably a pretty decent chance that they wouldn't pursue the designation anyways.
Exactly. There's no reason at all for Caltrans to pursue an interstate designation. It would, of course, be in Kern County's interest to get this, but Kern County tends to not have much clout in state politics, and I don't think they'd be enough to push Caltrans as a whole (as opposed to just District 6).
CA 58 still has a lot of work needed for it to be even freeway standards the whole way. And not just the unbuilt section and the Kramer Junction Bypass: there are several non-freeway sections between Bakersfield and Barstow. Even if those were built up, I'm fairly certain that a lot of the curves and grades in Tehachapi Pass are not up to interstate standards, not to mention the shoulders. Any work on Tehachapi Pass - which is, in my mind, a perfectly fine roadway as it is - would be extremely expensive.
As a line on a map, Interstate 40 makes sense, but I don't think it'll ever happen because of all of these factors.
Not to mention that some of the downhill/uphill grades probably exceed Interstate standards at times between Tehacpi and Bakersfield. Get rid of Kramer Junction and you have a perfectly adequate roadway, the at grade intersections on the current expressway aren't nearly the problem that they are on 58 as opposed to US 101. The Interstate design standards are great and all but they aren't always necessary. I see similar conversations with CA 99. It would cost a fortune just to get those shoulders and outdated exits done on that road that it isn't worth the effort.
Like with the CA 99 corridor, any push for Interstate status for CA 58 will have to come from political forces in the affected regions; there is little possibility that Caltrans itself would initiate such an action. Local political action was responsible for the last three Interstate conversions (110 in '81, 710 in '84, and 880 in '86); in each case, a congressman from the area (the late Glenn Anderson, D-Gardena, in the case of the first two) was on point for the necessary AASHTO/FHWA vetting. Part of the problem is that the actual construction involved in Interstate upgrades is considered within Caltrans to be just another drain on their resources -- and that the budgeting process that is involved in apportioning funds to each district would be substantially disrupted by "piling on" such an outlay in addition to the requirements of the STIP under which they are operating. Unless an improvement to Interstate standards on one of the corridors in question is actually contained within the currently effective STIP, even considering 5 to 15-year windows for upgrades to any is thought of as an "off-book" project. It's not like it was with the pre-'73 Division of Highways; Caltrans is an omnibus tranportation/transit agency with as much $$ volume going to localized (mostly urban/suburban) programmed projects -- just examine any of the last three or four STIP's on a line-item level! Long-distance corridor work, unless severely substandard facilities are involved (like 99 between 198 and the Fresno area), is undertaken if and only if there is sufficient funding available -- which, given the more recent bias toward street/transit issues in denser locales, is not always a given.
In short, Interstate conversion isn't cheap -- and Caltrans' priorities are presently focused on localized issues; they won't run point on such long-distance upgrades. If either CA 58 or 99 is to gain Interstate status -- despite being warranted by commercial traffic stats -- it will come from outside. Since the 99 corridor is already listed (via an addendum to the HPC 54 description) as a future Interstate, the only legislative action required for signage would be for a member of Congress to pick a number and tack it onto the existing legislative description; the existence of the state plan to expand 99 would likely serve as a de facto "25-year-window" for facility compliance. Arranging for the same treatment for 58 would require an entirely new corridor designation (Barstow to Buttonwillow); the process would be similar if not identical to the language added to the yearly federal funding bill that eventually resulted in I-42 in NC. Again, that would have to come from a congressional source with sufficient clout to steer it through the committee process. In the case of either corridor, it's likely that Caltrans would approach either "mandate from above" with their usual shrug of the shoulders; they'd likely spread any upgrade projects over as many STIP terms as they could, and carry on as before, with work progressing at a marginally faster rate than before.
Any updates on the Hinkley bypass? Is the project nearing completion? Any pictures would be greatly appreciated.
Quote from: Inyomono395 on October 03, 2016, 08:41:28 PM
Any updates on the Hinkley bypass? Is the project nearing completion? Any pictures would be greatly appreciated.
I'll know more in about 2 1/2 weeks when I make my annual trip to Las Vegas. I don't know if pictures are possible as I'll be driving alone. I think the project is slated to be finished in early 2017.
Quote from: myosh_tino on October 03, 2016, 09:06:17 PM
Quote from: Inyomono395 on October 03, 2016, 08:41:28 PM
Any updates on the Hinkley bypass? Is the project nearing completion? Any pictures would be greatly appreciated.
I'll know more in about 2 1/2 weeks when I make my annual trip to Las Vegas. I don't know if pictures are possible as I'll be driving alone. I think the project is slated to be finished in early 2017.
Funny, I just realized that I'll literally be heading directly out of the way on the way to Nevada, Utah, and Arizona then back. I'll be taking CA 190, CA 127, and Stateline out then CA 62, CA 18, and CA 138 back in. It's almost like I'm going out of my way to avoid CA 58 and I-15....guess I'll have to check the road myself sometime near New Years. :rolleyes:
Ran across an article from the L.A. Times dated March 9, 2016 regarding the transportation funding crisis facing the state of California. It's reported that the $155 million Kramer Junction Bypass is one of the projects that could either be delayed or cancelled due to this funding crisis...
Quote
In San Bernardino County, the biggest of five projects at risk for cutback or elimination is the Kramer Junction four-lane expressway, with $155,095,000 potentially on the chopping block
This might explain why this project hasn't gone out to bid.
Quote from: myosh_tino on December 22, 2016, 03:54:31 PM
Ran across an article from the L.A. Times dated March 9, 2016 regarding the transportation funding crisis facing the state of California. It's reported that the $155 million Kramer Junction Bypass is one of the projects that could either be delayed or cancelled due to this funding crisis...
Quote
In San Bernardino County, the biggest of five projects at risk for cutback or elimination is the Kramer Junction four-lane expressway, with $155,095,000 potentially on the chopping block
This might explain why this project hasn't gone out to bid.
Great and I was hoping to actually not get stuck at the railroad tracks at Boron at some point in the next ten years. Might have to put that little dream to bed for good since I'll probably long moved on whenever it gets built at that this rate. :-D
Hopefully this bypass will be built eventually. Will the CA-58/US 395 junction have an interchange? I think it would be foolish to have the two highways meet at-grade.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 22, 2016, 04:32:44 PM
Hopefully this bypass will be built eventually. Will the CA-58/US 395 junction have an interchange? I think it would be foolish to have the two highways meet at-grade.
Yes, plans call for an interchange between 58 and 395 although it won't be a freeway-to-freeway interchange. I believe traffic exiting onto 395 will have to deal with an at-grade intersection probably controlled by signals.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 22, 2016, 04:30:41 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on December 22, 2016, 03:54:31 PM
Ran across an article from the L.A. Times dated March 9, 2016 regarding the transportation funding crisis facing the state of California. It's reported that the $155 million Kramer Junction Bypass is one of the projects that could either be delayed or cancelled due to this funding crisis...
Quote
In San Bernardino County, the biggest of five projects at risk for cutback or elimination is the Kramer Junction four-lane expressway, with $155,095,000 potentially on the chopping block
This might explain why this project hasn't gone out to bid.
Great and I was hoping to actually not get stuck at the railroad tracks at Boron at some point in the next ten years. Might have to put that little dream to bed for good since I'll probably long moved on whenever it gets built at that this rate. :-D
Quote from: myosh_tino on December 22, 2016, 05:05:46 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 22, 2016, 04:32:44 PM
Hopefully this bypass will be built eventually. Will the CA-58/US 395 junction have an interchange? I think it would be foolish to have the two highways meet at-grade.
Yes, plans call for an interchange between 58 and 395 although it won't be a freeway-to-freeway interchange. I believe traffic exiting onto 395 will have to deal with an at-grade intersection probably controlled by signals.
Hopefully, since the cited article regarding the shortfall was published 9 months ago, the delay or cancellation of this (and other) project(s) has yet to materialize -- so there's some glimmer of hope yet that we'll see this done in our lifetimes. And IIRC the planned 58/395 interchange will be a simple diamond; it's a bit far-field from an urban setting to warrant a SPUI or other modified concept. Besides, if 395 is reconfigured as an expressway or better, it'll likely be on a new alignment away from Kramer Corners (and with a bridge over the BNSF tracks), requiring a new interchange with 58 in any instance.
Honestly I'd just be happy with an overpass of the railroad tracks at this point. It seems like on the really bad days that is point of origin for the eastbound traffic bog down, even more than the US 395 junction.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 22, 2016, 09:54:00 PM
Honestly I'd just be happy with an overpass of the railroad tracks at this point. It seems like on the really bad days that is point of origin for the eastbound traffic bog down, even more than the US 395 junction.
If you're experiencing inordinate delays at the 58 rail crossing west of Kramer, it must be happening on the months that UP is dispatching on the joint line shared with BNSF from Mojave to Bakersfield. A while back, before about 1991 or so, all dispatching of that line was done by SP, then the owner of the tracks (Santa Fe was a tenant with trackage rights). However, in those days SP had a perennial cash flow problem, so when necessary major trackwork was needed, SP asked ATSF to pitch in most of the money; they did so, but a new agreement was made whereby SP would dispatch for 6 months of the year, and Santa Fe would follow suit for the remainder of the year. Of course, when dispatching each tended to favor their own trains. This agreement continued after Santa Fe merged with BN to become BNSF and UP absorbed SP (all in '95-'96). Santa Fe and successor BNSF learned the best way to deal with SP/UP dispatching practice was to lengthen their trains (mostly containerized cargo) to at or near the FRRA maximum (132 individual railcars). These trains are assembled westbound at Barstow and eastbound at either Richmond or Stockton. So the trains are longer than usually found; if they're going westbound, they're going up about a 1.4% grade around Kramer, so they're not exactly setting any speed records! Thus both the 395 and 58 crossings are blocked for extended periods of time while the trains pass. Eastbound the trains can go like a bat out of hell, but they rarely do so because the westbounds are given priority at passing tracks because it's a pain in the ass to start a long train from a dead stop on an uphill grade! Until there are grade separations, this BNSF segment is going to be problematic for traffic in the area.
Probably would explain why the truck traffic bogs down so much. Those truckers generally take that crossing pretty slow to begin with, any stoppage and it basically is a crawl past the tracks to 395.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 23, 2016, 01:01:48 AM
Probably would explain why the truck traffic bogs down so much. Those truckers generally take that crossing pretty slow to begin with, any stoppage and it basically is a crawl past the tracks to 395.
Also, the timing of the signal at Kramer junction doesn't seem to take into consideration the differential between the traffic flow on CA 58 vis-a-vis US 395. Volume-wise, there's much more traffic E-W; a lot of the traffic to and from US 395 to the south originates on or turns west onto 58; overall 395 volume decreases dramatically north of the junction. That's probably the only saving grace of the whole present situation; if 395 traffic at
its RR crossing even came close to that along 58, the infamous Kramer congestion would deteriorate into constant gridlock, with the "box" perpetually occupied by stopped vehicles! :wow:
I went through Hinkley this past weekend. Hinkley Road's approach to the new freeway is complete and striped but the road was still closed. It looked like they may be ready to open it this week though. The actual freeway still seemed to be pretty far off from being completed though. It looked to be mostly graded but there was no pavement.
Kramer Junction was in the same piss poor state that it's been in for years.
Quote from: coatimundi on January 03, 2017, 12:11:55 PM
I went through Hinkley this past weekend. Hinkley Road's approach to the new freeway is complete and striped but the road was still closed. It looked like they may be ready to open it this week though. The actual freeway still seemed to be pretty far off from being completed though. It looked to be mostly graded but there was no pavement.
From what I saw back in October, the west end looked like the concrete for the travel lanes had been poured but the shoulders had not been paved yet. I will admit this was hard to determine because the white concrete blended in real well with the desert landscape.
Quote from: coatimundi on January 03, 2017, 12:11:55 PM
Kramer Junction was in the same piss poor state that it's been in for years.
That's not surprising since that bypass project has not gone out to bid yet. Not sure when that will happen through due to funding issues.
Quote from: myosh_tino on January 03, 2017, 03:57:08 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on January 03, 2017, 12:11:55 PM
I went through Hinkley this past weekend. Hinkley Road's approach to the new freeway is complete and striped but the road was still closed. It looked like they may be ready to open it this week though. The actual freeway still seemed to be pretty far off from being completed though. It looked to be mostly graded but there was no pavement.
From what I saw back in October, the west end looked like the concrete for the travel lanes had been poured but the shoulders had not been paved yet. I will admit this was hard to determine because the white concrete blended in real well with the desert landscape.
I only got a decent look at the eastern end, but I wouldn't be surprised if I was wrong. I didn't get a look at the western end at all.
Quote from: myosh_tino on January 03, 2017, 03:57:08 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on January 03, 2017, 12:11:55 PM
Kramer Junction was in the same piss poor state that it's been in for years.
That's not surprising since that bypass project has not gone out to bid yet. Not sure when that will happen through due to funding issues.
That was more of a joke and a lament about that area. I think there are some easy and much less costly intersection improvements that could be done.
Quote from: coatimundi on January 03, 2017, 05:17:23 PM
That was more of a joke and a lament about that area. I think there are some easy and much less costly intersection improvements that could be done.
Like what? A roundabout (j/k)? :bigass:
There was an article in the local paper this past week where my little town's mayor was just gushing how great roundabouts are. "Once people get used to them, then they like them." Marina has been very roundabout happy the last few years.
With Kramer, I doubt that it's even feasible, but I am pretty certain that it's been proposed by someone at some point. It seems to be the new easy answer to intersection problems.
Quote from: myosh_tino on January 03, 2017, 07:00:10 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on January 03, 2017, 05:17:23 PM
That was more of a joke and a lament about that area. I think there are some easy and much less costly intersection improvements that could be done.
Like what? A roundabout (j/k)? :bigass:
Better yet: A Magic Roundabout!
Roundabouts are okay for medium and slow speed traffic. They're absolutely terrible for any highway carrying high speed, long distance traffic. In essence, they're a glorified at grade intersection with no stop lights. It would be stupid to work in a roundabout into the Kramer Junction Bypass unless the roundabout part was large and grade separated from the main highway. Might as well build a conventional diamond interchange or SPUI at that point.
I agree that a roundabout would not work there. Capacity-wise, roundabouts are really just a step up from four-way stops and they probably have about the same capacity as a traffic signal does.
The Hinkley Freeway is now open to traffic in both directions. Eastbound opened on March 13th, Westbound opened yesterday. I drove it last night. Still some work to do:
1) Lenwood Road exit not open in the westbound direction and neither is the WB on-ramp. With Old 58 now closed, Caltrans will finish the overpass of Lenwood (which will also overpass old 58) and then open the exit. EB Lenwood IC is open allowing travel to Lenwood southbound. All directions of the Hinkley Road interchange are open.
2) Interchange lighting is not yet in operation so Caltrans thoughtfully placed portable lighting to allow for better visibility.
Despite the name "Hinkley Expressway" given to the project, this is indeed a FREEWAY for its entire length except for the first 1/2 mile at the west end where it connects to the existing expressway. An at-grade intersection (not yet open) with Wagner Road was built. After this, the freeway begins and a white "Begin Freeway" sign has been placed.
Other smaller work to be done includes:
- Removal of a signal ahead sign on the existing 58 Freeway past Main Street (and before Lenwood Road).
- A "Begin Freeway" sign eastbound, past the Lenwood Rd interchange needs to be removed. This is because the freeway now begins just east of Wagner Road.
Very nice and I love freeways and this one was sorely needed but even I will admit that Hinkley got screwed a little. Other than the two interchanges - Hinkley Road and Lenwood Road (and really only the Hinkley Road IC serves the community), no other overpasses exist. So the community (what is left of it anyway - another sad story in its own right) is split in two with only two possible ways over the freeway. All other north-south streets have been turned into cul-de-sacs at the freeway. It would be nice for the area to have at least one additional non-interchange overpass.
I am sure this was a cost-saving matter and IMO it would have been more dangerous to allow cross traffic via intersections. But providing at least 1 or two more overpasses would have been helpful.
Now once the Kramer Bypass Expressway is finished (construction should start later this year), then 58 is a complete four-lane freeway or expressway from Interstate 15 at the east end to Stockdale Highway (just west of Allen Road) (west end of the Westside Parkway, which soon will be re-numbered as 58 once the Centennial Freeway is complete) in Bakersfield at the west end. Once Centennial is complete, Caltrans expects to shift 58 to the Centennial / Westside Parkway and continue the route numbering onto Stockdale Highway up to Interstate 5 until the rest of the freeway can be built westward to Interstate 5.
Don
Hallelujah! Progressives Against Progress can't stop everything...LOL! My question is what about US 395 at Kramer Junction. What is the plan for that section?
Rick
Quote from: nexus73 on March 24, 2017, 10:33:39 PM
Hallelujah! Progressives Against Progress can't stop everything...LOL! My question is what about US 395 at Kramer Junction. What is the plan for that section?
Rick
----
The Kramer Junction Expressway appears to be more expressway than freeway. The only freeway interchange will be with US-395 and as others have mentioned, this won't be freeway-to-freeway; instead, CA-58 will be the freeway and US-395 will be treated as the arterial road.
The new 58 Expressway will be separated from the railroad crossing by a bridge. Other than that, I don't believe any other freeway interchanges are planned; thus this should be a true expressway with at-grade intersections, albeit very low volume, which is probably this won't be freeway. It made sense for the Hinkley portion to be freeway given that there still is some semblance of a community in Hinkley.
Going west, once Kramer Junction Expressway is complete, the expressway will turn into the Boron Bypass Freeway that exists now. So 58 will be an expressway between Boron and Hinkley.
Don
Quote from: don1991 on March 25, 2017, 01:53:21 AM
Quote from: nexus73 on March 24, 2017, 10:33:39 PM
Hallelujah! Progressives Against Progress can't stop everything...LOL! My question is what about US 395 at Kramer Junction. What is the plan for that section?
Rick
----
The Kramer Junction Expressway appears to be more expressway than freeway. The only freeway interchange will be with US-395 and as others have mentioned, this won't be freeway-to-freeway; instead, CA-58 will be the freeway and US-395 will be treated as the arterial road.
The new 58 Expressway will be separated from the railroad crossing by a bridge. Other than that, I don't believe any other freeway interchanges are planned; thus this should be a true expressway with at-grade intersections, albeit very low volume, which is probably this won't be freeway. It made sense for the Hinkley portion to be freeway given that there still is some semblance of a community in Hinkley.
Going west, once Kramer Junction Expressway is complete, the expressway will turn into the Boron Bypass Freeway that exists now. So 58 will be an expressway between Boron and Hinkley.
Don
Well, it's a start anyway. At this point, without solid plans to construct a freeway/expressway facility along US 395 in the area (which would involve a Kramer bypass on
that road as well), a diamond or parclo with 58 as the through freeway is appropriate. Upgrades can and likely will come in time as the need (or perception of such) presents itself.
Quote from: don1991 on March 24, 2017, 07:10:29 PM
The Hinkley Freeway is now open to traffic in both directions. Eastbound opened on March 13th, Westbound opened yesterday. I drove it last night. Still some work to do:
1) Lenwood Road exit not open in the westbound direction and neither is the WB on-ramp. With Old 58 now closed, Caltrans will finish the overpass of Lenwood (which will also overpass old 58) and then open the exit. EB Lenwood IC is open allowing travel to Lenwood southbound. All directions of the Hinkley Road interchange are open.
As someone who's been following the progress on this project, it's about time. Too bad the earliest I will be able to drive the bypass will be in late October.
I'm not surprised that portions of the Lenwood Rd interchange aren't finished yet. Caltrans had to get the new mainline open first because the ramps to and from WB 58 will be built on top of the old road.
Quote from: don1991 on March 24, 2017, 07:10:29 PM
Despite the name "Hinkley Expressway" given to the project, this is indeed a FREEWAY for its entire length except for the first 1/2 mile at the west end where it connects to the existing expressway. An at-grade intersection (not yet open) with Wagner Road was built. After this, the freeway begins and a white "Begin Freeway" sign has been placed.
Interesting. I thought that might have been an error but looking at the project plans, it does call for a BEGIN FREEWAY sign (Calif Sign Code R57) to be placed after the at-grade intersection at the west end of the bypass. Perhaps there's some blurring of the lines between what's an "Expressway" and what's a "Freeway". The project did call for the bypass to be built to "Expressway Standards".
Quote from: don1991 on March 24, 2017, 07:10:29 PM
Very nice and I love freeways and this one was sorely needed but even I will admit that Hinkley got screwed a little. Other than the two interchanges - Hinkley Road and Lenwood Road (and really only the Hinkley Road IC serves the community), no other overpasses exist. So the community (what is left of it anyway - another sad story in its own right) is split in two with only two possible ways over the freeway. All other north-south streets have been turned into cul-de-sacs at the freeway. It would be nice for the area to have at least one additional non-interchange overpass.
I am sure this was a cost-saving matter and IMO it would have been more dangerous to allow cross traffic via intersections. But providing at least 1 or two more overpasses would have been helpful.
The way I see it, the community of Hinkley is too small to justify the expense of building additional overpasses to connect this community.
Quote from: don1991 on March 24, 2017, 07:10:29 PM
Now once the Kramer Bypass Expressway is finished (construction should start later this year), then 58 is a complete four-lane freeway or expressway from Interstate 15 at the east end to Stockdale Highway (just west of Allen Road) (west end of the Westside Parkway, which soon will be re-numbered as 58 once the Centennial Freeway is complete) in Bakersfield at the west end.
Where did you get the info about Kramer Junction Bypass project starting later this year? The last I heard, funding for that project got cut in 2016 due to budget issues. As far as I know, the Kramer Junction project has not even gone out to bid on the Caltrans website. Once it does, we'll have a better idea on when construction will start and when the project will be completed.
Will US 395 be 4 lanes through the junction? Did they save space for a freeway to freeway interchange to be built in the future, when needed?
Quote from: kkt on March 27, 2017, 10:24:47 AM
Will US 395 be 4 lanes through the junction? Did they save space for a freeway to freeway interchange to be built in the future, when needed?
IIRC, there are plans for a US 395 expressway on a new alignment east of the current highway.
Quote from: myosh_tino on March 27, 2017, 11:19:29 AM
Quote from: kkt on March 27, 2017, 10:24:47 AM
Will US 395 be 4 lanes through the junction? Did they save space for a freeway to freeway interchange to be built in the future, when needed?
IIRC, there are plans for a US 395 expressway on a new alignment east of the current highway.
There's a longstanding adopted route about 3/4 mile east of present 395, but it hasn't shown up on any STIP as of yet and hasn't, AFAIK, been prioritized in any manner. In this region, 58 functions as the attractant for any available funding -- or even attention, due to its status as a major interregional/commercial connector in need of capacity upgrades. Once it's at least an expressway along its full length, attention may start to be paid to other arterials such as 395 -- or even a direct connector to the 14 freeway near Mojave.
Seeing how there's been very little new news about the Kramer Junction Bypass project, I revisited the Ready-To-List map on the District 8 website and was disappointed to see the Kramer Junction Bypass was removed from the map.
Knowing that funding became an issue in 2016, I checked the list of projects being funded by the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and found that the funding for the Kramer Junction Bypass project (about $30.5 million) has been delayed to the 2019-2020 timeframe meaning it probably wouldn't open until 2024 at the earliest. :(
Quote from: myosh_tino on July 24, 2017, 02:34:12 AM
Seeing how there's been very little new news about the Kramer Junction Bypass project, I revisited the Ready-To-List map on the District 8 website and was disappointed to see the Kramer Junction Bypass was removed from the map.
Knowing that funding became an issue in 2016, I checked the list of projects being funded by the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and found that the funding for the Kramer Junction Bypass project (about $30.5 million) has been delayed to the 2019-2020 timeframe meaning it probably wouldn't open until 2024 at the earliest. :(
:banghead:
Interesting how the bypass can't get funded even with the road repair bill and gas tax increases that will occurring because of it.
Quote from: kkt on July 24, 2017, 12:19:04 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on July 24, 2017, 02:34:12 AM
Seeing how there's been very little new news about the Kramer Junction Bypass project, I revisited the Ready-To-List map on the District 8 website and was disappointed to see the Kramer Junction Bypass was removed from the map.
Knowing that funding became an issue in 2016, I checked the list of projects being funded by the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and found that the funding for the Kramer Junction Bypass project (about $30.5 million) has been delayed to the 2019-2020 timeframe meaning it probably wouldn't open until 2024 at the earliest. :(
:banghead:
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 24, 2017, 12:59:36 PM
Interesting how the bypass can't get funded even with the road repair bill and gas tax increases that will occurring because of it.
IIRC, this is not the first time that work on this segment of CA 58 has been delayed; this corridor, despite its ever-increasing role as
the principal E-W commercial route to and from the San Joaquin Valley, seems to have become the "forgotten stepchild" of CA transportation policy, with the improvements being handed out one small piece at a time. Even $30.5M seems somewhat low for the mileage involved (Boron to east of Kramer); from what I've seen from current and past STIPs, that amount would cover the 58/395 diamond interchange and maybe the segment west to the current Boron freeway, but little else. I'd assume that the easement purchase was completed some time ago, and that preliminary grubbing took place in the interim -- and that those funds are for grading, paving and structures only. If anyone can supply some construction details for the cited project, that would be greatly appreciated -- if only to determine the extent of the project itself!
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 24, 2017, 12:59:36 PM
Interesting how the bypass can't get funded even with the road repair bill and gas tax increases that will occurring because of it.
Keep in mind the STIP information I got dates back to 2016 which predates the bill recently signed to help with transportation projects and road repair. It's entirely possible funding for the project could be freed up by as early as next year.
Quote from: myosh_tino on July 24, 2017, 04:28:52 PM
Keep in mind the STIP information I got dates back to 2016 which predates the bill recently signed to help with transportation projects and road repair. It's entirely possible funding for the project could be freed up by as early as next year.
According to the "12 MONTH LOOK-AHEAD BY DISTRICT AND ADVERTISE AS OF July 3, 2017" (http://"http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/contractor_info/12_month_Advertising_Schedule.pdf") the Kramer Junction project will be advertised on 1 September 2017:
Project ID | District | EA5 | COUNTY | ROUTE | Work Description | BKPM | AHPM | Roadway Capital Estimate | Bridge Capital Estimate | Proposed Advertise Date |
0800000616 | 08 | 34770 | SBD | 058 | CONSTRUCT 4‐LANE DIVIDED EXPWY;
SR58/US395 IC & RR OH BR. | 0 | 12.9 | $143,041,000 | $29,589,000 | 09/01/2017 |
Quote from: jeffe on July 25, 2017, 01:47:48 AM
Quote from: myosh_tino on July 24, 2017, 04:28:52 PM
Keep in mind the STIP information I got dates back to 2016 which predates the bill recently signed to help with transportation projects and road repair. It's entirely possible funding for the project could be freed up by as early as next year.
According to the "12 MONTH LOOK-AHEAD BY DISTRICT AND ADVERTISE AS OF July 3, 2017" (http://"http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/contractor_info/12_month_Advertising_Schedule.pdf") the Kramer Junction project will be advertised on 1 September 2017:
Project ID | District | EA5 | COUNTY | ROUTE | Work Description | BKPM | AHPM | Roadway Capital Estimate | Bridge Capital Estimate | Proposed Advertise Date |
0800000616 | 08 | 34770 | SBD | 058 | CONSTRUCT 4‐LANE DIVIDED EXPWY;
SR58/US395 IC & RR OH BR. | 0 | 12.9 | $143,041,000 | $29,589,000 | 09/01/2017 |
$143M for the road and $29.6M for the structures: seems about right for this segment, seeing as it includes a set of bridges over the BNSF tracks east of Kramer in addition to the 395 interchange. It also sounds like the $30.5M figure cited previously related to the structure expense, since modified to the current quoted amount. Let's hope it lets on the listed schedule!
Quote from: jeffe on July 25, 2017, 01:47:48 AM
Quote from: myosh_tino on July 24, 2017, 04:28:52 PM
Keep in mind the STIP information I got dates back to 2016 which predates the bill recently signed to help with transportation projects and road repair. It's entirely possible funding for the project could be freed up by as early as next year.
According to the "12 MONTH LOOK-AHEAD BY DISTRICT AND ADVERTISE AS OF July 3, 2017" (http://"http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/contractor_info/12_month_Advertising_Schedule.pdf") the Kramer Junction project will be advertised on 1 September 2017:
Project ID | District | EA5 | COUNTY | ROUTE | Work Description | BKPM | AHPM | Roadway Capital Estimate | Bridge Capital Estimate | Proposed Advertise Date |
0800000616 | 08 | 34770 | SBD | 058 | CONSTRUCT 4‐LANE DIVIDED EXPWY;
SR58/US395 IC & RR OH BR. | 0 | 12.9 | $143,041,000 | $29,589,000 | 09/01/2017 |
Excellent find! It should appear on the Caltrans website on August 21st (Caltrans lists advertised projects 2 weeks in advance although actual plans will not be released until it's officially advertised).
Quote from: myosh_tino on July 25, 2017, 05:30:06 PM
Quote from: jeffe on July 25, 2017, 01:47:48 AM
Quote from: myosh_tino on July 24, 2017, 04:28:52 PM
Keep in mind the STIP information I got dates back to 2016 which predates the bill recently signed to help with transportation projects and road repair. It's entirely possible funding for the project could be freed up by as early as next year.
According to the "12 MONTH LOOK-AHEAD BY DISTRICT AND ADVERTISE AS OF July 3, 2017" (http://"http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/contractor_info/12_month_Advertising_Schedule.pdf") the Kramer Junction project will be advertised on 1 September 2017:
Project ID | District | EA5 | COUNTY | ROUTE | Work Description | BKPM | AHPM | Roadway Capital Estimate | Bridge Capital Estimate | Proposed Advertise Date |
0800000616 | 08 | 34770 | SBD | 058 | CONSTRUCT 4‐LANE DIVIDED EXPWY;
SR58/US395 IC & RR OH BR. | 0 | 12.9 | $143,041,000 | $29,589,000 | 09/01/2017 |
Excellent find! It should appear on the Caltrans website on August 21st (Caltrans lists advertised projects 2 weeks in advance although actual plans will not be released until the officially advertised).
Also on the new 2018 Rand McNally Road Atlas, it doesn't show from Barstow, CA to Hinkley, CA as a four lane divided highway, and freeway at Barstow, CA.
Quote from: ACSCmapcollector on July 25, 2017, 07:54:00 PM
Also on the new 2018 Rand McNally Road Atlas, it doesn't show from Barstow, CA to Hinkley, CA as a four lane divided highway, and freeway at Barstow, CA.
The easternmost freeway portion of CA 58 extending across the Mojave River and ending (originally) at the east end of Hinkley has never been shown on the RmcN atlases, even though (a) it wouldn't be difficult to do so; it contains more mileage than a simple "stub" and (b) the damn thing's been open for 20 years now! The only cartographic depiction of it as a freeway is on the intrastate regional AAA maps. Seems to be that with at least McNally, the attention span regarding CA 58 is a bit short -- although the "official" start of the Kramer project on the heels of the Hinkley bypass may -- hopefully -- indicate something of a "sea change" regarding progress along this corridor; we can only wait and hope!
http://www.tehachapinews.com/opinion/letter-to-the-editor-a-construction-update-on-highway/article_405b602c-d555-11e7-9d3d-03001e362fbd.html
Hope there is some truth to this article.
Quote from: Inyomono395 on December 25, 2017, 12:15:42 PM
http://www.tehachapinews.com/opinion/letter-to-the-editor-a-construction-update-on-highway/article_405b602c-d555-11e7-9d3d-03001e362fbd.html
Hope there is some truth to this article.
Hopefully the start date is correct because this is long overdue
That they postponed the project due to seasonally high rail traffic does indicate that the project should be been done decades ago...
Quote from: GoneBoating on December 25, 2017, 01:56:53 PM
Quote from: Inyomono395 on December 25, 2017, 12:15:42 PM
http://www.tehachapinews.com/opinion/letter-to-the-editor-a-construction-update-on-highway/article_405b602c-d555-11e7-9d3d-03001e362fbd.html
Hope there is some truth to this article.
Hopefully the start date is correct because this is long overdue
Quote from: kkt on December 25, 2017, 03:25:37 PM
That they postponed the project due to seasonally high rail traffic does indicate that the project should be been done decades ago...
Since the only portion of the project affected by BNSF rail movements would be the bridge over the tracks east of Kramer, there's no reason that preliminary activities on the remainder of the project could not commence once the project had been let. My guess is that Caltrans wanted the contract to commence after the start of the calendar year for budgetary purposes (i.e., not showing up on the 2017 books for whatever reason); the BNSF excuse was simply for public consumption. That being said, the last few times I've been through Stockton over the last several months I
did notice much more activity re container trains on the BNSF line that terminates at the container port in Richmond -- the same line through Kramer Corners. Given the near-capacity activity at the ports of L.A. and Long Beach, it wouldn't be surprising to find that more container ships are porting in the Bay Area rather than down south.
I can't seem to find a map showing the final alignment and schematics of the Kramer Junction Bypass. I know they're planning a Interstate style exit for US-395, but would like to know how much more of it will be up to freeway standards. If they're building it to basic 4-lane expressway standards hopefully they're reserving enough ROW to bring it up to full Interstate quality sometime in the future.
The Hinkley Bypass looks pretty close to Interstate quality, except for the somewhat narrow inner shoulders and the at grade intersection with Wagner Road on the West end of that bypass. Once the Kramer Junction Bypass is complete it would seem relatively easy to slowly eliminate the remaining at grade intersections along CA-58 between Mojave and Hinkley.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 26, 2017, 01:20:30 PM
I can't seem to find a map showing the final alignment and schematics of the Kramer Junction Bypass. I know they're planning a Interstate style exit for US-395, but would like to know how much more of it will be up to freeway standards. If they're building it to basic 4-lane expressway standards hopefully they're reserving enough ROW to bring it up to full Interstate quality sometime in the future.
The Hinkley Bypass looks pretty close to Interstate quality, except for the somewhat narrow inner shoulders and the at grade intersection with Wagner Road on the West end of that bypass. Once the Kramer Junction Bypass is complete it would seem relatively easy to slowly eliminate the remaining at grade intersections along CA-58 between Mojave and Hinkley.
Pretty much all freeway mileage east of the California City Blvd. intersection (west of Boron) all the way to I-15 is construction that occurred over the previous 25-30 years; typically, it's Interstate-grade geometry (if not fully shouldered), even on the expressway sections with grade crossings; this segment would be relatively easy to upgrade when & if that would be programmed. The segment from the end of the Boron freeway section west to the Mojave Bypass is one of the older divided segments on CA 58, featuring asphalt pavement; the EB lanes are the older of the carriageways, aligned atop the facility as built in the mid-50's -- the
very original alignment largely along the BNSF rail line was replaced with the newer 2-lane facility slightly to the north in the mid-50's. The later facility was twinned in the '70's when the Boron freeway was constructed to the east. While it currently functions adequately as an expressway, should an upgrade be sought shoulder widening (inner & outer) and possibly some geometric changes (along with a couple of interchanges and additional grade separations) will almost certainly be needed on that segment (about 10 miles long) before it could pass Interstate muster.
http://www.desertnews.com/news/article_fea9d16e-89ae-11e7-b3e1-5f014c5ed591.html?mode=image&photo=0
Quote from: Inyomono395 on December 26, 2017, 10:17:36 PM
http://www.desertnews.com/news/article_fea9d16e-89ae-11e7-b3e1-5f014c5ed591.html?mode=image&photo=0
Now
that's interesting -- I always had heard that CA 58 would cross US 395 on an overpass with a standard diamond interchange; these plans depict a EB folded diamond with CA 58 remaining at grade and US 395 on an overpass (I wonder if this is the result of kickback from whoever owns the property west of 395 and south of the planned 58 alignment). In any case, I'm just relieved that
something is finally getting underway here!
Hm. Doesn't look like they reserved enough right of way to upgrade to a full interchange in the future.
Are you talking about a freeway to freeway interchange? If so I think chances are slim to none US-395 would be upgraded into a freeway through there. It's difficult enough as it is to get CA-58 upgraded to Interstate quality (even though the corridor badly needs it).
I've seen that image of the CA-58 exit at US-395 before. I just haven't seen how the overall bypass plan looks, such as the crucial new overpass over the rail line 2.6 miles West of Kramer Junction. Will the interchange with US-395 be the only new freeway style exit along CA-58? How are they going to handle highway access for the few houses and other buildings at Boron Airstrip (just East of where the current Boron freeway segment ends)? It looks like there's enough space for frontage roads, but it's not clear if any frontage roads will be built. There's another 10 miles of non-freeway 4-lane road between North Edwards and Mojave.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 27, 2017, 01:20:07 PM
Are you talking about a freeway to freeway interchange? If so I think chances are slim to none US-395 would be upgraded into a freeway through there. It's difficult enough as it is to get CA-58 upgraded to Interstate quality (even though the corridor badly needs it).
I've seen that image of the CA-58 exit at US-395 before. I just haven't seen how the overall bypass plan looks, such as the crucial new overpass over the rail line 2.6 miles West of Kramer Junction. Will the interchange with US-395 be the only new freeway style exit along CA-58? How are they going to handle highway access for the few houses and other buildings at Boron Airstrip (just East of where the current Boron freeway segment ends)? It looks like there's enough space for frontage roads, but it's not clear if any frontage roads will be built. There's another 10 miles of non-freeway 4-lane road between North Edwards and Mojave.
Actually, the RR crossing will be
east of US 395 and Kramer; as the expressway/freeway will be situated north of the RR tracks (which parallel existing CA 58 on the north side of the road through Kramer -- hence the at-grade RR crossing west of Kramer to access the Boron bypass freeway), it has to cross the tracks to get to the existing expressway between Kramer and Hinkley.
IIRC (and cahwyguy might be able to chime in on this) there is an existing adopted freeway alignment for US 395, but it doesn't go directly down the existing highway but a bit either east or west of Kramer; that would require a completely new interchange if a N-S freeway were to be built. Between I-15 and CA 58 US 395 has quite a bit of traffic, with trucks predominating -- but a large portion of them turn west on CA 58 toward Bakersfield -- it seems that at least to some savvy truckers, US 395 and CA 58 are forming an effective L.A. metro bypass of sorts.
A couple of interesting points...
Quote from: GoneBoating on December 25, 2017, 01:56:53 PM
Quote from: Inyomono395 on December 25, 2017, 12:15:42 PM
http://www.tehachapinews.com/opinion/letter-to-the-editor-a-construction-update-on-highway/article_405b602c-d555-11e7-9d3d-03001e362fbd.html
Hope there is some truth to this article.
Hopefully the start date is correct because this is long overdue
I was unaware that a contract was awarded for this project as I never saw it advertised on the Caltrans website unlike the Hinkley Bypass project. If someone knows the project number (starts with "08-") and/or plans, can you please post a link. I would really appreciate it.
Quote from: sparker on December 27, 2017, 01:45:10 AM
Now that's interesting -- I always had heard that CA 58 would cross US 395 on an overpass with a standard diamond interchange; these plans depict a EB folded diamond with CA 58 remaining at grade and US 395 on an overpass (I wonder if this is the result of kickback from whoever owns the property west of 395 and south of the planned 58 alignment). In any case, I'm just relieved that something is finally getting underway here!
From everything that I have seen, all of the proposed alignments that took the bypass north of the existing highway at Kramer Junction featured that folded diamond design and that none of the proposals took 395 over 58.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 27, 2017, 01:20:07 PM
It's difficult enough as it is to get CA-58 upgraded to Interstate quality (even though the corridor badly needs it).
If by "Interstate quality" you mean eliminating the at-grade intersections, your comment makes sense but if you're talking about the general design of the highway, that's another story. For the most part, the only significant difference, design-wise, between "Expressway" and "Freeway" in California is limiting access to the highway (i.e. interchanges vs intersections).
In the case of the Hinkley Bypass, it's all freeway except for about a 1/2 mile segment at the western end where Wagner Rd intersects 58. Because of that intersection, the term "Expressway" was used in the project description rather than "Freeway".
The same will probably be the case with the Kramer Junction Bypass with all of it being freeway until it joins the existing expressway.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 27, 2017, 01:20:07 PM
I've seen that image of the CA-58 exit at US-395 before. I just haven't seen how the overall bypass plan looks, such as the crucial new overpass over the rail line 2.6 miles West of Kramer Junction.
I believe the selected alignment is to the north of the existing highway. That would mean the bypass would cross the railroad about 2 miles
east of Kramer Junction.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 27, 2017, 01:20:07 PM
Will the interchange with US-395 be the only new freeway style exit along CA-58? How are they going to handle highway access for the few houses and other buildings at Boron Airstrip (just East of where the current Boron freeway segment ends)?
As far as I know, the only interchange planned is with US 395. I could see an at-grade intersection at the east end of the bypass providing access to the old highway. As for the Boron Airstrip, access to that would be via Boron Avenue, Twenty Mule Team Road and the old highway.
For what it's worth, here's a crude drawing of what I believe is the proposed alignment...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmarkyville.com%2Faaroads%2FKramerJctBypass.png&hash=b16a9269996f42ea9c0ef3b422caa5a37da8de39)
Quote from: myosh_tino on December 27, 2017, 04:33:51 PM
As far as I know, the only interchange planned is with US 395. I could see an at-grade intersection at the east end of the bypass providing access to the old highway. As for the Boron Airstrip, access to that would be via Boron Avenue, Twenty Mule Team Road and the old highway.
For what it's worth, here's a crude drawing of what I believe is the proposed alignment...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmarkyville.com%2Faaroads%2FKramerJctBypass.png&hash=b16a9269996f42ea9c0ef3b422caa5a37da8de39)
That drawing is pretty much what I've seen before re the actual alignment; it's likely they'll "hook" the existing 58 alignment south of the RR tracks around to intersect with the new expressway at the east end of the overpass bridge, which is at or near the present west end of the 4-lane expressway.
Once this project is completed, most of the safety and efficiency issues of the CA 58 corridor will have been dealt with; as much as I, along with a number of others, would like to see a I-40 extension along this corridor, that won't likely happen without persevering political influence exertion from entities that would benefit from such a designation and upgrade -- Bakersfield being the most likely candidate to supply such activity. What will likely happen -- at least once the Westside extension reaches I-5 -- is that the most obvious remaining issues, like the CA 223 and California City Blvd. intersections, will be addressed as stand-alone projects; "filling in" the gaps will likely come in time, with Interstate status being dicussed and/or formally proposed when most of the route is full freeway and the "gaps" are seen as problems rather than merely corridor features. That being said -- if truck traffic increases significantly, then the corridor might find itself in a spotlight that could be conducive to a comprehensive program of upgrades.
CalTrans seems to be giving low priority to elevating state routes to Interstate status, like CA 210 in the San Bernadino area and CA 15 in San Diego, even when they have already been upgraded to freeways.
Quote from: oscar on December 27, 2017, 06:31:29 PM
CalTrans seems to be giving low priority to elevating state routes to Interstate status, like CA 210 in the San Bernadino area and CA 15 in San Diego, even when they have already been upgraded to freeways.
While Caltrans' reluctance to change much of anything regarding route designation & signage is legendary, the issues accompanying the two routes cited are very specific to the situations: the issue with chargeability of the N-S section of former I-210 now signed as CA 57 has yet to be resolved (apparently FHWA still considers that I-210 and won't as of yet support signage of the non-chargeable section as I-210; and Caltrans hasn't pressed the issue). And substandard features remain on CA 15 between I-5 and I-805; programmed projects to address those haven't yet been let. OTOH, Caltrans jumped on the conversion of I-110, I-710, and I-880 with little or no reluctance -- so their overall record is a mixed bag -- although I'll admit they're a little casual these days regarding anything Interstate.
Has anyone passed through Kramer Junction since the new year? Just curious if any kind of construction has started yet.
There was some sort of groundbreaking a few days ago:
https://twitter.com/Caltrans8/status/954448624615747584
http://sv08data.dot.ca.gov/memos/files/comalert/011918.pdf
Any progress on the project since the groundbreaking ceremony?
Quote from: Inyomono395 on March 10, 2018, 06:39:51 PM
Any progress on the project since the groundbreaking ceremony?
All I've seen is:
http://www.desertnews.com/news/article_0074e528-0228-11e8-b0e8-731e127519df.html
Council talks fire chief, impact fees during meeting
Posted: Friday, January 26, 2018 12:00 am
By Kane Wickham
QuoteNext up was Wood's report on the Kramer Junction Gap Project, a multi-million-dollar project to widen the final two-lane stretch of Highway 58 between Bakersfield and Barstow. The project will begin very soon and is expected to relieve some of the $10 billion a year in shipments that travel through the area with the Central Valley's harvest. Some have said they fear this would mean the end of Kramer Junction as it will bypass the old and much used junction. A major investment coming just north of Kramer Junction is expected to make up for the re-routing that now bypasses Kramer Junction and the expected slowing of business such a bypass will produce. The project is expected to be completed by 2020.
I am guessing the construction efforts continue apace.
Quote from: andy3175 on March 17, 2018, 01:07:36 AM
Quote from: Inyomono395 on March 10, 2018, 06:39:51 PM
Any progress on the project since the groundbreaking ceremony?
All I've seen is:
http://www.desertnews.com/news/article_0074e528-0228-11e8-b0e8-731e127519df.html
Council talks fire chief, impact fees during meeting
Posted: Friday, January 26, 2018 12:00 am
By Kane Wickham
QuoteNext up was Wood's report on the Kramer Junction Gap Project, a multi-million-dollar project to widen the final two-lane stretch of Highway 58 between Bakersfield and Barstow. The project will begin very soon and is expected to relieve some of the $10 billion a year in shipments that travel through the area with the Central Valley's harvest. Some have said they fear this would mean the end of Kramer Junction as it will bypass the old and much used junction. A major investment coming just north of Kramer Junction is expected to make up for the re-routing that now bypasses Kramer Junction and the expected slowing of business such a bypass will produce. The project is expected to be completed by 2020.
I am guessing the construction efforts continue apace.
For a project that only "broke ground" a few months back (although it looked like it had been grubbed at least 6 years ago!), a completion estimate of 2020 isn't all that bad for this state.
Quote from: Inyomono395 on January 20, 2018, 07:30:31 PM
Has anyone passed through Kramer Junction since the new year? Just curious if any kind of construction has started yet.
I drove by yesterday and construction has definitely started and looking good. I can't wait for this to be completed
Good to hear! Once this bypass is finished will there be more grade separation projects for this corridor?
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 27, 2018, 08:07:45 AM
Good to hear! Once this bypass is finished will there be more grade separation projects for this corridor?
Let's hope so, anyway.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 27, 2018, 08:07:45 AM
Good to hear! Once this bypass is finished will there be more grade separation projects for this corridor?
Maybe but I don't think there's anything imminent. Once this bypass is built, CA-58 will be a 4-lane freeway or expressway from Bakersfield to Barstow which should be more than sufficient.
The whole thing should be an Interstate quality freeway between Bakersfield and Barstow, whether it carries an Interstate designation or not. The bypasses around Hinkley and Kramer Junction are the toughest obstacles. I think other approaches can be made to handle the driveways along CA-58 between the CA-223 intersection and Tehachapi (cutting off some driveways that have gravel road access to nearby freeway style exits and using short length frontage/access roads for the few others without direct access). I don't know how severe the grade incline/decline gets along that stretch of highway. Even if it goes above 6% it doesn't seem to be a deal breaker for the giant amount of semi trucks using it.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 27, 2018, 03:57:55 PM
The whole thing should be an Interstate quality freeway between Bakersfield and Barstow,
You think that, and I think that, but Caltrans and the California legislature don't think it's the highest priority.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 27, 2018, 03:57:55 PM
The whole thing should be an Interstate quality freeway between Bakersfield and Barstow, whether it carries an Interstate designation or not. The bypasses around Hinkley and Kramer Junction are the toughest obstacles. I think other approaches can be made to handle the driveways along CA-58 between the CA-223 intersection and Tehachapi (cutting off some driveways that have gravel road access to nearby freeway style exits and using short length frontage/access roads for the few others without direct access). I don't know how severe the grade incline/decline gets along that stretch of highway. Even if it goes above 6% it doesn't seem to be a deal breaker for the giant amount of semi trucks using it.
There are plenty of gated access points on CA mountain Interstates as it is (particularly on I-5 north of Shasta Lake); adding a few more won't seem to bother anyone -- as long as there's plenty of room along the side of the road for someone to pull off out of the traffic lanes. In the 223/Caliente Road area, those access points can certainly be shunted over to one or another side roads; it wouldn't be terribly difficult to configure a combined interchange for both intersecting roads at that point. IIRC, the grade on CA 58 between Tehachapi and Woodfords is the steepest on the entire route, topping out just around 6%, give or take. Other than that, the most substandard area is the K-railed section between Mojave and Monolith; some widening and establishment of inner shoulder to the statutory 4' minimum would be required to achieve passable Interstate standards.
There are several instances of significant curvature -- but none worse than found on I-80 between Colfax and Yuba Gap (or even down in the Truckee River canyon near the state line). The most dangerous part of the road is near the UP/BNSF "Tehachapi Loop" about a third of a mile west of the CA 58 alignment -- where I've witnessed folks slowing down in lanes to watch a train go around the loop and cross over or under itself.
Quote from: kkt on March 27, 2018, 04:22:00 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 27, 2018, 03:57:55 PM
The whole thing should be an Interstate quality freeway between Bakersfield and Barstow,
You think that, and I think that, but Caltrans and the California legislature don't think it's the highest priority.
Getting CA 58 up to Interstate grade is certainly a doable prospect; but for the time being I'm just glad that the 4-laning will be completed soon. My guess is that once that is done, there will be pressure (but, of course, not from Caltrans itself) to extend I-40 over that corridor -- particularly after the Bakersfield Westside facility is extended to I-5. In fact, I'd wager that
this corridor sees such activity well before any Interstate activity ramps up for CA 99. As far as the CA state legislature goes -- well, let's just say that they are quite pliable, especially when it comes to
quid pro quo arrangements. And there has been increased focus on the plight of the non-coastal CA regions and how funds directed toward that area have been scarce in comparison with the more urban/coastal areas. This corridor could be one of the "squeaky wheels" that garners attention as both a interregional and rural server but also as a potential traffic diverter from the perennial L.A. congestion (along with the appropriate connectors) -- and as such, a worthy project. Whether the route, once completed as an expressway/freeway continuum, is perfectly adequate as is simply is a matter of opinion; no more, no less. But one thing is probably certain -- anything beyond what's being done currently is a long-term situation unless the corridor becomes the focus of efforts from various interests.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 27, 2018, 03:57:55 PM
The whole thing should be an Interstate quality freeway between Bakersfield and Barstow, whether it carries an Interstate designation or not.
I agree. It's mind-boggling that it's not even designated as a High Priority Corridor. Given that CA-58 between Barstow and I-5 is a major freight corridor, as well as the main route to the Northwest from the Southeast, it's practically screaming to become I-40.
The Division of Highways tried to get the corridor into the 1968 group of Interstate additions, but were thwarted when the legislation was cut back to its final iteration of 1500 total miles. Since then, their successor agency has had little interest in engaging in similar activities -- particularly since those doesn't involve the old 90% Fed funding level.
Quote from: sparkerThere are plenty of gated access points on CA mountain Interstates as it is (particularly on I-5 north of Shasta Lake); adding a few more won't seem to bother anyone -- as long as there's plenty of room along the side of the road for someone to pull off out of the traffic lanes.
I have a feeling those gated access points on I-5 are grandfathered to old outdated standards and variances, just like other sub-standard points in the Interstate system: I-40 in the Texas Panhandle says hello (8 at-grade crossings over both sets of main lanes for ranch access between Exit 0 and Exit 15).
I-10 in West Texas between mile marker 48 and 451 has dozens of gravel driveways and at-grade crossings signed just like an ordinary 4-lane highway (turn signs, one-way signs, etc). The driveways on I-10 don't disappear entirely until around exit 501. And then even after that there's all sorts of very short entry and exit ramps connecting to frontage roads where the Interstate effectively has turn and merge lanes built into it. I'm pretty sure any newly built Interstate facility would not be allowed to have such ramps. That stuff goes on right into the San Antonio area.
Any highway newly built or upgraded to receive a new Interstate designation on it has to be built to current standards, which are much more strict. So I don't think the various driveways along CA-58 would be allowed in order for I-40 to be designated along that highway. Whenever TX DOT gets around to building the remaining segments of I-69E and I-69C in far South Texas some parts are going to have frontage roads of short lengths to provide access to ranches and other back roads where there's not enough traffic to justify a grade separated exit. They can't just let someone build their driveway directly out onto the Interstate main lanes anymore.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 28, 2018, 12:45:11 AM
Quote from: sparkerThere are plenty of gated access points on CA mountain Interstates as it is (particularly on I-5 north of Shasta Lake); adding a few more won't seem to bother anyone -- as long as there's plenty of room along the side of the road for someone to pull off out of the traffic lanes.
I have a feeling those gated access points on I-5 are grandfathered to old outdated standards and variances, just like other sub-standard points in the Interstate system: I-40 in the Texas Panhandle says hello (8 at-grade crossings over both sets of main lanes for ranch access).
I-10 in West Texas between mile marker 48 and 451 has dozens of gravel driveways and at-grade crossings signed just like an ordinary 4-lane highway (turn signs, one-way signs, etc). The driveways on I-10 don't disappear entirely until around exit 501. And then even after that there's all sorts of very short entry and exit ramps connecting to frontage roads where the Interstate effectively has turn and merge lanes built into it. I'm pretty sure any newly built Interstate facility would not be allowed to have such ramps. That stuff goes on right into the San Antonio area.
Any highway newly built or upgraded to receive a new Interstate designation on it has to be built to current standards, which are much more strict. So I don't think the various driveways along CA-58 would be allowed in order for I-40 to be designated along that highway. Whenever TX DOT gets around to building the remaining segments of I-69E and I-69C in far South Texas some parts are going to have frontage roads of short lengths to provide access to ranches and other back roads where there's not enough traffic to justify a grade separated exit. They can't just let someone build their driveway directly out onto the Interstate main lanes anymore.
From what I understand, the I-69E "frontage roads" along the King Ranch segment of that route will be essentially turnoffs separated by either striping or K-rails from the traffic lanes, with gated RIRO egress to ranch access roads. If that, or something similar, could be "imported" for CA 58 (or other such situations as appropriate) that may be something that would pass muster. There are only a few such situations on those portions of CA 58 currently considered full freeway -- up on the mountain near Woodford; the remainder are located on the expressway segments and would likely be dealt with by shunting to the nearest crossroad (presuming grade separation and/or interchange); quite a few of those are located on the segment from Mojave to the Boron freeway section. Fortunately, the expressway segments between US 395 and I-15, while featuring at-grade intersections with crossing roads (which of course would be grade-separated with full freeway conversion) avoid private driveway incursion. It's likely that the only locations that would require a Texas-style solution are the few Woodford-area access roads to facilities on the adjoining hills.
"And then even after that there's all sorts of very short entry and exit ramps connecting to frontage roads where the Interstate effectively has turn and merge lanes built into it. I'm pretty sure any newly built Interstate facility would not be allowed to have such ramps."
Going along Texas's I-40 in October 2017 was a rude awakening to this hazardous-looking design. I have never seen such elsewhere. The worst I-5 interchange in Oregon of a very short ramp design and since replaced was the Dever-Conner one between Albany and Salem. What Texas came up with looked even worse to my eyes. I am guessing they get away with it on little used exits.
Another curiosity on Texas's I-40 was that there is one of the fanciest rest stops you will ever see with two different very large bathroom areas on each end of a quite large building while the usual Rest Area signs said Picnic Area since there were no bathrooms. How hard can it be to put in a couple prebuilt bathrooms? Had the money spent on the grandiose palace been used properly, there would be real rest stops on I-40 through the Panhandle.
There must be a thousand-plus windmills seen from this freeway too. I have never seen more. Miles of these beasts must have made for quite the amount of work when they were being installed!
Rick
The design criteria for such off-carriageway RIRO exits like the ones planned for the King Ranch section of I-69E are based upon non-general-public usage but rather utilized by folks with gate access to the ranchlands (keys or keycards), with occupancy of the egress path (the "frontage road" mentioned in an earlier post) being only sporadic and posing no more danger to road traffic than a vehicle pulled off well to the right of the shoulder itself (these lanes would feature greater separation than a simple widening of the shoulder). For such occasional private egress in a topologically difficult area such as found in the Tehachapi Mountains along CA 58 this would seem to be appropriate if implemented properly.
Interesting observation regarding the windmills on I-40 in the Panhandle -- the section of CA 58 in question -- particularly the portion between Mojave and Tehachapi -- features literally a thousand or so of these windmills, placed because of the wind currents over that mountain range, which features the lowest ridge elevation between the high Mojave Desert and the San Joaquin Valley, and thus a favorable path for wind currents.
Quote from: sparkerFrom what I understand, the I-69E "frontage roads" along the King Ranch segment of that route will be essentially turnoffs separated by either striping or K-rails from the traffic lanes, with gated RIRO egress to ranch access roads.
I can't remember where I saw diagrams/illustrations of the plans for I-69E & I-69C, but it does involve more than just building what amounts to a glorified turn-off not much different than a 90° hard turn driveway.
What I saw reminded me more of ramps like those going in & out of a rest area. But instead of a rest area the ramps are connecting to a short frontage road, perhaps one even shorter in length than that of a typical rest area. There also wouldn't be any of this at-grade crossing crap where ranchers cross one set of main lanes to make an at-grade left turn onto the far main lanes. That's one thing that really bugs the crap out of me with I-40 in the TX Panhandle and I-10 in West Texas. Hell even CA-58, with all its gravel driveways between the Beaville Rd intersection and the Tucker Rd exit in Tehachapi, doesn't allow any of the driveways to make at-grade left turns across main travel lanes of traffic. A concrete Jersey barrier runs along nearly all of that mountain roadway, blocking any left turns.
To be fair, I-10 in West Texas has quite a few driveways that look improvised & illegal. There are many examples where a frontage road will come to a dead end, yet there will be wheel ruts going from that dead end right onto the I-10 main lanes. Then there's vehicle tracks going across main travel lanes in many instances,
even when frontage roads are present on both sides of the highway!Many other Interstate highways are having to be upgraded with various safety improvements, such as wider shoulders (both inner and outer), rumble strips, black & white striping, improved signs, cable barriers, etc. Yet these cheapskate danger zones on I-40 and I-10 are still allowed to go on unchanged. At the very least the at-grade left turn crossings on I-40 and I-10 absolutely should be blocked/eliminated under threat of removing those segments of highway from the Interstate system. I couldn't care less if some rancher will have to drive 10 miles this way or that if his dangerous left turn is blocked. I think the safety of other motorists outweighs that one guy's convenience.
Quote from: sparker on March 28, 2018, 03:37:53 PM
The design criteria for such off-carriageway RIRO exits like the ones planned for the King Ranch section of I-69E are based upon non-general-public usage but rather utilized by folks with gate access to the ranchlands (keys or keycards), with occupancy of the egress path (the "frontage road" mentioned in an earlier post) being only sporadic and posing no more danger to road traffic than a vehicle pulled off well to the right of the shoulder itself (these lanes would feature greater separation than a simple widening of the shoulder). For such occasional private egress in a topologically difficult area such as found in the Tehachapi Mountains along CA 58 this would seem to be appropriate if implemented properly.
Interesting observation regarding the windmills on I-40 in the Panhandle -- the section of CA 58 in question -- particularly the portion between Mojave and Tehachapi -- features literally a thousand or so of these windmills, placed because of the wind currents over that mountain range, which features the lowest ridge elevation between the high Mojave Desert and the San Joaquin Valley, and thus a favorable path for wind currents.
Spent the night in Mojave at a motel that had a great view of windmills close and distant. Watching the lights these windmills have turn on and turn off was a pretty sight.
Rick
In my fantasy interstate system, CA 58 is I-40 from Barstow CA west to Bakersfield, where CA 99 is now I-9, and the CA 14 is now I-6 to honor the former US 6 which went through Palmdale, Lancaster and Mojave CA. There is an I-14 in the Southern US in GA, AL and MS from Savannah (GA) crosses Southern Alabama like Dothan to end in near Magnolia (MS).
Quote from: nexus73 on March 28, 2018, 06:51:00 PM
Quote from: sparker on March 28, 2018, 03:37:53 PM
The design criteria for such off-carriageway RIRO exits like the ones planned for the King Ranch section of I-69E are based upon non-general-public usage but rather utilized by folks with gate access to the ranchlands (keys or keycards), with occupancy of the egress path (the "frontage road" mentioned in an earlier post) being only sporadic and posing no more danger to road traffic than a vehicle pulled off well to the right of the shoulder itself (these lanes would feature greater separation than a simple widening of the shoulder). For such occasional private egress in a topologically difficult area such as found in the Tehachapi Mountains along CA 58 this would seem to be appropriate if implemented properly.
Interesting observation regarding the windmills on I-40 in the Panhandle -- the section of CA 58 in question -- particularly the portion between Mojave and Tehachapi -- features literally a thousand or so of these windmills, placed because of the wind currents over that mountain range, which features the lowest ridge elevation between the high Mojave Desert and the San Joaquin Valley, and thus a favorable path for wind currents.
Spent the night in Mojave at a motel that had a great view of windmills close and distant. Watching the lights these windmills have turn on and turn off was a pretty sight.
Rick
What is the name of that motel if you don't mind me asking?
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 30, 2018, 01:26:20 AM
Quote from: nexus73 on March 28, 2018, 06:51:00 PM
Quote from: sparker on March 28, 2018, 03:37:53 PM
The design criteria for such off-carriageway RIRO exits like the ones planned for the King Ranch section of I-69E are based upon non-general-public usage but rather utilized by folks with gate access to the ranchlands (keys or keycards), with occupancy of the egress path (the "frontage road" mentioned in an earlier post) being only sporadic and posing no more danger to road traffic than a vehicle pulled off well to the right of the shoulder itself (these lanes would feature greater separation than a simple widening of the shoulder). For such occasional private egress in a topologically difficult area such as found in the Tehachapi Mountains along CA 58 this would seem to be appropriate if implemented properly.
Interesting observation regarding the windmills on I-40 in the Panhandle -- the section of CA 58 in question -- particularly the portion between Mojave and Tehachapi -- features literally a thousand or so of these windmills, placed because of the wind currents over that mountain range, which features the lowest ridge elevation between the high Mojave Desert and the San Joaquin Valley, and thus a favorable path for wind currents.
Spent the night in Mojave at a motel that had a great view of windmills close and distant. Watching the lights these windmills have turn on and turn off was a pretty sight.
Rick
What is the name of that motel if you don’t mind me asking?
I do not remember. It is close by a place to eat and looks a bit down at the heels, a real High Desert classic...LOL!
Rick
Quote from: Desert Man on April 29, 2018, 11:52:13 PM
In my fantasy interstate system, CA 58 is I-40 from Barstow CA west to Bakersfield, where CA 99 is now I-9, and the CA 14 is now I-6 to honor the former US 6 which went through Palmdale, Lancaster and Mojave CA. There is an I-14 in the Southern US in GA, AL and MS from Savannah (GA) crosses Southern Alabama like Dothan to end in near Magnolia (MS).
Please keep fantasy interstates to the Fictional Highways thread. Thank you.
Quote from: skluth on April 30, 2018, 04:31:02 PM
Quote from: Desert Man on April 29, 2018, 11:52:13 PM
In my fantasy interstate system, CA 58 is I-40 from Barstow CA west to Bakersfield, where CA 99 is now I-9, and the CA 14 is now I-6 to honor the former US 6 which went through Palmdale, Lancaster and Mojave CA. There is an I-14 in the Southern US in GA, AL and MS from Savannah (GA) crosses Southern Alabama like Dothan to end in near Magnolia (MS).
Please keep fantasy interstates to the Fictional Highways thread. Thank you.
LOL...CA-58 can still be CA-58. I went on the road a few times on my way to Bakersfield, Fresno and all over Nor Cal. It sure beats the humongous, horrific and terrible traffic in the LA basin. It's also a shorter route after you turn left from US 395 from I-15.
Quote from: Desert Man on May 02, 2018, 07:31:28 AM
Quote from: skluth on April 30, 2018, 04:31:02 PM
Quote from: Desert Man on April 29, 2018, 11:52:13 PM
In my fantasy interstate system, CA 58 is I-40 from Barstow CA west to Bakersfield, where CA 99 is now I-9, and the CA 14 is now I-6 to honor the former US 6 which went through Palmdale, Lancaster and Mojave CA. There is an I-14 in the Southern US in GA, AL and MS from Savannah (GA) crosses Southern Alabama like Dothan to end in near Magnolia (MS).
Please keep fantasy interstates to the Fictional Highways thread. Thank you.
LOL...CA-58 can still be CA-58. I went on the road a few times on my way to Bakersfield, Fresno and all over Nor Cal. It sure beats the humongous, horrific and terrible traffic in the LA basin. It's also a shorter route after you turn left from US 395 from I-15.
At this point, CA 58 and its effective "feeder" routes (US 395, I-40, I-15 from Vegas) effectively serve as a functional bypass of the entire L.A. metro area; it's certainly the preferred route from the Inland Empire to the San Joaquin Valley and points beyond for those lacking the masochistic streak required to traverse L.A. south of the San Gabriel mountains when an alternative is available -- even one stuck out in the desert. The physical configuration of the facilities (particularly the 395>58 continuum) especially lends itself to bypass usage -- and this will only draw more and more traffic -- much if not most commercial in nature -- out its way. 58 will be 4 lanes from I-15 to I-5 within a decade; the likely next "bullseye" regarding both traffic and safety will be US 395 between Victorville and CA 58; it's already carrying more than its share of trucks, most of which turn west on 58 toward Bakersfield. And its hilly 2-lane-with-passing-lanes format has become woefully inadequate for the job it's being asked to do daily. IMO...it's only a matter of time (and a couple of nasty incidents) before 395 joins 58 in the multilane/divided book.
Construction Update:
I went though the area on May 22nd on my way back from Las Vegas and construction is well on it's way. It looks like most of the construction is focused on the east end of the bypass where a lot of grading has been done on the northside of the highway and work is progressing on the overpasses over the rail line. Several of the columns supporting the new overpass appear completed however, the embankments/approaches were still quite a ways from being finished.
At Kramer Junction (the 58/395 intersection), there hasn't been a whole lot of progress on the new 58/395 interchange. No columns have been formed nor has any work been done on the approaches.
At the west end of the bypass near Boron, some grading has been done but not much else.
My next trip through there will be in early October so it'll be interesting to see how much more progress is made during the summer (hottest) months.
Will the 395 interchange be free flowing? It would be nice to see a directional interchange(not warranted I know but I hate cloverleafs with a purple passion), but at the very least a cloverleaf would be better than a traffic signal for that corridor.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 31, 2018, 07:31:25 PM
Will the 395 interchange be free flowing? It would be nice to see a directional interchange(not warranted I know but I hate cloverleafs with a purple passion), but at the very least a cloverleaf would be better than a traffic signal for that corridor.
This link was posted earlier in the thread.
http://www.desertnews.com/news/article_fea9d16e-89ae-11e7-b3e1-5f014c5ed591.html?mode=image&photo=0
Thanks and I am not sure how I missed that.
Looks as if the diamond/folded diamond configuration shown is something of a compromise intended to avoid taking some property on the west side of 395 north of the tracks; negotiations that produce outcomes like this are S.O.P. with today's freeway development environment; it's difficult to get anything built -- and often kissing ass in the process and subsequently "massaging" plans becomes a necessary step.
However, I wouldn't fret too much about any capacity limitations of this type of interchange -- the current traffic levels on US 395 south of Kramer will, sooner than later, require a similar bypass arrangement for US 395 -- likely just east of the present settlement; that will entail a freeway-to-freeway interchange east of the one presently under construction. This far out in the desert, it'd probably be a cloverleaf with (hopefully) CD lanes -- and perhaps a single directional ramp (either a turbine-type arrangement or a basic flyover) for the NB 395>WB 58 movement, which takes care of much of the heavy commercial traffic. I'm thinking something like the I-5/I-80 interchange north of Sacramento, but rotated clockwise 90 or so degrees (with the NB 395 ramp arrangement mimicking the WB 80 layout). Something like that would be more than adequate for at least several decades.
Just drove through there. The vegetation has been cleared on the ROW west of US-395. East, they've built up the roadbed, and have put up some of the columns and poured some concrete for the RR overpass. Further east, it looks like the freeway is being built entirely north of the current alignment, so the current road will become a frontage road, rather than using it for EB traffic.
Quote from: pderocco on June 22, 2018, 12:22:01 AM
Just drove through there. The vegetation has been cleared on the ROW west of US-395. East, they've built up the roadbed, and have put up some of the columns and poured some concrete for the RR overpass. Further east, it looks like the freeway is being built entirely north of the current alignment, so the current road will become a frontage road, rather than using it for EB traffic.
Not surprising to hear -- the original CA 58 alignment east of Kramer, up to the point of the first improved expressway segment, is a typical undulating desert 2-lane road not really suited for use as part of a new expressway/freeway. Since the project is intended to bypass that entire 2-lane stretch extending in both directions from US 395, new-terrain construction will likely constitute much if not all of the project. I would imagine that there are plans for an interchange or at least a channelized intersection providing access from the new alignment to the old road somewhere east of town -- although I guess that traffic needing to use the facilities (convenience store, fueling) at Kramer would simply utilize the US 395 interchange, RR crossing and all (relatively easy off & on)!
Quote from: sparker on June 22, 2018, 04:22:50 PM
I would imagine that there are plans for an interchange or at least a channelized intersection providing access from the new alignment to the old road somewhere east of town -- although I guess that traffic needing to use the facilities (convenience store, fueling) at Kramer would simply utilize the US 395 interchange, RR crossing and all (relatively easy off & on)!
Although I have not seen the plans for this project, I think all that is planned is the 58/395 interchange just north of Kramer Junction. I don't see a need for an eastern at-grade intersection because of the points you've already raised. At the west end of the bypass, I can see the old road becoming an eastern extension of Twenty Mule Team Road with the S-type curve between Twenty Mule Team and the existing CA-58 freeway being removed.
BTW, isn't Twenty Mule Team Road designated as Business CA-58? If so, I could see Caltrans extending that designation along the old road to Kramer Junction.
Quote from: myosh_tino on June 22, 2018, 08:53:22 PM
Quote from: sparker on June 22, 2018, 04:22:50 PM
I would imagine that there are plans for an interchange or at least a channelized intersection providing access from the new alignment to the old road somewhere east of town -- although I guess that traffic needing to use the facilities (convenience store, fueling) at Kramer would simply utilize the US 395 interchange, RR crossing and all (relatively easy off & on)!
Although I have not seen the plans for this project, I think all that is planned is the 58/395 interchange just north of Kramer Junction. I don't see a need for an eastern at-grade intersection because of the points you've already raised. At the west end of the bypass, I can see the old road becoming an eastern extension of Twenty Mule Team Road with the S-type curve between Twenty Mule Team and the existing CA-58 freeway being removed.
BTW, isn't Twenty Mule Team Road designated as Business CA-58? If so, I could see Caltrans extending that designation along the old road to Kramer Junction.
At one point Business 58
was signed along 20 Mule Team. However, the last time I was moseying around that area circa 2011, I didn't notice either any biz route reassurance signage along the road nor trailblazers from freeway connectors -- but IIRC there was still a BGS somewhere west of Boron on EB 58 that mentioned the loop. Remember, this is CA, where biz loops are signed and then ignored, with signage disappearing over the course of the ensuing decades. And the Boron freeway's somewhere around 40 years of age, so most original signage is likely long gone.
Quote from: sparker on June 23, 2018, 01:25:38 AM
At one point Business 58 was signed along 20 Mule Team. However, the last time I was moseying around that area circa 2011, I didn't notice either any biz route reassurance signage along the road nor trailblazers from freeway connectors
Not much "business" in Boron that travelers would be interested in any more. It's a pretty dreary little place. The existing alignment through Kramer Junction probably won't get a BR-58 designation either, despite its truck stops and restaurants, since it will only be accessible from US-395.
On a vaguely related note, what surprises me is that when they bypassed Mojave, they built about 20 miles worth of frontage road along CA-58 and CA-14,
none of it for access to abutters, and there isn't a goddam thing built on any of it, not one lousy gas station. That could have paid for a good chunk of the Kramer Junction project, or for grade-separating CA-58 from CA-223 and Bealville Rd, or for grade-separating CA-58 from California City Blvd, all of which will eventually be needed.
Quote from: pderocco on June 29, 2018, 02:33:05 AM
On a vaguely related note, what surprises me is that when they bypassed Mojave, they built about 20 miles worth of frontage road along CA-58 and CA-14, none of it for access to abutters, and there isn't a goddam thing built on any of it, not one lousy gas station.
I'm guessing that was part of the deal Caltrans made with the landowners to acquire the right-of-way to build the freeway. Looking at Google Maps, there are a number of dirt roads coming from the frontage road. As for the lack of services, the city of Mojave has everything you'll need (i.e. food, gas and lodging) and is only a few miles off the freeway. It wouldn't surprise me if the town (or it's businesses) made some sort of deal to prevent commercial development near the 3 interchanges built along the bypass.
Quote from: pderocco on June 29, 2018, 02:33:05 AM
That could have paid for a good chunk of the Kramer Junction project, or for grade-separating CA-58 from CA-223 and Bealville Rd, or for grade-separating CA-58 from California City Blvd, all of which will eventually be needed.
Except none of these projects are even being considered by Caltrans. While I can see a need for an interchange with CA-223, I don't see an urgent need for grade-separating CA-58 between the end of the bypass and the California City Blvd intersection.
Quote from: myosh_tino on June 29, 2018, 01:55:46 PM
Quote from: pderocco on June 29, 2018, 02:33:05 AM
On a vaguely related note, what surprises me is that when they bypassed Mojave, they built about 20 miles worth of frontage road along CA-58 and CA-14, none of it for access to abutters, and there isn't a goddam thing built on any of it, not one lousy gas station.
I'm guessing that was part of the deal Caltrans made with the landowners to acquire the right-of-way to build the freeway. Looking at Google Maps, there are a number of dirt roads coming from the frontage road. As for the lack of services, the city of Mojave has everything you'll need (i.e. food, gas and lodging) and is only a few miles off the freeway. It wouldn't surprise me if the town (or it's businesses) made some sort of deal to prevent commercial development near the 3 interchanges built along the bypass.
Quote from: pderocco on June 29, 2018, 02:33:05 AM
That could have paid for a good chunk of the Kramer Junction project, or for grade-separating CA-58 from CA-223 and Bealville Rd, or for grade-separating CA-58 from California City Blvd, all of which will eventually be needed.
Except none of these projects are even being considered by Caltrans. While I can see a need for an interchange with CA-223, I don't see an urgent need for grade-separating CA-58 between the end of the bypass and the California City Blvd intersection.
If an upgrade to full freeway along CA 58 is ever undertaken, it's more than likely that the real "sore spots" where accidents occur (such as the adjoining intersections with CA 223 and Bealville Road) will be among the first to be addressed; the portions out in the desert that don't feature large volumes of cross-traffic, such as California City Blvd., will probably be among the last reconstructed. When it comes to this particular corridor, the "squeaky wheels" (Bakersfield connection to 99, Mojave bypass, Kramers Corner, Hinkley) have historically been dealt with sooner rather than later, while the interim segments that don't pose immediate issues are "back-burnered", so to speak. While relatively isolated, the Boron freeway was built in the '70's to address both the large volume of trucks coming from the borax plant as well as access to and from Edwards AFB to the south.
Hi all,
I just returned from Las Vegas and drove through the construction zone to get home to San Jose.
1. The overpass for the railroad tracks is under construction.
2. The lanes for both directions of 58 are poured and set from just past the county line to before the 395 overpass.
3. The overpass over 395 had the dirt berms only on the edges, no framework for the overpass yet.
4. Westbound 58 lanes west of the 4-lane to 2-lane bottleneck to before the left curve before the junction are already poured and set.
It looks like the existing part of 58 east of Kramer Junction will be diverted on the westbound lanes while the existing 58 will be torn up and redone to become the eastbound lanes. I already saw some of the same signage of Do Not Pass on the westbound lanes.
Quote from: 395fun2drive on December 30, 2018, 09:38:44 PM
Hi all,
I just returned from Las Vegas and drove through the construction zone to get home to San Jose.
1. The overpass for the railroad tracks is under construction.
2. The lanes for both directions of 58 are poured and set from just past the county line to before the 395 overpass.
3. The overpass over 395 had the dirt berms only on the edges, no framework for the overpass yet.
4. Westbound 58 lanes west of the 4-lane to 2-lane bottleneck to before the left curve before the junction are already poured and set.
It looks like the existing part of 58 east of Kramer Junction will be diverted on the westbound lanes while the existing 58 will be torn up and redone to become the eastbound lanes. I already saw some of the same signage of Do Not Pass on the westbound lanes.
That corresponds with what I saw segueing from NB 395 to WB 58 Monday afternoon. No actual bridgework for the 395 overpass, but paving from what will likely be the end of the ramps all the way to the existing freeway near Boron, with the present curve accessing that freeway modified so that the new pavement can be "cut in". Glad to hear that the east overhead over the BNSF tracks is underway. Talked about this previously in the "2018 Road Trips" thread; just glad another poster got a better look at the construction east of the junction -- much thanks!
I found this youtube, similar to what I saw excepting the 395 overpass. When I went through the sun had already went down so I saw nothing. Shows both the cutouts at the ends of the project and the railroad overpass.
Fast forward to 13:20, 23:10, and 27:45 for the start, overpass, and end of the project. Driver did not move camera to view the 395 overpass, may not have known about the project. Sun is in the driver's & camera's face.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTrMzmEoLQo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTrMzmEoLQo)
Quote from: 395fun2drive on February 03, 2019, 02:31:47 PM
I found this youtube, similar to what I saw excepting the 395 overpass. When I went through the sun had already went down so I saw nothing. Shows both the cutouts at the ends of the project and the railroad overpass.
Fast forward to 13:20, 23:10, and 27:45 for the start, overpass, and end of the project. Driver did not move camera to view the 395 overpass, may not have known about the project. Sun is in the driver's & camera's face.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTrMzmEoLQo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTrMzmEoLQo)
Looks like the driver was just doing a simple phone video of a CA desert sunrise; the fact that he was passing through the Kramer bypass construction zone was simply coincidence to him; since he didn't comment on the construction and lane configuration at the west end of the bypass, it's pretty obvious -- and bolstered by his later comments -- that he was unaware of the project. Nevertheless, coincidences can sometimes be informative; for this forum, that proves to be the case -- now some of us know how the
east end of the new facility will tie in to the existing expressway.
GMSV along US 395 (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.9976063,-117.5430365,3a,75y,168.05h,93.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1scTU2tHQ_8Io4ENfs9DmlBA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) has been updated to the November 2018 timeframe. Shows construction on the bridge embankments for the future CA 58 overpass over US 395 as well as a temporary traffic signal on US 395 at a haul road being used for the bypass construction.
I wish they would update the overhead/satellite views of that area. It would be nice to see the progress made on that part of CA-58. It would also be nice to see the finished bypass around Hinkley just to the East.
Quote from: froggie on April 18, 2019, 11:20:00 AM
GMSV along US 395 (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.9976063,-117.5430365,3a,75y,168.05h,93.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1scTU2tHQ_8Io4ENfs9DmlBA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) has been updated to the November 2018 timeframe. Shows construction on the bridge embankments for the future CA 58 overpass over US 395 as well as a temporary traffic signal on US 395 at a haul road being used for the bypass construction.
A bit of a distant view, but similarly, December 2018 (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.9923721,-117.5416696,3a,37.5y,355.8h,84.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sISbhedpEiNJKrHzb0hzm5Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) imagery on CA-58 allows you to see the construction at the US-395 interchange as well, and you can see more progress going with the interchange.
If you go into Streetview along the 58 you can see that some sort of construction is going on pretty much from the end of the freeway near Boron, the bridge over the BNSF line east of Kramer Junction, east to the current end of the 4-lane section from Hinkley.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 22, 2016, 04:32:44 PM
Hopefully this bypass will be built eventually. Will the CA-58/US 395 junction have an interchange? I think it would be foolish to have the two highways meet at-grade.
Talked about this previously; right now the emphasis is geared toward completion of CA 58 as at least a 4-lane expressway from Barstow to Bakersfield to accommodate the extremely high volume of commercial traffic, most of which originates from or alternately segues onto I-40. However, US 395 is finding increasing use as part of an ersatz "L.A. Metro" bypass, using CA 58 west of Kramer. Although not yet formally adopted, a N-S freeway through Adelanto west of the present US 395 alignment has been in discussion for over a decade, prompted by the outsized growth of Adelanto as a "relatively affordable" L.A./Inland Empire exurb. But the 2-lane (with the occasional passing lane) section of 395 between Adelanto and CA 58
is increasingly becoming a chokepoint due to this more recent bypass role. But the present funding/deployment effort is concentrated on CA 58; that will have to be effectively completed before Caltrans' D8 can regroup and plan its next desert improvement -- assuming that the
High Desert Corridor remains planned as a stand-alone tolled project. I'd expect to see a 4-lane expressway treatment applied to that portion of US 395, with some full-free-movement interchange with 58. Might be a simple cloverleaf with C/D lanes for both routes; but optimally at least a turbine-style flyover from NB 395 to WB 58 to expedite the main direction of commercial flow would be part of the plans. But since the 58 Kramer bypass will likely be completed about 2021, it'll be several funding cycles before a 395 improvement hits the actual planning stages -- AFAIK, there's not a N-S bypass alignment that has been formally adopted as of yet. I hate to say it -- but some sort of well-reported tragedy on that stretch of 395 might well be necessary as a "kick in the ass" regarding advancing some concrete action on that corridor.
The project fact sheet (http://sv08data.dot.ca.gov/memos/files/comalert/041918_0.pdf) shows a combination interchange at the US 395/CA 58 intersection with diamond ramps on westbound CA 58 and a parclo on the SE quadrant for eastbound traffic. I haven't seen any plans for a new US 395 expressway south to I-15. Should one be built, I think free-flowing ramps connecting CA 58 to the west to US 395 to the south should be built, but I don't see the need to pay for any other free-flowing ramps.
I took US 395/CA 58 pseudo LA bypass a couple months ago between Palm Springs to Bakersfield. It worked well - better than I-210 and the Grapevine - but I came back via Barstow and Yucca Valley which worked even better. I'm not sure I'd like the route between Barstow and Yucca Valley improved much as traffic is currently quite light and it might make CA 60 from I-10 to Joshua Tree too busy (and there is no room to widen it further).
Quote from: skluth on April 22, 2019, 03:47:08 PM
but I came back via Barstow and Yucca Valley which worked even better.
I'm glad you didn't run into trouble on that route ... but every time I try it, between Yucca Valley and Lucerne Valley, there's a whole assortment of slow-moving vehicles of various types (trucks, tourists, decrepit local vehicles of unknown provenance, etc.) that make it a frustrating pain in the you-know-what.
Quote from: Kniwt on April 22, 2019, 10:54:42 PM
Quote from: skluth on April 22, 2019, 03:47:08 PM
but I came back via Barstow and Yucca Valley which worked even better.
I'm glad you didn't run into trouble on that route ... but every time I try it, between Yucca Valley and Lucerne Valley, there's a whole assortment of slow-moving vehicles of various types (trucks, tourists, decrepit local vehicles of unknown provenance, etc.) that make it a frustrating pain in the you-know-what.
I've done 247 numerous times, and never found it particularly difficult to pass slower vehicles. My own assessment of that existing corridor is that CA 62 between I-10 and CA 247 is a major PITA due to (a) the deplorable pavement quality of CA 62 between I-10 and Morongo Canyon, (b) slow vehicles and general driver idiocy within that curvy canyon alignment (one of the hairier 4-lane expressway segments on the state system -- not as bad as CA 17 between Santa Cruz and Los Gatos, but a close 2nd), and (c) the slog through local traffic and signals in Morongo and Yucca Valleys. I'm generally relieved once out in the desert north of Y.V.; usually have been able to make up lost time there.
QuoteI took US 395/CA 58 pseudo LA bypass a couple months ago between Palm Springs to Bakersfield.
This is exactly what I do to drive to Sacramento (picking up CA 99 in Bakersfield).
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on April 23, 2019, 09:16:46 AM
QuoteI took US 395/CA 58 pseudo LA bypass a couple months ago between Palm Springs to Bakersfield.
This is exactly what I do to drive to Sacramento (picking up CA 99 in Bakersfield).
It's pretty much my go-to route to get to San Diego. Sometimes I mix it up slightly and take 138 instead of 58/395. Traffic is so bad on 5 and 405 that the 30 extra miles is worth it. Yeah
^^^^^^^^
Unless you're going through the L.A. basin at night, there's little if any certainty that you'll be able to make the trip without encountering congestion. If your trip starts anywhere south of O.C. or east of Pomona, the 395/58 combination or, as Max avers, CA 138/14 as an alternative (if you "backtrack" on Pearblossom Highway to avoid slogging through the east side of Palmdale) works reasonably well to get to the San Joaquin Valley. And CA 99's a more interesting if marginally more time-consuming alternative to I-5 once in the valley (and, unless you're completely inured to fast food, a route with generally more variety in regards to places to take a break!). Just wish there was some action toward a 395 upgrade -- but can completely understand Caltrans' desire to get 58 done first because of its role as a primary commercial corridor.
Quote from: sparker on April 23, 2019, 12:36:59 PM
^^^^^^^^
Unless you're going through the L.A. basin at night, there's little if any certainty that you'll be able to make the trip without encountering congestion. If your trip starts anywhere south of O.C. or east of Pomona, the 395/58 combination or, as Max avers, CA 138/14 as an alternative (if you "backtrack" on Pearblossom Highway to avoid slogging through the east side of Palmdale) works reasonably well to get to the San Joaquin Valley. And CA 99's a more interesting if marginally more time-consuming alternative to I-5 once in the valley (and, unless you're completely inured to fast food, a route with generally more variety in regards to places to take a break!). Just wish there was some action toward a 395 upgrade -- but can completely understand Caltrans' desire to get 58 done first because of its role as a primary commercial corridor.
99 certainly keeps you more engaged than I-5 in San Joaquin Valley. The traffic on 99 is thick enough to keep you going mentally and if you're into older roads there is plenty to see. I have made the surface connection from 5 to 58 workable in the past, I would imagine that would only increase in desirability once the Centennial Corridor is finished.
395 is awful no matter how you slice it, but at least it's short. I've kind of found 215 to be rapidly becoming just as bad as 15 in the Riverside area which is a shame since it used to be a really quiet part of the bypass.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 23, 2019, 12:49:10 PM
I've kind of found 215 to be rapidly becoming just as bad as 15 in the Riverside area which is a shame since it used to be a really quiet part of the bypass.
I don't think I-215 is bad except for where it's concurrent with CA 60 where it often sucks. The merge at the south end can be bad too.
Quote from: skluth on April 23, 2019, 04:31:00 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 23, 2019, 12:49:10 PM
I've kind of found 215 to be rapidly becoming just as bad as 15 in the Riverside area which is a shame since it used to be a really quiet part of the bypass.
I don't think I-215 is bad except for where it's concurrent with CA 60 where it invariably sucks. The merge at the south end can be bad too.
FTFY. 215 was just starting to get as bad as 15 about the time I moved north in 2012. Hopefully the improvements in San Bernardino have ameliorated it a bit. However, the outsized growth of Perris, Menifee, and other areas south of Riverside have made that section just another suburban arterial subject to standard SoCal commuter woes.
Quote from: sparker on April 23, 2019, 05:55:46 PM
Quote from: skluth on April 23, 2019, 04:31:00 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 23, 2019, 12:49:10 PM
I've kind of found 215 to be rapidly becoming just as bad as 15 in the Riverside area which is a shame since it used to be a really quiet part of the bypass.
I don't think I-215 is bad except for where it's concurrent with CA 60 where it invariably sucks. The merge at the south end can be bad too.
FTFY. 215 was just starting to get as bad as 15 about the time I moved north in 2012. Hopefully the improvements in San Bernardino have ameliorated it a bit. However, the outsized growth of Perris, Menifee, and other areas south of Riverside have made that section just another suburban arterial subject to standard SoCal commuter woes.
I worked in Menifee when it was known in Sun City. Even back then the four lanes I-215 were woefully inadequate and only got worse from Moreno Valley northward. I'm kind of curious to see how 215 has improved in the years since. Back then the back way via 215, 15, 395 and 58 to San Joaquin Valley wasn't as we'll know. Now that there are phone apps which live commute times it makes me wonder how many more people use the Metro Los Angeles bypass.
^^^^^^^^
Before my relationship with my current GF developed, I dated a woman who lived out in Menifee (also a nurse -- I seem to have a "type"!) -- this was the late '90's, when that town was basically a bunch of individual tracts with a lot of land in between -- now, it's pretty much solid housing or commercial strips from the north end of Murietta up to CA 74 (so far nobody's slapped down housing in the San Jacinto River mudflats along 215 near Perris). I would expect that by no later than 2030 there will be solid development from Moreno Valley all the way to the south end of Temecula.
QuoteSometimes I mix it up slightly and take 138 instead of 58/395.
I do this too. The real trick is getting around Littlerock and Pearblossom to get to I-15. I usually go CA 138 -> Ave D -> Sierra Hwy -> Ave E -> 90th St East -> Ave J or O -> 170th St East -> CA 138. I haven't found a good way to get east of the no-pass section from Llano to CA 18 yet that doesn't involve a lot (more) messing around, though.
^^^^^^^^^^
Either the 138 or 395/58 options has its own "slog" section; for the former, it's the aforementioned "no pass" zone that essentially follows the ground topography (rolling up and down -- and prone to flash floods during rains) as well as the east side of Palmdale (which includes one of Caltrans' recent roundabouts). For the latter, it's the section from Hesperia through Adelanto, which gets more and more congested with the constantly increasing amount of local housing. One of the little "tricks" I learned while living out there for 3 years was (NB) to stay on I-15 to the D Street exit in Victorville (where CA 18 departs eastbound), and take it NW (on the portion that's part of Historic US 66) to Air Base Parkway, and then shoot west a few miles to US 395 at the north end of Adelanto. You miss all the new 'burb development, and are out of town in about 5 minutes from turning onto 395. That basic E-W route is close to where the proposed High Desert (toll) corridor will be located; its interchange with I-15 being about a mile north of Victorville. Unless one gets caught up in I-15 weekend shit, it'll save about 10-15 minutes over using the south end of US 395.
Quote from: sparker on April 24, 2019, 01:35:58 PM
^^^^^^^^^^
Either the 138 or 395/58 options has its own "slog" section; for the former, it's the aforementioned "no pass" zone that essentially follows the ground topography (rolling up and down -- and prone to flash floods during rains) as well as the east side of Palmdale (which includes one of Caltrans' recent roundabouts). For the latter, it's the section from Hesperia through Adelanto, which gets more and more congested with the constantly increasing amount of local housing. One of the little "tricks" I learned while living out there for 3 years was (NB) to stay on I-15 to the D Street exit in Victorville (where CA 18 departs eastbound), and take it NW (on the portion that's part of Historic US 66) to Air Base Parkway, and then shoot west a few miles to US 395 at the north end of Adelanto. You miss all the new 'burb development, and are out of town in about 5 minutes from turning onto 395. That basic E-W route is close to where the proposed High Desert (toll) corridor will be located; its interchange with I-15 being about a mile north of Victorville. Unless one gets caught up in I-15 weekend shit, it'll save about 10-15 minutes over using the south end of US 395.
Nice tip on the US 395 option. I'll probably try that sometime. I may even go a bit further north along the old National Trails Highway to see a funky pizza parlor I've heard about in Oro Grande.
I haven't tried CA 138. I'm curious if it would be easier to go through Palmdale or to use CA 122 to CA 14 to Mojave. Any thoughts?
^^^^^^^^
Just don't look for any "CA 122" signage; that was a Google Maps addition that apparently wasn't vetted anywhere; Pearblossom Highway between CA 138 and CA 14 remains an unnumbered county road. And it is one way to avoid the east side of Palmdale (unless you're jonesing for fast food -- then and only then stay on 138!), even though it requires a bit of backtracking. Time-wise, you'll cut 5-10 minutes off a trip in either direction, since IIRC that section of Pearblossom has a speed limit at least 50 and possibly 65 close to CA 14.
Quote from: sparker on April 24, 2019, 07:17:57 PM
^^^^^^^^
Just don't look for any "CA 122" signage; that was a Google Maps addition that apparently wasn't vetted anywhere; Pearblossom Highway between CA 138 and CA 14 remains an unnumbered county road. And it is one way to avoid the east side of Palmdale (unless you're jonesing for fast food -- then and only then stay on 138!), even though it requires a bit of backtracking. Time-wise, you'll cut 5-10 minutes off a trip in either direction, since IIRC that section of Pearblossom has a speed limit at least 50 and possibly 65 close to CA 14.
Speaking of CA 122 I plan on hitting on that on my way back from San Diego next week. For some reason the map data online is really getting odd showing highways that never were or are long gone. Unbuilt CA 179 has come up in conversation a couple times lately as another Google error. I just noticed today that most phone incorrectly displays US 399 instead of CA 33 south of CA 166.
Quote from: sparker on April 24, 2019, 07:17:57 PM
^^^^^^^^
Just don't look for any "CA 122" signage; that was a Google Maps addition that apparently wasn't vetted anywhere; Pearblossom Highway between CA 138 and CA 14 remains an unnumbered county road. And it is one way to avoid the east side of Palmdale (unless you're jonesing for fast food -- then and only then stay on 138!), even though it requires a bit of backtracking. Time-wise, you'll cut 5-10 minutes off a trip in either direction, since IIRC that section of Pearblossom has a speed limit at least 50 and possibly 65 close to CA 14.
That's a shame. Certain connectors should be numbered to provide for ease of navigation. And yes, good bypasses should be well-signed to help move the traffic along and not clog up commercial corridors.
And if a highway isn't state maintained, why not a well-signed county highway. Pearblossom could easily be signed somthing akin to N-122 (or any available N number).
Another good candidate for signing would be the La Cienega connector between 405 in Inglewood and 10 in eastern Culver City.
Quotestay on I-15 to the D Street exit in Victorville (where CA 18 departs eastbound), and take it NW (on the portion that's part of Historic US 66) to Air Base Parkway, and then shoot west a few miles to US 395 at the north end of Adelanto.
I actually go a little further up: I take SBCo 66 into Helendale and cut over on Shadow Mtn Rd. This dumps you out about halfway through the no-pass.
Quote from: mrsman on April 25, 2019, 08:17:58 AM
Quote from: sparker on April 24, 2019, 07:17:57 PM
^^^^^^^^
Just don't look for any "CA 122" signage; that was a Google Maps addition that apparently wasn't vetted anywhere; Pearblossom Highway between CA 138 and CA 14 remains an unnumbered county road. And it is one way to avoid the east side of Palmdale (unless you're jonesing for fast food -- then and only then stay on 138!), even though it requires a bit of backtracking. Time-wise, you'll cut 5-10 minutes off a trip in either direction, since IIRC that section of Pearblossom has a speed limit at least 50 and possibly 65 close to CA 14.
That's a shame. Certain connectors should be numbered to provide for ease of navigation. And yes, good bypasses should be well-signed to help move the traffic along and not clog up commercial corridors.
And if a highway isn't state maintained, why not a well-signed county highway. Pearblossom could easily be signed somthing akin to N-122 (or any available N number).
Another good candidate for signing would be the La Cienega connector between 405 in Inglewood and 10 in eastern Culver City.
"N-122" on Pearblossom would be fine -- but L.A. County has essentially given up on signing county routes; much of the existing signage, dating from the '60's and early '70's, isn't being replaced when it ages out. But at least it's not Tulare County, where everything not up in the mountains was deliberately removed about 18-20 years ago. Nevertheless, some sort of "trailblazer" signage: "TO CA 138 EAST" from CA 14 and "TO CA 14 SOUTH" from 138 might be at least a "baby step" regarding recognition of that stretch of county road as a major connector.
Quote from: sparker on April 25, 2019, 04:28:25 PM
Quote from: mrsman on April 25, 2019, 08:17:58 AM
Quote from: sparker on April 24, 2019, 07:17:57 PM
^^^^^^^^
Just don't look for any "CA 122" signage; that was a Google Maps addition that apparently wasn't vetted anywhere; Pearblossom Highway between CA 138 and CA 14 remains an unnumbered county road. And it is one way to avoid the east side of Palmdale (unless you're jonesing for fast food -- then and only then stay on 138!), even though it requires a bit of backtracking. Time-wise, you'll cut 5-10 minutes off a trip in either direction, since IIRC that section of Pearblossom has a speed limit at least 50 and possibly 65 close to CA 14.
That's a shame. Certain connectors should be numbered to provide for ease of navigation. And yes, good bypasses should be well-signed to help move the traffic along and not clog up commercial corridors.
And if a highway isn't state maintained, why not a well-signed county highway. Pearblossom could easily be signed somthing akin to N-122 (or any available N number).
Another good candidate for signing would be the La Cienega connector between 405 in Inglewood and 10 in eastern Culver City.
"N-122" on Pearblossom would be fine -- but L.A. County has essentially given up on signing county routes; much of the existing signage, dating from the '60's and early '70's, isn't being replaced when it ages out. But at least it's not Tulare County, where everything not up in the mountains was deliberately removed about 18-20 years ago. Nevertheless, some sort of "trailblazer" signage: "TO CA 138 EAST" from CA 14 and "TO CA 14 SOUTH" from 138 might be at least a "baby step" regarding recognition of that stretch of county road as a major connector.
I've brought up on the forum for years, but it still seems to ring true: California's philosophy for state highway signage seems to be more geared towards "marking where CalTrans maintains a road" rather than providing cohesive, well-marked routes for navigation.
Quote from: TheStranger on April 25, 2019, 05:04:59 PM
Quote from: sparker on April 25, 2019, 04:28:25 PM
Quote from: mrsman on April 25, 2019, 08:17:58 AM
Quote from: sparker on April 24, 2019, 07:17:57 PM
^^^^^^^^
Just don't look for any "CA 122" signage; that was a Google Maps addition that apparently wasn't vetted anywhere; Pearblossom Highway between CA 138 and CA 14 remains an unnumbered county road. And it is one way to avoid the east side of Palmdale (unless you're jonesing for fast food -- then and only then stay on 138!), even though it requires a bit of backtracking. Time-wise, you'll cut 5-10 minutes off a trip in either direction, since IIRC that section of Pearblossom has a speed limit at least 50 and possibly 65 close to CA 14.
That's a shame. Certain connectors should be numbered to provide for ease of navigation. And yes, good bypasses should be well-signed to help move the traffic along and not clog up commercial corridors.
And if a highway isn't state maintained, why not a well-signed county highway. Pearblossom could easily be signed somthing akin to N-122 (or any available N number).
Another good candidate for signing would be the La Cienega connector between 405 in Inglewood and 10 in eastern Culver City.
"N-122" on Pearblossom would be fine -- but L.A. County has essentially given up on signing county routes; much of the existing signage, dating from the '60's and early '70's, isn't being replaced when it ages out. But at least it's not Tulare County, where everything not up in the mountains was deliberately removed about 18-20 years ago. Nevertheless, some sort of "trailblazer" signage: "TO CA 138 EAST" from CA 14 and "TO CA 14 SOUTH" from 138 might be at least a "baby step" regarding recognition of that stretch of county road as a major connector.
I've brought up on the forum for years, but it still seems to ring true: California's philosophy for state highway signage seems to be more geared towards "marking where CalTrans maintains a road" rather than providing cohesive, well-marked routes for navigation.
Very true.
Doing some GSV scouting of the area, it seems that traffic coming westbound on 138 is directed to continue straight for Palmdale, but make a left to go to L.A. Thus, traffic trying to bypass L.A. to reach 14 north or I-5 north would not normally think to take Pearblossom. So I would recommend (based on sparker's earlier post that Pearblossom has better traffic and fewer businesses and signals) that trafffic to CA-14 north should be directed to Pearblossom as well, even though it is further, to avoid Palmdale's business district.
It also seems that there should be right turn arrows that are complementary to the left turn arrows. The right turn to stay on Pearblossom is heavy, there is a dedicated signal phase for the left turn, there is a dedicated right turn lane, and u-turns are prohibited. To the extent that this saves people from the necessity of coming to a full stop while making a right turn during the complementary left turn phase, this should be done.
Quote from: mrsman on April 25, 2019, 07:03:07 PM
Doing some GSV scouting of the area, it seems that traffic coming westbound on 138 is directed to continue straight for Palmdale, but make a left to go to L.A. Thus, traffic trying to bypass L.A. to reach 14 north or I-5 north would not normally think to take Pearblossom. So I would recommend (based on sparker's earlier post that Pearblossom has better traffic and fewer businesses and signals) that trafffic to CA-14 north should be directed to Pearblossom as well, even though it is further, to avoid Palmdale's business district.
Looking on Google Maps, Avenue S between Route 138 and Route 14 seems to have much fewer businesses than the Route 138/Palmdale Boulevard east-west corridor; that might be a viable alternate for traffic heading to Route 14 north without having to do the back-tracking that taking Pearblossom would require (as Pearblossom switches to a southwest trajectory from Barrel Springs Road to 14).
Although I enjoy talking about anything road related I think we're getting a little off topic. Can we please keep this conversation about the Kramer Junction bypass. Sorry if I'm being a stick in the mud
Safe travels my friends
^^^^^^^^^^
If the CA 58 Kramer bypass is being done -- and opened -- in phases per usual Caltrans practice, the initial interim routing would likely look like this: for CA 58 west, it would enter Kramer Corner on the current alignment, turn north on US 395, which crosses the BNSF main line at grade a few hundred feet north of the junction, then segue back onto the new 58 freeway via either a left turn or a right loop, depending upon whether the overpass is completed. For 58 east, it would exit the freeway, turn south for about 1/4 mile on US 395 -- again crossing the BNSF tracks -- and then hang a left to return to the original CA 58 alignment. Assuming BNSF will be running their trains as usual during this period, Kramer Corners, always a PITA chokepoint, will be functioning much worse for a while (even if the signals are reset to optimize thru CA 58 movement). Neither facility, 58 or 395, will function even adequately during this timeframe, which could be several months if not approaching a year or so. I'd fully expect to see backups on at least 3 approaches -- save SB 395, which never had all that much to begin with; these delays could add as much as 15-20 minutes to the trip. During that time it just may be a reasonable idea to detour over CA 138 and up CA 14 for traffic between the Inland Empire and Bakersfield.
And, yes, I've personally witnessed traffic backing up on EB 58 all the way to and sometimes past the current RR crossing 3 miles west of Kramer, and about a mile and a half to the east -- with the current/historic alignment. When it worsens for a period that junction will be one to be avoided if possible. Traffic to and from I-15 to Vegas and eastward I-40 won't have a lot of choice here; but for the several months that the Kramer "jog" will be in place, traffic to and from Cajon can select an alternative, which will likely be CA 138. It'll take a commercial driver one nasty trip through Kramer to say "enough of this shit, I'm using an alternative route!" :banghead: (or something even more pithy!).
Quote from: sparker on April 25, 2019, 09:31:40 PM
^^^^^^^^^^
If the CA 58 Kramer bypass is being done -- and opened -- in phases per usual Caltrans practice, the initial interim routing would likely look like this: for CA 58 west, it would enter Kramer Corner on the current alignment, turn north on US 395, which crosses the BNSF main line at grade a few hundred feet north of the junction, then segue back onto the new 58 freeway via either a left turn or a right loop, depending upon whether the overpass is completed. For 58 east, it would exit the freeway, turn south for about 1/4 mile on US 395 -- again crossing the BNSF tracks -- and then hang a left to return to the original CA 58 alignment. Assuming BNSF will be running their trains as usual during this period, Kramer Corners, always a PITA chokepoint, will be functioning much worse for a while (even if the signals are reset to optimize thru CA 58 movement). Neither facility, 58 or 395, will function even adequately during this timeframe, which could be several months if not approaching a year or so. I'd fully expect to see backups on at least 3 approaches -- save SB 395, which never had all that much to begin with; these delays could add as much as 15-20 minutes to the trip. During that time it just may be a reasonable idea to detour over CA 138 and up CA 14 for traffic between the Inland Empire and Bakersfield.
Sorry but that doesn't make any sense to me (opening the Kramer Junction bypass in "phases"). The backup for eastbound 58 will be monumental due to the need to make a left from 395 south back onto the old road. The only solution would be to extend the left-turn signal's green time which would cause substantial backups on northbound 395.
I think this bypass will open the same way as the Hinkley Bypass. One (or both) directions will open with some slight jogging being done at both ends of the bypass to allow construction crews to make the final connections between the old and new highways.
FWIW, I got a chance to see how this project was progressing back in March in person. From what I could see, it looked like construction crews were preparing to shift 58 traffic onto the new westbound lanes from the railroad overcrossing east to the existing 4-lane expressway. This would allow them to construct the new eastbound lanes on top of the existing highway.
Quote from: myosh_tino on April 26, 2019, 01:03:45 AM
Quote from: sparker on April 25, 2019, 09:31:40 PM
^^^^^^^^^^
If the CA 58 Kramer bypass is being done -- and opened -- in phases per usual Caltrans practice, the initial interim routing would likely look like this: for CA 58 west, it would enter Kramer Corner on the current alignment, turn north on US 395, which crosses the BNSF main line at grade a few hundred feet north of the junction, then segue back onto the new 58 freeway via either a left turn or a right loop, depending upon whether the overpass is completed. For 58 east, it would exit the freeway, turn south for about 1/4 mile on US 395 -- again crossing the BNSF tracks -- and then hang a left to return to the original CA 58 alignment. Assuming BNSF will be running their trains as usual during this period, Kramer Corners, always a PITA chokepoint, will be functioning much worse for a while (even if the signals are reset to optimize thru CA 58 movement). Neither facility, 58 or 395, will function even adequately during this timeframe, which could be several months if not approaching a year or so. I'd fully expect to see backups on at least 3 approaches -- save SB 395, which never had all that much to begin with; these delays could add as much as 15-20 minutes to the trip. During that time it just may be a reasonable idea to detour over CA 138 and up CA 14 for traffic between the Inland Empire and Bakersfield.
Sorry but that doesn't make any sense to me (opening the Kramer Junction bypass in "phases"). The backup for eastbound 58 will be monumental due to the need to make a left from 395 south back onto the old road. The only solution would be to extend the left-turn signal's green time which would cause substantial backups on northbound 395.
I think this bypass will open the same way as the Hinkley Bypass. One (or both) directions will open with some slight jogging being done at both ends of the bypass to allow construction crews to make the final connections between the old and new highways.
FWIW, I got a chance to see how this project was progressing back in March in person. From what I could see, it looked like construction crews were preparing to shift 58 traffic onto the new westbound lanes from the railroad overcrossing east to the existing 4-lane expressway. This would allow them to construct the new eastbound lanes on top of the existing highway.
Hey -- if Caltrans goes counter to their historic practice and opens the entire bypass at once, then I for one would be (a) surprised and (b) relieved. But from what I saw when I went through there on New Years' Eve, the construction on the section west of 395 was much further along than east from there (paving being underway); the subsequent accounts posted indicated that the eastern part of the bypass, including the bridge over the RR tracks and existing CA 58 was in its initial phases and was, time-wise, lagging behind the western portion. At the time it looked to me like the only thing lacking for either new carriageway just east of where it cut into the existing Boron freeway section were shoulders; the concrete lanes themselves had been already laid down.
The "shoo-fly" lanes connecting the old original alignment to the freeway are narrow and seemed quite dangerous in December -- and it's almost 4 months later; it would seem that Caltrans would want to reroute traffic on the completed segment a.s.a.p. if for no other reason than to remove that traffic from the decidedly substandard connection. That prompted my speculation -- rooted in agency practice dating back to the Division of Highways -- that the segment west of US 395 would be carrying traffic prior to the remainder of the corridor's completion; trading temporary inconvenience at Kramer for safety a few miles to the west. But the only alternative would be to rebuild the temporary connector so it would function much as before construction began. But perhaps the project is on an expedited schedule so as to minimize the delay of the eastern portion's opening (certainly
not unheard of but not the usual S.O.P.), in which case, that short US 395 portion would be relieved of having to carry any through 58 traffic.
If anyone has any information regarding D8's plans and/or schedules for opening all or part of the bypass to traffic, please share it with us.
Was just there today on business to the Bay Area. The problem right now is US 395 is almost all no-pass from Adelanto to CA 58 except for the passing lane section around PM 27 due to the widening project they've been doing. The section over the "mini pass" also has an extended one-lane segment. I sat in stopped traffic for almost ten minutes waiting for the other direction to go through, behind several semis. If this is still going on when the CA 58 construction gets going in earnest, it's going to be hell.
The 2-lane temporary segment between Kramer Jct and the current freeway terminus at Boron has been revised somewhat so it doesn't have the awkward shooflies it had last month. It's still slow, but not much slower than it was before.
Unrelated, but as part of the same trip, took CA 46 from CA 99 to US 101. There's a couple nice full-speed dual carriageway segments in Kern and SLO counties, though the CA 41/46 co-routing could use an upgrade.
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on May 01, 2019, 02:11:53 AM
Was just there today on business to the Bay Area. The problem right now is US 395 is almost all no-pass from Adelanto to CA 58 except for the passing lane section around PM 27 due to the widening project they've been doing. The section over the "mini pass" also has an extended one-lane segment. I sat in stopped traffic for almost ten minutes waiting for the other direction to go through, behind several semis. If this is still going on when the CA 58 construction gets going in earnest, it's going to be hell.
The 2-lane temporary segment between Kramer Jct and the current freeway terminus at Boron has been revised somewhat so it doesn't have the awkward shooflies it had last month. It's still slow, but not much slower than it was before.
Unrelated, but as part of the same trip, took CA 46 from CA 99 to US 101. There's a couple nice full-speed dual carriageway segments in Kern and SLO counties, though the CA 41/46 co-routing could use an upgrade.
It's likely that the heavily-trafficked US 395 segment south of Kramer will remain as is, with a few "spot" improvements, for at least several funding cycles. D8 has "blown their wad", disbursement-wise, with the CA 58 improvement package, the last segment of which is the Kramer bypass and its east & west approaches. The goal is to remove any and all signalized intersections between I-15 and CA 99, with this particular project actually fulfilling that. However, looming on the horizon is the toll lane project on I-15 between CA 91/Corona and CA 60/Ontario; that will be the single expenditure that will dominate the district over the next few cycles (work on the Kramer bypass was put off until the I-15/215 Devore interchange revamping was in its last phases). This is typical of District 8; unless a special funding pool is created for a specific activity (which is what is apparently intended for the High Desert Corridor), it's all the district can do to support one major project at a time given their funding allocation. And both San Bernardino and the western part of Riverside County -- the populated section -- comprise D8, so there's a lot of constant pressure from various entities and parties in the region regarding what will be built where! Although the High Desert is seeing substantial growth in both gross population and business facilities (relatively cheap land), areas to the south in the Perris-Hemet-Murietta area are also growing by leaps & bounds; the competition for infrastructure $$$ is very keen. Projects such as a significant expansion of US 395, particularly the problematic Adelanto-Kramer segment, will have to queue up along with such things as the CA 79 Hemet-area bypass, any Coachella Valley improvements, or CA 60 upgrades near Beaumont.
Another YT video. Driver is heading westbound from Hinkley bypass and cuts off the video at the left turn before Kramer Junction. 58 is on the new westbound lanes until 1/2 mile before the left turn.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfjLgN_DLHk
There is a dog barking in the video, you may want to turn the volume down.
Quote from: 395fun2drive on July 02, 2019, 12:08:53 AM
Another YT video. Driver is heading westbound from Hinkley bypass and cuts off the video at the left turn before Kramer Junction. 58 is on the new westbound lanes until 1/2 mile before the left turn.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfjLgN_DLHk
There is a dog barking in the video, you may want to turn the volume down.
Obviously, the gentleman making the video has no idea what we forum members find boring. Wish he could have added the last few minutes into Kramer and pointed the camera north to catch the construction east of the junction. But it does give us some idea how far along the project is -- at least as of the time of the video this last April. Chances are I'll be down in the area in November or December; maybe I'll be able to get some still shots on the return trip (planning to detour through Barstow to check out the Hinkley bypass + new construction). In any case, nice to get an advance view of what to expect. At least the dog stopped barking after a couple of minutes!
^^
Definitely worthy, IMHO, of upgrading to be a full interstate.
Mike
Yep. And (as most of us want) it should be I-40, all the way to Bakersfield and then over to I-5.
The Barstow to Mojave segment of CA-58 will be easy to finish out to Interstate standards once the Kramer Junction Bypass is complete. That could happen relatively fast. All the dirt road driveways and other at-grade entrances spilling onto CA-58 between Bakersfield and Mojave will be difficult to fully eliminate. But perhaps California could pull a Texas-style move and slap the I-40 designation on the road anyway, despite the dirt road entrances. I-10 has dozens of them in West Texas.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 05, 2019, 12:53:21 AM
Yep. And (as most of us want) it should be I-40, all the way to Bakersfield and then over to I-5.
The Barstow to Mojave segment of CA-58 will be easy to finish out to Interstate standards once the Kramer Junction Bypass is complete. That could happen relatively fast. All the dirt road driveways and other at-grade entrances spilling onto CA-58 between Bakersfield and Mojave will be difficult to fully eliminate. But perhaps California could pull a Texas-style move and slap the I-40 designation on the road anyway, despite the dirt road entrances. I-10 has dozens of them in West Texas.
The entrances in Texas are to private ranches and are gated up usually. I've driven on CA-58 before, the at-grades are private driveways and public roadways. That wouldn't cut it, you'd need frontage roads and an interchange.
It could definitely be done. I-40 does need to be extended all the way to I-5 eventually.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 05, 2019, 01:01:23 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 05, 2019, 12:53:21 AM
Yep. And (as most of us want) it should be I-40, all the way to Bakersfield and then over to I-5.
The Barstow to Mojave segment of CA-58 will be easy to finish out to Interstate standards once the Kramer Junction Bypass is complete. That could happen relatively fast. All the dirt road driveways and other at-grade entrances spilling onto CA-58 between Bakersfield and Mojave will be difficult to fully eliminate. But perhaps California could pull a Texas-style move and slap the I-40 designation on the road anyway, despite the dirt road entrances. I-10 has dozens of them in West Texas.
The entrances in Texas are to private ranches and are gated up usually. I've driven on CA-58 before, the at-grades are private driveways and public roadways. That wouldn't cut it, you'd need frontage roads and an interchange.
It could definitely be done. I-40 does need to be extended all the way to I-5 eventually.
Many of those driveways are access points to the parallel UP/BNSF joint Tehachapi line; they could be gated up with a bit of graded easement well off the outer shoulder and set up for access (gates unlocked/slid open electronically could be implemented) by RR maintenance crews. There are not a lot of private driveways
per se; the ones that are there, in the Woodford/Keene area, generally area access points for utilities such as communications "repeaters"; those could be accessed with standard locked gates, since unlike RR circumstances, those require only maintenance as required. Out in the desert, the few driveways between California City Blvd. and the Mojave bypass could easily be joisted off onto frontage facilities; a couple of interchanges, at the aforementioned boulevard as well as the automotive test facility a couple of miles east of the east Mojave exit, will likely be necessary.
The major issue would be the steep section of CA 58 between Tehachapi and Woodford; right now the current facility has no inner shoulder, just a K-rail; it would have to be widened by cutting into the hillside on the north side of the freeway. That, and the cross-traffic at Bealville Road and CA 223, would need to be addressed before any Interstate ambitions could be realized. But attacking these problems is doable -- if Caltrans would be amenable to doing so. But as of late they've been incredibly lazy about such things -- and when the Kramer bypass is completed, it'll mean a completely signal-less 4-lane divided facility along CA 58 from I-15 west to CA 99; activities along CA 58 might well be considered a
fait accompli within Caltrans -- allowing them to concentrate their efforts elsewhere. Suggestions for further improvement would likely draw a
"meh" response both at the district and Sacramento levels. Merit or not, new Interstate mileage just doesn't seem to "float their boat" anymore.
Quote from: sparker on July 05, 2019, 04:55:56 AMBut attacking these problems is doable -- if Caltrans would be amenable to doing so. But as of late they've been incredibly lazy about such things -- and when the Kramer bypass is completed, it'll mean a completely signal-less 4-lane divided facility along CA 58 from I-15 west to CA 99; activities along CA 58 might well be considered a fait accompli within Caltrans -- allowing them to concentrate their efforts elsewhere. Suggestions for further improvement would likely draw a "meh" response both at the district and Sacramento levels. Merit or not, new Interstate mileage just doesn't seem to "float their boat" anymore.
That last sentence is something I like to emphasize whenever posters from other states comment on "why isn't X an interstate yet" regarding California roads that either have been proposed as future Interstates, or in the case of Route 58, appear to be very logical extensions.
I'm surprised for instance that 210 east of 57 has been acknowledged as future Interstate by CalTrans staff as recently as 10 months ago, given there's been no official word at all about this (58 between I-5 and I-15), or Route 15, or Route 905 getting the red-white-and-blue shield for quite some time, as well as that proposed Interstate designation for the Wheeler Ridge-Sacramento part of Route 99. (In the case of the latter three, all of those have been actively planned in some form as Interstate upgrades/redesignations!)
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 05, 2019, 12:53:21 AM
Yep. And (as most of us want) it should be I-40, all the way to Bakersfield and then over to I-5.
The Barstow to Mojave segment of CA-58 will be easy to finish out to Interstate standards once the Kramer Junction Bypass is complete. That could happen relatively fast. All the dirt road driveways and other at-grade entrances spilling onto CA-58 between Bakersfield and Mojave will be difficult to fully eliminate. But perhaps California could pull a Texas-style move and slap the I-40 designation on the road anyway, despite the dirt road entrances. I-10 has dozens of them in West Texas.
I'd like to see I-5 to Barstow as I-40, but only if it completely met interstate standards, including no grade crossings. Putting up an interstate shield create the impression among motorists that they are free to cuise along at 70+ paying no attention to whatever those cars and trucks off to the side of the freeway are doing.
Quote from: kkt on July 05, 2019, 02:37:44 PM
create the impression among motorists that they are free to cuise along at 70+ paying no attention to whatever those cars and trucks off to the side of the freeway are doing.
Isn't that what they already do anyways?
The one time I went down CA-58 between CA-99 and US-395, everybody was doing 75 - 85 mph, even on the arterial stretches. At one point I hit 95 mph without realizing it until I looked at my speedometer. I was tempted to punch to 100 mph but then decided it's time to dial it wayyy down.
Quote from: TheStranger on July 05, 2019, 01:12:56 PM
Quote from: sparker on July 05, 2019, 04:55:56 AMBut attacking these problems is doable -- if Caltrans would be amenable to doing so. But as of late they've been incredibly lazy about such things -- and when the Kramer bypass is completed, it'll mean a completely signal-less 4-lane divided facility along CA 58 from I-15 west to CA 99; activities along CA 58 might well be considered a fait accompli within Caltrans -- allowing them to concentrate their efforts elsewhere. Suggestions for further improvement would likely draw a "meh" response both at the district and Sacramento levels. Merit or not, new Interstate mileage just doesn't seem to "float their boat" anymore.
That last sentence is something I like to emphasize whenever posters from other states comment on "why isn't X an interstate yet" regarding California roads that either have been proposed as future Interstates, or in the case of Route 58, appear to be very logical extensions.
I'm surprised for instance that 210 east of 57 has been acknowledged as future Interstate by CalTrans staff as recently as 10 months ago, given there's been no official word at all about this (58 between I-5 and I-15), or Route 15, or Route 905 getting the red-white-and-blue shield for quite some time, as well as that proposed Interstate designation for the Wheeler Ridge-Sacramento part of Route 99. (In the case of the latter three, all of those have been actively planned in some form as Interstate upgrades/redesignations!)
The impetus for a CA 99 Interstate "conversion" has always come from parties other than Caltrans; primarily cities (and their associated chambers of commerce) along the route angling for investment and development for distribution, warehousing, and manufacturing; a widespread sentiment in the Valley is that they are tired of being considered a "one trick pony" re their agricultural prominence. They see the red, white, and blue shields as a way to
prima facie attract such investment, particularly of the overseas sort -- who tend to view proximity to an Interstate as proof of efficient egress (it worked for MS with I-22; Toyota started building their Tupelo plant after that route was formally designated in 2004). Interesting note about CA 99 improvements: even in Caltrans' "master plan" for upgrading the entire corridor to a minimum of 6 lanes -- about 100 pages of text, maps, and charts -- potential Interstate status is afforded one short paragraph; the only conclusions are that it would be numbered either I-7 or I-9. Period, no expectations or opinion about such an issue; to Caltrans, the designation is secondary to the actual roadway status.
The Division of Highways submitted CA 58 between I-5 and I-15 for Interstate status as part of the 1968 additions, but their proposal was among those jettisoned when that years' legislation was cut back from 4500 to 1500 miles in Congress. And since there's no such thing as chargeable mileage these days, it's understandable that such an action has yet to have a second act! And re the San Diego situations (I-15 extension, I-905), it's just a matter of combining non-prioritization with procrastination (which seems to be a Caltrans S.O.P. these days). What will happen with I-210 will depend upon how quickly D8 can and will schedule improvements to the San Bernardino "loop" (mostly shoulder and overpass widening). We'll just have to see what's let in the next couple of years.
Quote from: sparker on July 05, 2019, 04:20:30 PM
The Division of Highways submitted CA 58 between I-5 and I-15 for Interstate status as part of the 1968 additions, but their proposal was among those jettisoned when that years' legislation was cut back from 4500 to 1500 miles in Congress. And since there's no such thing as chargeable mileage these days, it's understandable that such an action has yet to have a second act! And re the San Diego situations (I-15 extension, I-905), it's just a matter of combining non-prioritization with procrastination (which seems to be a Caltrans S.O.P. these days). What will happen with I-210 will depend upon how quickly D8 can and will schedule improvements to the San Bernardino "loop" (mostly shoulder and overpass widening). We'll just have to see what's let in the next couple of years.
With regards to 15 along 40th/Wabash, isn't the final hangup for that becoming ready for Interstate designation, the interchange with 94? I don't think any work has commenced there yet.
905 probably could be signed as Interstate already at this point if that was something CalTrans wanted to pursue (which of course is not their protocol at present), given the actual route is complete, the only missing parts being connectors to 11 and 125.
Quote from: TheStranger on July 05, 2019, 06:01:53 PM
With regards to 15 along 40th/Wabash, isn't the final hangup for that becoming ready for Interstate designation, the interchange with 94? I don't think any work has commenced there yet.
It hasn't, although the situation has remained static since the improvement of CA 15 to full Interstate standards south as far as I-805 was completed 21 years ago. Hence the characterization of Caltrans as procrastinating -- or simply not prioritizing such upgrades. Since a substantial number of local off-network projects have been coming out of their regular STIP allotment (I can remember the "good old days" when Caltrans money went primarily to projects on state-maintained facilities -- it wasn't that far back!), some projects deemed not immediately vital (including, obviously, Interstate-level upgrades) are placed on the "back burner" for indefinite periods. Apparently the southern I-15 extension is in that batch, since the current 15/94 interchange is at least functional if not optimal.
Updated Street View from May 2019 of the western terminus of the project (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.0101352,-117.627195,3a,75y,82.37h,83.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEHIPb5Nii_r_srFMHtd0wQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 23, 2019, 12:44:12 PM
Updated Street View from May 2019 of the northern terminus of the project (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.0101352,-117.627195,3a,75y,82.37h,83.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEHIPb5Nii_r_srFMHtd0wQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).
Actually, the
western terminus; that's the location where they'll be cutting the new carriageways into the east end of the existing Boron freeway. What is pictured is the temporary lanes that access the existing 2-lane facility that crosses the BNSF tracks off to the right and heads into Kramer Junction on the original alignment that's been there since US 466 days. It
does look like they've extended the temp lanes a bit west of where they were when I came through there (in the opposite direction) in December; originally they emptied out onto the new EB lanes and then split directions once on the original freeway section; now it looks like they're heading onto the WB lanes, likely in order to finish "detailing" the EB connection. At least there's continuous progress -- the one saving grace of desert conditions! BTW, since this is about 60-70 miles south of the epicenter of the recent 7-level quakes, I'm wondering if any of the under-construction structures were affected?
I'm quite sure they would have been. In fact, I wonder what this did to the CA 178-US 395 interchange and the CA 14-US 395 wye. Haven't been up there since the quake.
They both seemed fine when I drove through a few day after the earthquake
Quote from: sparkerActually, the western terminus; that's the location where they'll be cutting the new carriageways into the east end of the existing Boron freeway.
Yep. And it's visible in Street View, same May 2019 imagery. Both ends of the Kramer Junction Bypass project are visible. Plus, construction to upgrade the old 2 lane section between Kramer Junction and Hinkley is well underway.
I just wonder how long it will take for Caltrans to remove the last at-grade intersections, such as the one at the West end of the Hinkley Bypass.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 25, 2019, 12:01:13 AM
Both ends of the Kramer Junction Bypass project are visible.
Weird, only the west side appears on my end. Still December 2018 imagery on the eastern end.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 25, 2019, 12:01:13 AM
Quote from: sparkerActually, the western terminus; that's the location where they'll be cutting the new carriageways into the east end of the existing Boron freeway.
Yep. And it's visible in Street View, same May 2019 imagery. Both ends of the Kramer Junction Bypass project are visible. Plus, construction to upgrade the old 2 lane section between Kramer Junction and Hinkley is well underway.
I just wonder how long it will take for Caltrans to remove the last at-grade intersections, such as the one at the West end of the Hinkley Bypass.
Upgrading existing expressway sections of CA 58 to full freeway doesn't appear to be a Caltrans priority. And the section described above is in D8, which already has a lot on its plate with the I-15 express lanes near Corona, the planned upgrades to CA 210 in the San Bernardino area, the expansion of CA 60 between Ontario and Riverside, and the
other major project on CA 60 through the Badlands and west of Beaumont. Once 4-laning of CA 58 is completed with the Kramer segment, there probably won't be much in the way of further activity on that route except maintenance and the occasional safety improvement -- at least for a few more years. If truck volume increases -- or if there is a particularly nasty accident involving an at-grade intersection, then there may be renewed interest, prompted by public notice, in getting rid of some of the more egregious crossings.
QuoteWeird, only the west side appears on my end. Still December 2018 imagery on the eastern end.
The East End of the Kramer Junction bypass is indeed December 2018 imagery, but a lot of construction is still visible. The east end of the bypass is 2.7 miles East of Kramer Junction. It merges into existing CA-58 where the bends more South at that point.
Quote from: sparkerIf truck volume increases -- or if there is a particularly nasty accident involving an at-grade intersection, then there may be renewed interest, prompted by public notice, in getting rid of some of the more egregious crossings.
I'm a bit concerned about the West end of the Hinkley Bypass. The at-grade intersection at least has some turn lanes for traffic leaving the new CA-58 for the old road and acceleration lanes for traffic entering the new road. And there's some street lights to illuminate the intersection at night. Nevertheless the thru traffic on CA-58 doesn't stop. And no one should ever underestimate the willingness of some motorists turning onto the highway to just whip right out in front of main lane traffic, acceleration lane be damned. I've seen it plenty on the divided highways here in Oklahoma.
It's pretty odd Caltrans built a freeway exit at the East End of the Hinkley Bypass but merely an at grade intersection on the West End. It looks like they're doing the same thing with the Kramer Junction bypass. No big earth berms are getting built for off ramps and bridges.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 25, 2019, 01:59:25 PM
It's pretty odd Caltrans built a freeway exit at the East End of the Hinkley Bypass but merely an at grade intersection on the West End.
It's due to functional class. The eastern end tied into an existing freeway, so an interchange was warranted. The western end tied into an at-grade expressway, so an intersection worked there.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 25, 2019, 02:18:26 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 25, 2019, 01:59:25 PM
It's pretty odd Caltrans built a freeway exit at the East End of the Hinkley Bypass but merely an at grade intersection on the West End.
It's due to functional class. The eastern end tied into an existing freeway, so an interchange was warranted. The western end tied into an at-grade expressway, so an intersection worked there.
I doubt this. It's more likely that Lenwood has a lot more traffic than Wagner.
QuoteIt looks like they're doing the same thing with the Kramer Junction bypass. No big earth berms are getting built for off ramps and bridges.
Perhaps there will not even be an at-grade intersection but rather Old Highway 58 (current route) would tie into Boron Frontage Road South. The Boron Avenue interchange is not too far from where Old Highway 58 veers southeast (traveling east) and the old highway could be relatively well reached from the Kramer US 395 interchange.
I wouldn't be surprised if the stretch of the existing SR 58 leasing from the east end of the Boron Freeway to the current route 58 leading to Kramer Junction (South Frontage Road) is obliterated so it does not form a surface intersection with the Kramer Junction Bypass.
As Splashflash rightly notes, there is an offramp about a mile west of the current end of the Boron Freeway providing access to Beautiful Downtown Boron. And, the interchange with 395 a few miles to the east will provide direct access to the Kramer Junction businesses.
Quote from: Concrete Bob on July 25, 2019, 10:52:36 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if the stretch of the existing SR 58 leasing from the east end of the Boron Freeway to the current route 58 leading to Kramer Junction (South Frontage Road) is obliterated so it does not form a surface intersection with the Kramer Junction Bypass.
As Splashflash rightly notes, there is an offramp about a mile west of the current end of the Boron Freeway providing access to Beautiful Downtown Boron. And, the interchange with 395 a few miles to the east will provide direct access to the Kramer Junction businesses.
That's probably right -- primarily because the existing CA 58 2-lane section from Kramer west to the freeway includes the at-grade crossing of the BNSF main line; excising that from the through route and Caltrans maintenance would be of principal interest to Caltrans in general and D8 in particular. Since the "old road" (called "20 Mule Train Road") through Boron next to the RR tracks intersects current CA 58 where the long-time curve up to the freeway began, they will in all likelihood "straightline" the alignment, making a continuous "old highway" from east of Kramer through Boron. With Kramer Jct. being so compact -- basically surrounding the 58/395 intersection, configuring a portion of the original alignment as a sort of "business loop" would be overkill; the services there, as suggested in the previous post, can be readily accessed from the new 58/395 interchange.
Quote from: sparker on July 25, 2019, 11:07:07 PM
Quote from: Concrete Bob on July 25, 2019, 10:52:36 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if the stretch of the existing SR 58 leasing from the east end of the Boron Freeway to the current route 58 leading to Kramer Junction (South Frontage Road) is obliterated so it does not form a surface intersection with the Kramer Junction Bypass.
As Splashflash rightly notes, there is an offramp about a mile west of the current end of the Boron Freeway providing access to Beautiful Downtown Boron. And, the interchange with 395 a few miles to the east will provide direct access to the Kramer Junction businesses.
That's probably right -- primarily because the existing CA 58 2-lane section from Kramer west to the freeway includes the at-grade crossing of the BNSF main line; excising that from the through route and Caltrans maintenance would be of principal interest to Caltrans in general and D8 in particular. Since the "old road" (called "20 Mule Train Road") through Boron next to the RR tracks intersects current CA 58 where the long-time curve up to the freeway began, they will in all likelihood "straightline" the alignment, making a continuous "old highway" from east of Kramer through Boron. With Kramer Jct. being so compact -- basically surrounding the 58/395 intersection, configuring a portion of the original alignment as a sort of "business loop" would be overkill; the services there, as suggested in the previous post, can be readily accessed from the new 58/395 interchange.
Aren't there a couple privately owned parcels of property on CA 58 west of Kramer Junction? I would imagine that the rail crossing simply would be gaped but much of the old highway would be left as is.
Quote from: sprjus4It's due to functional class. The eastern end tied into an existing freeway, so an interchange was warranted. The western end tied into an at-grade expressway, so an intersection worked there.
The West end of the Kramer Junction Bypass also ties into an existing freeway. CA-58 going West into Boron is a freeway. CA-58 drops down to expressway standards 16 miles West of Boron. For about 10 miles there are at-grade intersections with CA-58 until the road reaches the outskirts of Mojave.
Quote from: splashflashPerhaps there will not even be an at-grade intersection but rather Old Highway 58 (current route) would tie into Boron Frontage Road South. The Boron Avenue interchange is not too far from where Old Highway 58 veers southeast (traveling east) and the old highway could be relatively well reached from the Kramer US 395 interchange.
That would be the best solution. And probably even cheaper than building an at-grade intersection with all the necessary lighting, turn lanes, signs, etc. The existing frontage road is 2 way. There wouldn't be any conflict patching the old CA-58 road into that. The ROW is already available to build things in that manner. I can't tell from the Street View imagery if Caltrans is going to do that.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 26, 2019, 12:04:46 PM
The West end of the Kramer Junction Bypass also ties into an existing freeway. CA-58 going West into Boron is a freeway. CA-58 drops down to expressway standards 16 miles West of Boron. For about 10 miles there are at-grade intersections with CA-58 until the road reaches the outskirts of Mojave.
I was referring to the Hinkley Bypass, not the Kramer Junction Bypass.
As mentioned, the best solution for the Kramer Junction Bypass would be to have no at-grade intersection or interchange, just rather use the old road to make that connection.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 25, 2019, 11:53:53 PM
Quote from: sparker on July 25, 2019, 11:07:07 PM
Quote from: Concrete Bob on July 25, 2019, 10:52:36 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if the stretch of the existing SR 58 leasing from the east end of the Boron Freeway to the current route 58 leading to Kramer Junction (South Frontage Road) is obliterated so it does not form a surface intersection with the Kramer Junction Bypass.
As Splashflash rightly notes, there is an offramp about a mile west of the current end of the Boron Freeway providing access to Beautiful Downtown Boron. And, the interchange with 395 a few miles to the east will provide direct access to the Kramer Junction businesses.
That's probably right -- primarily because the existing CA 58 2-lane section from Kramer west to the freeway includes the at-grade crossing of the BNSF main line; excising that from the through route and Caltrans maintenance would be of principal interest to Caltrans in general and D8 in particular. Since the "old road" (called "20 Mule Train Road") through Boron next to the RR tracks intersects current CA 58 where the long-time curve up to the freeway began, they will in all likelihood "straightline" the alignment, making a continuous "old highway" from east of Kramer through Boron. With Kramer Jct. being so compact -- basically surrounding the 58/395 intersection, configuring a portion of the original alignment as a sort of "business loop" would be overkill; the services there, as suggested in the previous post, can be readily accessed from the new 58/395 interchange.
Aren't there a couple privately owned parcels of property on CA 58 west of Kramer Junction? I would imagine that the rail crossing simply would be gaped but much of the old highway would be left as is.
The effect of finishing the CA 58 bypass would be to turn the present heavily-trafficked state highway rail grade crossing into a local one. There are plenty of other crossings of those tracks by local streets and roads; unless there are extraordinary circumstances regarding the crossing not pertaining to the traffic load and the danger that traffic level poses, there's no reason why the grade crossing couldn't remain for local traffic from Kramer to Boron. The crossing gates are still functional -- and the county will get free "advance warning" signals arrayed along the old road in the process (hey, it's not the fabled "death" sign, but the concept still works!).
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 26, 2019, 12:04:46 PM
I can't tell from the Street View imagery if Caltrans is going to do that.
From the project design plans, there's no indication an intersection is planned to be constructed.
Same on the eastern end.
(https://i.ibb.co/P62qBjr/Kramer-Junction-Bypass-West-Tie-In.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/3mtvVrV/Kramer-Junction-Bypass-East-Tie-In.png)
The plans are not really showing how old CA-58 merges into the Kramer Junction Bypass. The images raise even more questions rather than answering the existing ones. The West end image shows the available ROW getting cut off just short of the Boron South Frontage Road. The image isn't showing any specific intersection plans either. So are they just going to dead end the old CA-58 highway right on the edge of Boron, perhaps leaving it up to locals to patch their streets into it?
The East end poses similar questions. It looks like EB traffic on old CA-58 would get an on ramp onto the new CA-58 EB main lanes. But what about the WB side? Is the old CA-58 highway going to effectively turn into a one way road the last couple or so miles before the East end of the Kramer Junction bypass?
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 26, 2019, 12:56:14 PM
The East end poses similar questions. It looks like EB traffic on old CA-58 would get an on ramp onto the new CA-58 EB main lanes. But what about the WB side? Is the old CA-58 highway going to effectively turn into a one way road the last couple or so miles before the East end of the Kramer Junction bypass?
I don't think it's a ramp to begin with, no acceleration lane, gore points, etc. is shown. I think it's just a dead end at that location. Same on the west end. The US-395 interchange will be the only access point for that segment being bypassed, and of course the other interchanges on the existing Boron Bypass.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 26, 2019, 12:56:14 PM
The plans are not really showing how old CA-58 merges into the Kramer Junction Bypass. The images raise even more questions rather than answering the existing ones. The West end image shows the available ROW getting cut off just short of the Boron South Frontage Road. The image isn't showing any specific intersection plans either. So are they just going to dead end the old CA-58 highway right on the edge of Boron, perhaps leaving it up to locals to patch their streets into it?
You obviously haven't looked at a map that shows previously-bypassed old 58 east from Boron.
This was from the July 2019 California Highways headlines; the last item. If you are still on Facebook you can Sara Laz's photos of the Kramer Junction bypass project.
https://m.facebook.com/groups/789414531109310?view=permalink&id=2541391122578300&refid=18&_ft_=qid.6720390177424745762%3Amf_story_key.2541391122578300%3Agroup_id.789414531109310%3Atop_level_post_id.2541391122578300%3Atl_objid.2541391122578300%3Acontent_owner_id_new.100006463511862%3Asrc.22%3Aphoto_id.3181148062110613%3Astory_location.6%3Astory_attachment_style.photo&__tn__=%2As%2As-R
Quote from: splashflash on August 01, 2019, 10:28:37 PM
This was from the July 2019 California Highways headlines; the last item. If you are still on Facebook you can Sara Laz's photos of the Kramer Junction bypass project.
https://m.facebook.com/groups/789414531109310?view=permalink&id=2541391122578300&refid=18&_ft_=qid.6720390177424745762%3Amf_story_key.2541391122578300%3Agroup_id.789414531109310%3Atop_level_post_id.2541391122578300%3Atl_objid.2541391122578300%3Acontent_owner_id_new.100006463511862%3Asrc.22%3Aphoto_id.3181148062110613%3Astory_location.6%3Astory_attachment_style.photo&__tn__=%2As%2As-R
Nice!
Here's a higher res pic -
(https://scontent.forf1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/67403447_3181148065443946_88111988516847616_n.jpg?_nc_cat=108&_nc_oc=AQnDFIcaAcQliUz9qG0VIwunLzeVinHlQXWKxKQ9Gj-Gu6aPRRQgXvwK4FBQJ28AiJ4&_nc_ht=scontent.forf1-1.fna&oh=42b4be90f3c5c4ee268b4ae2441bf981&oe=5DE515B6)
Here's some more pics from the comments -
(https://scontent.forf1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/67564226_2059937647636384_8207302230546579456_n.jpg?_nc_cat=102&_nc_oc=AQlFuP3-8xOSoJhxytI5qY7o2oTHHb3-7lkdk3CaFp-TYLXrHzHzRXZH90254tStqsQ&_nc_ht=scontent.forf1-2.fna&oh=a741842b8f095b09996eea892f87fde1&oe=5DE066D0)
(https://scontent.forf1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/67601542_10215953220078225_827027383415472128_o.jpg?_nc_cat=104&_nc_oc=AQkgvkq6TFbiOLvGsgmGm3z7Vekm_V0rDnpwjVbl2zVBt77k0OMe_iZywjg05ldIKHk&_nc_ht=scontent.forf1-2.fna&oh=c44d1096c61d76db4f37b6e24cc211a1&oe=5DA1D380)
^ That poster says that pic is a drone shot, not any Google aerial imagery.
^ More likely it's airplane-flown aerial imagery that his agency has received. That image is from a much higher altitude than civilian drones are legally allowed to fly. He also didn't specifically refer to it as drone imagery.
Interesting that eastbound CA 58 ramp to US 395 is placed just avoid the property line of that old antique store and Astro Burger.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 01, 2019, 11:47:46 PM
Interesting that eastbound CA 58 ramp to US 395 is placed just avoid the property line of that old antique store and Astro Burger.
Welcome to litigation avoidance, 2019 style!
Quote from: NE2You obviously haven't looked at a map that shows previously-bypassed old 58 east from Boron.
Let's see it then if you're the expert on this matter.
Wondering if anyone has noticed the "395 SB" and ... "395 NB" :pan: postmiles on the widening project yet. Someone obviously doesn't get what the codes on those actually mean.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 03, 2019, 01:11:45 AM
Quote from: NE2You obviously haven't looked at a map that shows previously-bypassed old 58 east from Boron.
Let's see it then if you're the expert on this matter.
http://www.google.com/maps
Quote from: NE2 on August 03, 2019, 06:06:09 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 03, 2019, 01:11:45 AM
Quote from: NE2You obviously haven't looked at a map that shows previously-bypassed old 58 east from Boron.
Let's see it then if you're the expert on this matter.
http://www.google.com/maps
That's a blank link...
I agreee
20 Team Mule Road is the old alignment of US 466 and CA 58 through Boron if anyone was curious.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 03, 2019, 01:11:45 AM
Quote from: NE2You obviously haven't looked at a map that shows previously-bypassed old 58 east from Boron.
Let's see it then if you're the expert on this matter.
It didn't take that long to look it up...
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.9975208,-117.6109216,491m/data=!3m1!1e3
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 01, 2019, 10:43:40 PM
(https://scontent.forf1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/67403447_3181148065443946_88111988516847616_n.jpg?_nc_cat=108&_nc_oc=AQnDFIcaAcQliUz9qG0VIwunLzeVinHlQXWKxKQ9Gj-Gu6aPRRQgXvwK4FBQJ28AiJ4&_nc_ht=scontent.forf1-1.fna&oh=42b4be90f3c5c4ee268b4ae2441bf981&oe=5DE515B6)
Ick! The layout of that sign leaves much to be desired IMO. The main problem is there is no way to horizontally stack a route shield, two lines of legend and a lane-drop panel on a 120-inch tall guide sign without using funky layouts like the one above.
I would have made the sign wider so the route shield could be placed next to the two control cities...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmarkyville.com%2Faaroads%2F58-395_new-120in.png&hash=55f4e29f348d3222945358aaa476c567bf5b5f6f)
...but I wasn't liking all that wasted green space to the left of the exit tab so I swapped out the 120-inch panel for a 100-inch panel and came up with this...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmarkyville.com%2Faaroads%2F58-395_new-100in.png&hash=2ec020405fd463b24bd7b1b2e0b0aef3dbec39c6)
Quote from: myosh_tino on August 04, 2019, 10:56:11 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 01, 2019, 10:43:40 PM
(https://scontent.forf1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/67403447_3181148065443946_88111988516847616_n.jpg?_nc_cat=108&_nc_oc=AQnDFIcaAcQliUz9qG0VIwunLzeVinHlQXWKxKQ9Gj-Gu6aPRRQgXvwK4FBQJ28AiJ4&_nc_ht=scontent.forf1-1.fna&oh=42b4be90f3c5c4ee268b4ae2441bf981&oe=5DE515B6)
Ick! The layout of that sign leaves much to be desired IMO. The main problem is there is no way to horizontally stack a route shield, two lines of legend and a lane-drop panel on a 120-inch tall guide sign without using funky layouts like the one above.
I would have made the sign wider so the route shield could be placed next to the two control cities...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmarkyville.com%2Faaroads%2F58-395_new-120in.png&hash=55f4e29f348d3222945358aaa476c567bf5b5f6f)
...but I wasn't liking all that wasted green space to the left of the exit tab so I swapped out the 120-inch panel for a 100-inch panel and came up with this...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmarkyville.com%2Faaroads%2F58-395_new-100in.png&hash=2ec020405fd463b24bd7b1b2e0b0aef3dbec39c6)
Haven't seen one of your sign designs on the forum in a while. As usual, you make better sign designs than some actual sign designers.
This also made me realize that there is something really off about the 395 shields in the photos. They seem very "pointy" for Caltrans, and it looks like there is a white border outside of the black shield border.
Quote from: roadfro on August 05, 2019, 11:01:12 AM
This also made me realize that there is something really off about the 395 shields in the photos. They seem very "pointy" for Caltrans, and it looks like there is a white border outside of the black shield border.
I've seen white-border US shields on some signage out here and I think those exist due to how much that resembles the in-the-field cutouts.
Here's an example from West Sacramento:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.interstate-guide.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Froutes%2F005%2Fi-080-e-at-i-305-2.jpg&hash=32caa431491834c89d4fdf6659f3d38956e0434b)
Comparable being a cutout sign like this:
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images050/us-050_bl-080_ca-099_shields_on_nb_stockton_blvd_jct_us-050.jpg)
The US 395 shield in the upper left corner of the Caltrans sign was likely placed where it was because folks tend to scan signs from the left-top corner across line by line; also, the inclusion of the exit (206) tab in the upper RH corner makes the numerical info somewhat symmetrical. It also intrudes less on the sign's text: although to avoid crowding the info on the sign, Bishop (which by all means should be a secondary control city relative to San Bernardino in the EB direction) is placed above the longer city name. Nevertheless, I like roadfro's 100-inch sign format better than either the original Caltrans or his 120-inch version (even though with the 120-inch, the order of the control cities could be reversed).
Quote from: sparker on August 05, 2019, 07:30:16 PM
The US 395 shield in the upper left corner of the Caltrans sign was likely placed where it was because folks tend to scan signs from the left-top corner across line by line; also, the inclusion of the exit (206) tab in the upper RH corner makes the numerical info somewhat symmetrical. It also intrudes less on the sign's text: although to avoid crowding the info on the sign, Bishop (which by all means should be a secondary control city relative to San Bernardino in the EB direction) is placed above the longer city name. Nevertheless, I like roadfro's 100-inch sign format better than either the original Caltrans or his 120-inch version (even though with the 120-inch, the order of the control cities could be reversed).
Roadfro's 100-inch sign? :hmmm:... but I digress! :biggrin:
Regarding the order of the control cities, I'm wondering if Caltrans has a policy regarding the order of the control cities on guide signs. For example, "left" first, "right" second. If this is the case, I would easily see the sign for the other direction reading "San Bernardino" then "Bishop".
As for symmetry, it still doesn't look very good in my opinion.
Quote from: roadfro on August 05, 2019, 11:01:12 AM
Haven't seen one of your sign designs on the forum in a while. As usual, you make better sign designs than some actual sign designers.
Thanks Roadfro! Yeah I haven't been all that active on the forums lately... got a bunch of things on my plate as of late so it's been keeping me busy.
Quote from: TheStranger on August 05, 2019, 01:14:07 PM
Quote from: roadfro on August 05, 2019, 11:01:12 AM
This also made me realize that there is something really off about the 395 shields in the photos. They seem very "pointy" for Caltrans, and it looks like there is a white border outside of the black shield border.
I've seen white-border US shields on some signage out here and I think those exist due to how much that resembles the in-the-field cutouts.
Actually, the white-border US shields are supposed to be the current spec but there are at least 3 other variants out there in the wild. I'd link to that spec on the Caltrans website but is currently not available due to the recent site "upgrade". :banghead:
Quote from: myosh_tino on August 05, 2019, 09:59:21 PM
Roadfro's 100-inch sign? :hmmm:... but I digress! :biggrin:
Oopsie -- my bad; sorry about the mis-cite! (only looked back as far as your post showing up within Roadfro's reply, and jumped the gun). But as long as I'm writing -- I agree the U.S. shield as shown is a bit off compared with past efforts -- the overall shield size is not only odd-shaped (like a rectangle hit at certain spots with a ball-peen hammer) but the actual numbers seem small for the size of the BGS on which they're located. But that seems to be in keeping with current Caltrans practice -- shields on BGS's are considerably smaller on current-production signs; that pertains to all route types from Interstate on down. Now -- whether that dovetails with the agency's seeming lack of interest in route continuity or even identification is yet to be ascertained. But since GPS
does largely depend upon route numbers for navigation, it would seem odd that those would be de-emphasized at this time.
Quote from: Concrete Bob on July 25, 2019, 10:52:36 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if the stretch of the existing SR 58 leasing from the east end of the Boron Freeway to the current route 58 leading to Kramer Junction (South Frontage Road) is obliterated so it does not form a surface intersection with the Kramer Junction Bypass.
As Splashflash rightly notes, there is an offramp about a mile west of the current end of the Boron Freeway providing access to Beautiful Downtown Boron. And, the interchange with 395 a few miles to the east will provide direct access to the Kramer Junction businesses.
According to page 36 of the environmental assessment, obliteration of the highway between 20 Mule Road and the expressway will occur, "Removal of the Existing State Route 58
Caltrans is proposing to obliterate and re-vegetate approximately 1.2 miles of the existing State
Route 58 near the Kern County line as a means to facilitate the movement of desert tortoises.
The work associated with obliterating the old road and re-vegetate the area is unlikely to
adversely affect desert tortoises because the road currently does not support desert tortoises and
Caltrans will fence the work area to prevent entry by desert tortoises. The potential exists that a
desert tortoise may find a break through the fence, enter the work area, and be killed or injured;
however, the likelihood of this event occurring is low, given the paucity of individuals in this
area."
Quote from: splashflash on August 09, 2019, 11:42:16 AM
Quote from: Concrete Bob on July 25, 2019, 10:52:36 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if the stretch of the existing SR 58 leasing from the east end of the Boron Freeway to the current route 58 leading to Kramer Junction (South Frontage Road) is obliterated so it does not form a surface intersection with the Kramer Junction Bypass.
As Splashflash rightly notes, there is an offramp about a mile west of the current end of the Boron Freeway providing access to Beautiful Downtown Boron. And, the interchange with 395 a few miles to the east will provide direct access to the Kramer Junction businesses.
According to page 36 of the environmental assessment, obliteration of the highway between 20 Mule Road and the expressway will occur, "Removal of the Existing State Route 58
Caltrans is proposing to obliterate and re-vegetate approximately 1.2 miles of the existing State
Route 58 near the Kern County line as a means to facilitate the movement of desert tortoises.
The work associated with obliterating the old road and re-vegetate the area is unlikely to
adversely affect desert tortoises because the road currently does not support desert tortoises and
Caltrans will fence the work area to prevent entry by desert tortoises. The potential exists that a
desert tortoise may find a break through the fence, enter the work area, and be killed or injured;
however, the likelihood of this event occurring is low, given the paucity of individuals in this
area."
What about the derelict Mervyn's truck that's along 58 east of the rail road tracks? Does the desert tortoise obliteration thing mean it's in danger too? Hell I'd say just keep the old road it's not like any of 20 Mule Team Road gets much traffic anyways.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 09, 2019, 01:25:17 PM
Quote from: splashflash on August 09, 2019, 11:42:16 AM
Quote from: Concrete Bob on July 25, 2019, 10:52:36 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if the stretch of the existing SR 58 leasing from the east end of the Boron Freeway to the current route 58 leading to Kramer Junction (South Frontage Road) is obliterated so it does not form a surface intersection with the Kramer Junction Bypass.
As Splashflash rightly notes, there is an offramp about a mile west of the current end of the Boron Freeway providing access to Beautiful Downtown Boron. And, the interchange with 395 a few miles to the east will provide direct access to the Kramer Junction businesses.
According to page 36 of the environmental assessment, obliteration of the highway between 20 Mule Road and the expressway will occur, "Removal of the Existing State Route 58
Caltrans is proposing to obliterate and re-vegetate approximately 1.2 miles of the existing State
Route 58 near the Kern County line as a means to facilitate the movement of desert tortoises.
The work associated with obliterating the old road and re-vegetate the area is unlikely to
adversely affect desert tortoises because the road currently does not support desert tortoises and
Caltrans will fence the work area to prevent entry by desert tortoises. The potential exists that a
desert tortoise may find a break through the fence, enter the work area, and be killed or injured;
however, the likelihood of this event occurring is low, given the paucity of individuals in this
area."
What about the derelict Mervyn's truck that's along 58 east of the rail road tracks? Does the desert tortoise obliteration thing mean it's in danger too? Hell I'd say just keep the old road it's not like any of 20 Mule Team Road gets much traffic anyways.
From the description it sounds like they're going to do what I surmised earlier: keep the RR grade crossing and straightline the alignment directly onto 20 Mule Train Road, and delete/"obliterate" the present S-curve up to the Boron freeway alignment -- which would make sense; even when the original Boron freeway was completed in the late '70's, that curve at the east end was always intended to be temporary; it just took 40+ years for Caltrans to get around to extending it eastward.
It's even got temporary postmiles (Txx).
Looks like the bypass will be opening Thursday at midnight:
We will be opening the New Alignment on Thursday night/Friday morning. We expect (barring unforeseen circumstances) to open the segment around midnight Thursday/Friday.
We will have CHP/Cozeep take the traffic through the new alignment when it opens.
Changeable Message Boards (CMS) will notify motorists, coming from all directions, of the opening of the new segment of highway.
On Wednesday 10/23, starting at 10pm to 8am — there will be traffic flagging operations at 2 locations on both EB/WB SR 58 from the Kern County line to approximately post-mile marker (PM) 1.0 as well as from PM 8.0 to PM 9.0
Thursday 10/24 — starting at 8pm - traffic flagging operations will take place at 2 locations EB/WB SR 58 at PM 0.0 to PM 1.0 and PM 8.0 to PM 9.0
I hope to see quality photos at Gribblemation soon!
Quote from: splashflash on October 23, 2019, 12:33:32 PM
Looks like the bypass will be opening Thursday at midnight:
We will be opening the New Alignment on Thursday night/Friday morning. We expect (barring unforeseen circumstances) to open the segment around midnight Thursday/Friday.
We will have CHP/Cozeep take the traffic through the new alignment when it opens.
Changeable Message Boards (CMS) will notify motorists, coming from all directions, of the opening of the new segment of highway.
On Wednesday 10/23, starting at 10pm to 8am — there will be traffic flagging operations at 2 locations on both EB/WB SR 58 from the Kern County line to approximately post-mile marker (PM) 1.0 as well as from PM 8.0 to PM 9.0
Thursday 10/24 — starting at 8pm - traffic flagging operations will take place at 2 locations EB/WB SR 58 at PM 0.0 to PM 1.0 and PM 8.0 to PM 9.0
I hope to see quality photos at Gribblemation soon!
We'll see, the soonest I'll "possibly" be out that way is Veterans Day weekend. I have some tentative plans for the Grand Canyon or Bryce Canyon in the works that would take through there.
Didn't expect this to be open until well after the first of the year! This means I'll probably reroute the L.A.-Inland Empire trip planned for mid-December via Barstow and Hinkley for the return leg to see the bypass first-hand. Kudos to the contractors for expediting things.
Now that 58 is effectively 4-laned from Bakersfield to Barstow, it just may be time for D8 to expedite at least the planning process for a similar US 395 facility from I-15 to north of Kramer -- a freeway north through Adelanto and an expressway the rest of the way, with a cloverleaf/CD facility (with a flyover NB>WB) at 58/395. Now that the HDC isn't viable any longer, enhancing an effective L.A. bypass in this manner would be a most appropriate use of funds.
I would hope that upgrading US 395 north from I-15 to above SR 58 would become a reality now that the HDC has been put up on the shelf. Whenever I go to Phoenix, I always use SR 58 to 395 to bypass the LA metro, and 395 is always pretty crowded. Sparker, I agree that 395 should be a freeway to above Adelanto, and at minimum a four-lane expressway to above SR 58. For continuity, 395 should probably be a four-lane, twinned expressway up through the SR 14 junction.
I am glad the Kramer Junction project was well underway and nearly complete well before our current governor got into power. Otherwise, the project would have been delayed another fifteen or twenty years and cost three times more to finish than it did.
This thought occurred to me awhile back when this project began. All of the sudden the Los Angeles/Inland Empire Bypass Route of CA 177, 62, 247, I-15 and CA 58 got a whole lot better. Hinkley and Kramer Junction usually were enough of a drag I would just slog through I-10, I-215, and I-15 to reach CA 138 just avoid the bottlenecks on CA 58 and US 395.
Unfortunately won't be up that way until December but I'm definitely looking forward to it, though I usually approach on 395 and not on 58.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 23, 2019, 10:41:46 PM
This thought occurred to me awhile back when this project began. All of the sudden the Los Angeles/Inland Empire Bypass Route of CA 177, 62, 247, I-15 and CA 58 got a whole lot better. Hinkley and Kramer Junction usually were enough of a drag I would just slog through I-10, I-215, and I-15 to reach CA 138 just avoid the bottlenecks on CA 58 and US 395.
Kramer Junction AKA Wind Tunnel City...LOL! The wind was blowing quite hard when I passed through Kramer Junction in 2013. On the other hand, staying at an old motel in Mojave let me admire the massive amount of wind turbines at night and do those flashing lights ever look cool!
You are right about ending the bottleneck. Now to see how long before the section of freeway heading west from Bakersfield makes it to I-5. The Bay Area people would love to route their trip down I-5 to all improved 58 to I-15 when it is Viva Las Vegas time.
On to the US 395 side of things!
Rick
Maybe with the Kramer Junction project getting completed it might light a fire under Google to update the outdated imagery of that region in Google Maps/Earth. The imagery covering both Kramer Junction and Hinkley is dated 9/2015. The interchange of CA-58 and I-15 is even older (8/2014).
The Hinkley Bypass is at least covered in Street View and the latest Street View imagery shows the Kramer Junction project under construction.
Quote from: splashflash on October 23, 2019, 12:33:32 PM
Looks like the bypass will be opening Thursday at midnight:
We will be opening the New Alignment on Thursday night/Friday morning. We expect (barring unforeseen circumstances) to open the segment around midnight Thursday/Friday.
We will have CHP/Cozeep take the traffic through the new alignment when it opens.
Changeable Message Boards (CMS) will notify motorists, coming from all directions, of the opening of the new segment of highway.
On Wednesday 10/23, starting at 10pm to 8am — there will be traffic flagging operations at 2 locations on both EB/WB SR 58 from the Kern County line to approximately post-mile marker (PM) 1.0 as well as from PM 8.0 to PM 9.0
Thursday 10/24 — starting at 8pm - traffic flagging operations will take place at 2 locations EB/WB SR 58 at PM 0.0 to PM 1.0 and PM 8.0 to PM 9.0
I hope to see quality photos at Gribblemation soon!
So is it open now? Google Maps, OSM, and Here WeGo haven't reflected the change.
Folks on Twitter report that it is open, I haven't seen any photos though.
https://twitter.com/JEazytm/status/1188096695462055942
https://twitter.com/TaFphoto/status/1187824249731305473
Here's a video that was uploaded on YouTube a couple days ago driving around the US-395 interchange. It appears the configuration has 2 thru lanes each way for US-395 and two left turn lanes onto the freeway.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OSZri1YU2s
Looks like it still has easy convenient access to the businesses at the junction. I remember stopping at that Pilot last year and waiting for days trying to turn left on CA-58 West.
The speed limit on the bypass is posted as "Work Zone Speed Limit 55" with a speed limit sign prior covered up. Likely will be posted 65 mph once work is completed, also judging by the sign following for the Truck Speed Limit 55. Should be 70 mph along with the rest of CA-58, but that's an entirely different conversation.
Here's footage driving on the bypass itself from the same uploader. You can see the seamless transitions to/from each end. The eastern end is down to 1 lane placed on one carriageway as a super-2 setup.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=du6_d0-A7N8
Glad to see the project finally completed. From the video, looks like a nice result.
How long before the railroad crossing bridge is completed?
Rick
I didn't know there was gonna be 2 new sets of traffic signals on 395.
When the railroad bridge is done I'll make the drive down there to check out the new freeway
Quote from: Inyomono395 on October 28, 2019, 09:00:20 PM
I didn't know there was gonna be 2 new sets of traffic signals on 395.
When the railroad bridge is done I'll make the drive down there to check out the new freeway
Quote from: Inyomono395 on October 28, 2019, 09:00:20 PM
I didn't know there was gonna be 2 new sets of traffic signals on 395.
When the railroad bridge is done I'll make the drive down there to check out the new freeway
Hopefully the RR overhead will be done by the time I'm down there mid-December. Did notice that the left shoulders looked like they were just about 4 feet wide but with a rumble strip just off the edge of the left-hand lane. IIRC, some of the upgraded CA 99 between Manteca and Stockton has those same features (I'm heading up that way in a week or so; will confirm).
Google Maps finally shows the new bypass on its maps, although the terrain along the new bypass is unaltered. However, it does not show an interchange between the new CA-58 alignment with US 395. Perhaps it will be added later.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 29, 2019, 05:14:13 PM
Google Maps finally shows the new bypass on its maps, although the terrain along the new bypass is unaltered. However, it does not show an interchange between the new CA-58 alignment with US 395. Perhaps it will be added later.
The entire segment is messed up right now. The ties in aren't properly done, so a motorist using Google Maps gets some extremely off and non-existent routing.
Hopefully they'll figure it out in a few days. I'll keep making reports until it's fixed.
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 29, 2019, 05:27:11 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 29, 2019, 05:14:13 PM
Google Maps finally shows the new bypass on its maps, although the terrain along the new bypass is unaltered. However, it does not show an interchange between the new CA-58 alignment with US 395. Perhaps it will be added later.
The entire segment is messed up right now. The ties in aren't properly done, so a motorist using Google Maps gets some extremely off and non-existent routing.
Hopefully they'll figure it out in a few days. I'll keep making reports until it's fixed.
Looks like they might be using the OpenStreetMap routing as an example. I was the one who updated that section, and changed the west end to hide the old road crossing the new freeway. Looks like they did the same.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 24, 2019, 01:36:26 PM
Maybe with the Kramer Junction project getting completed it might light a fire under Google to update the outdated imagery of that region in Google Maps/Earth. The imagery covering both Kramer Junction and Hinkley is dated 9/2015. The interchange of CA-58 and I-15 is even older (8/2014).
The Hinkley Bypass is at least covered in Street View and the latest Street View imagery shows the Kramer Junction project under construction.
Apple Maps currently has the most up to date aerial imagery in this area.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on November 04, 2019, 03:33:10 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 24, 2019, 01:36:26 PM
Maybe with the Kramer Junction project getting completed it might light a fire under Google to update the outdated imagery of that region in Google Maps/Earth. The imagery covering both Kramer Junction and Hinkley is dated 9/2015. The interchange of CA-58 and I-15 is even older (8/2014).
The Hinkley Bypass is at least covered in Street View and the latest Street View imagery shows the Kramer Junction project under construction.
Apple Maps currently has the most up to date aerial imagery in this area.
Is that the first time that Apple Maps could ever boast it had something over Google Maps?
^^^^ Apple Maps is constantly improving. In general I'm trying to move away from Google. I'll probably stick with gmail and YouTube for awhile but I I hope Apple Maps improves to be better than Google Maps. In the past it wasn't even a contest. Google Maps blows Apples out of the water. Apple now has street view in the LA and SF which looks better than Googles, IMO. Only problem is Google street view database is 99 percent larger than Apple's!
Yeah, usually Apple Maps lags a bit behind the aerial imagery in Google Maps & Earth. But this is an exception. The overhead imagery in Apple Maps show the Hinkley Bypass completed. The imagery of the Kramer Junction Bypass shows the project in its early stages. But at least it's very clear where it's being built.
Hopefully Caltrans will get rid of that dopey 2 lane segment between the Kramer Junction and Hinkley projects very soon. They have the ROW set aside to build the second set of lanes.
I recall at least once where Apple Maps had updated imagery in the Hampton Roads region before Google got to it.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 05, 2019, 05:27:42 PM
Hopefully Caltrans will get rid of that dopey 2 lane segment between the Kramer Junction and Hinkley projects very soon. They have the ROW set aside to build the second set of lanes.
They are - it's apart of the Kramer Junction Project.
Build a 4-lane freeway around Kramer Junction, and build a parallel carriageway for the remainder of CA-58 to the Hinkley Bypass.
You can see construction from December 2018 imagery on Google Maps on this portion north of Hinkley - https://www.google.com/maps/@34.9735581,-117.4652045,3a,75y,117.74h,72.39t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slB6n93QxhKsAYfMV9uCgnA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1
Anyone know about how the project affects the CA 58 Boron business route? The east end of that route tied into what is now Old Highway 58, per May 2019 GMSV. But no indication whether the business route will now end at CA 58 exit 199, or at US 395, or state and county officials decide not to bother and instead just decommission that borderline Boron business route.
I haven't seen anything said, but my suspicion is that it will remain status quo ante, i.e., signage for BR 58 such as it is will stop at the old Twenty Mule Team Rd junction, but it will still have continuity on the old highway into Kramer Jct. Neither Caltrans nor the County of San Bernardino seem to care much about business alignments.
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on November 30, 2019, 05:43:41 PM
I haven't seen anything said, but my suspicion is that it will remain status quo ante, i.e., signage for BR 58 such as it is will stop at the old Twenty Mule Team Rd junction, but it will still have continuity on the old highway into Kramer Jct. Neither Caltrans nor the County of San Bernardino seem to care much about business alignments.
A general CA rule of thumb -- decidedly unofficial -- is that the jurisdiction traversed by the old/relinquished route can request "business" banners (and a few shields if necessary) from the relevant Caltrans district with an implied promise that they will continue to sign the route appropriately as a business loop. In reality, often that signage is initially applied then effectively forgotten (e.g. the old I-10 Holt Avenue "business loop" through Pomona and Ontario) and the shield assemblies left to deteriorate with age. Since in this case we're dealing with unincorporated communities (Boron) receiving whatever benefit a signed business route would provide -- and the signed portion is in Kern County while any extension toward Kramer Junction would be over the county line in San Bernardino County -- it's not likely that the latter county would make the effort to continue the signage; the business loops within that county that
are signed in the overall region are so because the incorporated towns in which they're located (Victorville, Barstow) have initiated and maintained signage themselves (coincidentally both are along Historic US 66!). A business adjunct to CA 58 in what is mostly open county territory isn't likely to get such attention. So the business loop, such as it is, will probably remain within Kern County, which has shown willingness to sign such facilities in Mojave and Tehachapi as well (with the blessings of those local cities).
Got to drive it today. Most of the CA 58 shields are still on US 395, but all they do is now point to the bypass. (Cheap!) Nice highway. The traffic lights were set to blinking red, so getting through them wasn't too hard, but it will be interesting to see how they're programmed.
Oddly, both Freeway Entrance signage packages for both onramps used the stupid small Freeway Entrance banners and white arrows, but green spades and directional tabs.
The actual bypass itself is really nice. Much, much faster than the old road.
Speaking of, they're tearing up the T-postmiled section north of the old Twenty Mule Team Rd junction, so it looks like it will be continuous to the Boron business loop as if there had only ever been one road.
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on December 04, 2019, 01:48:02 AM
Got to drive it today. Most of the CA 58 shields are still on US 395, but all they do is now point to the bypass. (Cheap!) Nice highway. The traffic lights were set to blinking red, so getting through them wasn't too hard, but it will be interesting to see how they're programmed.
Oddly, both Freeway Entrance signage packages for both onramps used the stupid small Freeway Entrance banners and white arrows, but green spades and directional tabs.
The actual bypass itself is really nice. Much, much faster than the old road.
Speaking of, they're tearing up the T-postmiled section north of the old Twenty Mule Team Rd junction, so it looks like it will be continuous to the Boron business loop as if there had only ever been one road.
Yeah -- it was obvious that the "temporary" (it survived about 40 years!) S-shaped "shunt" between the east end of the Boron freeway section and the old road wouldn't survive the Kramer project -- but that accommodation of local traffic needed to be maintained; hence the functional eastern extension of the Twenty Mule Team Road (Biz 58 within Kern County).
I drove this about a month ago. Very nice. Effectively, it appears that the freeway in Boron was extended at least past Kramer Junction, as I see no access to the new 58 bypass at all. Thus, you have the eastern-most interchange in Boron and the next access is the 395 interchange. Not sure when there is new access since the 4-lane section east of Kramer Junction is still under construction. At some point, the freeway will become expressway and will not begin freeway again until Wagner Road, which was the new intersection created at the west end of the new Hinkley portion of the freeway. After Wagner, it is full-on freeway all the way to Barstow.
Quote from: don1991 on December 10, 2019, 12:48:47 AM
I drove this about a month ago. Very nice. Effectively, it appears that the freeway in Boron was extended at least past Kramer Junction, as I see no access to the new 58 bypass at all. Thus, you have the eastern-most interchange in Boron and the next access is the 395 interchange. Not sure when there is new access since the 4-lane section east of Kramer Junction is still under construction. At some point, the freeway will become expressway and will not begin freeway again until Wagner Road, which was the new intersection created at the west end of the new Hinkley portion of the freeway. After Wagner, it is full-on freeway all the way to Barstow.
That's essentially the
modus operandi of Caltrans -- echoed by both D6 and D8 -- for the CA 58 facility from Bakersfield to Barstow. Areas where there is significant commercial activity -- or safety issues -- have received the full freeway treatment (east of Bakersfield, Tehachapi, Mojave, Boron, Hinkley -- and now Kramer); the interim segments are built out to upgradeable expressway standards. With the completion of divided 4-laning for the entire 150-mile stretch, it's likely that with current Caltrans policies that safety issues (i.e., accident rates, locally originating complaints, etc.) will drive any further freeway conversion. Right now, the CA 223 intersection (and possibly the adjacent Caliente access point) might be the most compelling place to concentrate these efforts; an additional location that may eventually prove problematic in this regard is the California City Blvd. intersection west of Boron. Bottom line -- unless some overarching regional effort to bring 58 up to full freeway materializes, expect "spot" fixes as deemed necessary.
Interstate designation or not, with the completion of the Kramer Junction Bypass a few months ago, the entire corridor is a 4-lane divided highway, at least to CA-99, with limited at-grade access points. While in technical terms there's stretches that aren't freeway, meaning there's a few minor road intersections, farm access points, a couple private driveways, etc, it effectively is a completed 65 mph rural freeway, and acts as such. The only benefits to completing the remaining pieces would be the potential to increase the speed limit to 70 mph (IMO, it already should be, people already do well over 70 mph), and to put an interstate designation on it - such as an I-40 extension. It wouldn't change the way traffic flows or acts it, and only result in minor safety improvements. It's not like it's a rural divided highway lined with homes and businesses and passes thru towns.
It'd be nice to see an I-40 extension, but the priority is very low and will likely never come to fruition unless the feds start funding interstate projects in the future like the past.
IMO, the highest priority segment now should be completing a freeway between the Westside Pkwy and I-5. That would fully complete the 4-lane expressway.
Quote from: sparker on December 10, 2019, 01:16:25 PM
Quote from: don1991 on December 10, 2019, 12:48:47 AM
I drove this about a month ago. Very nice. Effectively, it appears that the freeway in Boron was extended at least past Kramer Junction, as I see no access to the new 58 bypass at all. Thus, you have the eastern-most interchange in Boron and the next access is the 395 interchange. Not sure when there is new access since the 4-lane section east of Kramer Junction is still under construction. At some point, the freeway will become expressway and will not begin freeway again until Wagner Road, which was the new intersection created at the west end of the new Hinkley portion of the freeway. After Wagner, it is full-on freeway all the way to Barstow.
That's essentially the modus operandi of Caltrans -- echoed by both D6 and D8 -- for the CA 58 facility from Bakersfield to Barstow. Areas where there is significant commercial activity -- or safety issues -- have received the full freeway treatment (east of Bakersfield, Tehachapi, Mojave, Boron, Hinkley -- and now Kramer); the interim segments are built out to upgradeable expressway standards. With the completion of divided 4-laning for the entire 150-mile stretch, it's likely that with current Caltrans policies that safety issues (i.e., accident rates, locally originating complaints, etc.) will drive any further freeway conversion. Right now, the CA 223 intersection (and possibly the adjacent Caliente access point) might be the most compelling place to concentrate these efforts; an additional location that may eventually prove problematic in this regard is the California City Blvd. intersection west of Boron. Bottom line -- unless some overarching regional effort to bring 58 up to full freeway materializes, expect "spot" fixes as deemed necessary.
Based on those lines on Google Maps that seem to be property boundaries, the CA 223 intersection will be a trumpet interchange, while the California City intersection will be either a diamond or a parclo. It also seems that Bena/Bealville will at least overpass CA 58, if not interchange with it. The Hyundai/Kia Proving Grounds seems to get a new entrance road off another diamond interchange, as does 90th Street just to the east. Everything east of Kramer Junction, however, doesn't seem like it's getting any freeway upgrades, since the property lines don't extend outwards at any junctions (and in some places, don't even follow the road at all). This is all based on some faded gray lines on Google Maps, so it's just speculation.
^^^^^^^^^
It should be noted that the expressway portion between Kramer and Hinkley is constructed to 4-lane freeway geometry; the only items that keep it from that status are at-grade crossings that are designed for eventual upgrading. The expressway segment between Boron and Mojave that includes the California City intersection is a much older facility; the EB lanes are in fact sitting atop the original US 466 alignment (albeit widened), with a very substantial median that could eventually host a new set of EB lanes, with the original lanes becoming a frontage road. But once westbound out of Mojave, there are a number of less-than-optimal segments, including the steep gradient west of Tehachapi that was carved out of the hillside, leaving little room for shoulders, particularly any in the median. That, of course, can be problematic for a route hosting the level of truck traffic that CA 58 does. Also, there's a series of hilly S-curves near Keene just east of the 223/Caliente intersections. OTOH, if anything this facility configuration is similar to I-80 between Colfax and Gold Run up in the Sierras -- one of the oldest freeway segments on that corridor. But IIRC the incident rate on the Tehachapi Mountain segment of 58 doesn't stand out from the rest of the route (the problematic 223 intersection notwithstanding) or similar CA mountain freeways and expressways; this would seem to indicate that drivers, commercial or otherwise, either practice caution when driving along it or have become accustomed to its idiosyncrasies. However, as I posited in my earlier post, it'll likely take some glaring safety issues scattered along the whole corridor to provoke any extensive upgrade program -- unless a heavy dose of political will emerges from Bakersfield or out in the desert for such.
The Tehachapi Mountain portion is due to a get a 3rd (Truck Climbing Lane) sometime in the future. In California timelines, this could be a few decades, who knows. But a study is beginning. Can't remember which direction though I seem to remember it being in the eastbound direction. The news article (I don't have the cite handy) mention the all-to-familiar frustration of one truck going 6MPH trying to pass another doing 5.
The CA-223 intersection is quite dangerous, IMO, followed closely by the Caliente and California City intersections. The east-of-Kramer to west-of-Hinkley section is OK for now with the expressway section since the crossroads have very very little traffic.
Quote from: don1991 on December 10, 2019, 09:31:47 PM
The Tehachapi Mountain portion is due to a get a 3rd (Truck Climbing Lane) sometime in the future. In California timelines, this could be a few decades, who knows. But a study is beginning. Can't remember which direction though I seem to remember it being in the eastbound direction. The news article (I don't have the cite handy) mention the all-to-familiar frustration of one truck going 6MPH trying to pass another doing 5.
The CA-223 intersection is quite dangerous, IMO, followed closely by the Caliente and California City intersections. The east-of-Kramer to west-of-Hinkley section is OK for now with the expressway section since the crossroads have very very little traffic.
If such a project to widen the mountain portion is ever put underway, some other improvements IMO should be included in such project - eliminate the steep, substandard grades. This would be quite a lengthy and expensive project, but needed in the long run. Upgrade the section to interstate standards by eliminating dangerous cross roads and hidden private driveways.
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 10, 2019, 05:02:14 PM
Interstate designation or not, with the completion of the Kramer Junction Bypass a few months ago, the entire corridor is a 4-lane divided highway, at least to CA-99, with limited at-grade access points. While in technical terms there's stretches that aren't freeway, meaning there's a few minor road intersections, farm access points, a couple private driveways, etc, it effectively is a completed 65 mph rural freeway, and acts as such. The only benefits to completing the remaining pieces would be the potential to increase the speed limit to 70 mph (IMO, it already should be, people already do well over 70 mph), and to put an interstate designation on it - such as an I-40 extension. It wouldn't change the way traffic flows or acts it, and only result in minor safety improvements. It's not like it's a rural divided highway lined with homes and businesses and passes thru towns.
It'd be nice to see an I-40 extension, but the priority is very low and will likely never come to fruition unless the feds start funding interstate projects in the future like the past.
IMO, the highest priority segment now should be completing a freeway between the Westside Pkwy and I-5. That would fully complete the 4-lane expressway.
So now it is possible to drive from the San Francisco city limits to the Las Vegas city limits without encountering any traffic signals?
Quote from: dbz77 on December 12, 2019, 02:36:40 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 10, 2019, 05:02:14 PM
Interstate designation or not, with the completion of the Kramer Junction Bypass a few months ago, the entire corridor is a 4-lane divided highway, at least to CA-99, with limited at-grade access points. While in technical terms there's stretches that aren't freeway, meaning there's a few minor road intersections, farm access points, a couple private driveways, etc, it effectively is a completed 65 mph rural freeway, and acts as such. The only benefits to completing the remaining pieces would be the potential to increase the speed limit to 70 mph (IMO, it already should be, people already do well over 70 mph), and to put an interstate designation on it - such as an I-40 extension. It wouldn't change the way traffic flows or acts it, and only result in minor safety improvements. It's not like it's a rural divided highway lined with homes and businesses and passes thru towns.
It'd be nice to see an I-40 extension, but the priority is very low and will likely never come to fruition unless the feds start funding interstate projects in the future like the past.
IMO, the highest priority segment now should be completing a freeway between the Westside Pkwy and I-5. That would fully complete the 4-lane expressway.
So now it is possible to drive from the San Francisco city limits to the Las Vegas city limits without encountering any traffic signals?
Apparently that's the case, unless one has to get off to eat, pee, or otherwise utilize roadside facilities (rest areas notwithstanding!). But one could have done that 40 years earlier -- just with a detour through the L.A. metro area. The CA 58 improvements just enhance a more direct route -- involving, of course, the CA 120 bypass of Manteca (CA 152 still has plenty of signalized intersections in and around Los Banos).
Quote from: sparker on December 10, 2019, 01:16:25 PM
Quote from: don1991 on December 10, 2019, 12:48:47 AM
I drove this about a month ago. Very nice. Effectively, it appears that the freeway in Boron was extended at least past Kramer Junction, as I see no access to the new 58 bypass at all. Thus, you have the eastern-most interchange in Boron and the next access is the 395 interchange. Not sure when there is new access since the 4-lane section east of Kramer Junction is still under construction. At some point, the freeway will become expressway and will not begin freeway again until Wagner Road, which was the new intersection created at the west end of the new Hinkley portion of the freeway. After Wagner, it is full-on freeway all the way to Barstow.
That's essentially the modus operandi of Caltrans -- echoed by both D6 and D8 -- for the CA 58 facility from Bakersfield to Barstow. Areas where there is significant commercial activity -- or safety issues -- have received the full freeway treatment (east of Bakersfield, Tehachapi, Mojave, Boron, Hinkley -- and now Kramer); the interim segments are built out to upgradeable expressway standards. With the completion of divided 4-laning for the entire 150-mile stretch, it's likely that with current Caltrans policies that safety issues (i.e., accident rates, locally originating complaints, etc.) will drive any further freeway conversion. Right now, the CA 223 intersection (and possibly the adjacent Caliente access point) might be the most compelling place to concentrate these efforts; an additional location that may eventually prove problematic in this regard is the California City Blvd. intersection west of Boron. Bottom line -- unless some overarching regional effort to bring 58 up to full freeway materializes, expect "spot" fixes as deemed necessary.
That also appears to echo the WisDOT way of doing major rural non-interstate highway upgrades here in Wisconsin - build the four lanes first in order to get the traffic carrying capacity up and then add interchanges and grade separations here and there as traffic conditions warrant and funding allows. Over time, it will likely evolve into a full freeway (for example, see: I-41 between Milwaukee and Green Bay, WI).
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on December 13, 2019, 11:47:50 PM
That also appears to echo the WisDOT way of doing major rural non-interstate highway upgrades here in Wisconsin - build the four lanes first in order to get the traffic carrying capacity up and then add interchanges and grade separations here and there as traffic conditions warrant and funding allows. Over time, it will likely evolve into a full freeway (for example, see: I-41 between Milwaukee and Green Bay, WI).
Mike
The difference between CA methodology and that of upper-midwest states (WI, IA, etc.) is that corridors are handled as whole coordinated projects, whereas in CA it's more a matter of sitting around until funding shakes loose before planning for a particular segment takes place. Remember that the initial improvements over Tehachapi started way back about 1961 when it was still US 466, and that it didn't even intersect CA 99 as a freeway until late 1979; the I-15 interchange (bypassing the convoluted 2-lane Barstow routing) only dates from 1997. A bit here, a bit there -- that's more of an accurate description for the 58 progress. But I will have to give the agency due credit -- they've done more in the desert in the past 16 years than was done since the formal inception of the state's freeway/expressway system 60 years ago -- starting with the 2003 Mojave bypass, getting the Hinkley bypass done, and culminating here with Kramer. Getting the full 150 miles completed as freeway or upgradeable expressway is arguably one of their more prominent successes in the last few decades, particularly since it involves two distinct districts (historically one of the obstacles to long corridor projects). Now -- if they can apply this type of ambition to US 395 between Hesperia and Kramer, SoCal may at long last have some semblance of an safe, efficient, and relatively high-speed metro bypass!
Quote from: sparker on December 14, 2019, 03:56:13 PMthe I-15 interchange (bypassing the convoluted 2-lane Barstow routing) only dates from 1997.
Was this interchange always supposed to be where it was built? Because I seem to remember there being a large y-interchange further east on I-15 that looked like it was meant for a full freeway connection, which would have required a long bridge over the large train yard.
Quote from: DAL764 on January 01, 2020, 05:16:30 PM
Quote from: sparker on December 14, 2019, 03:56:13 PMthe I-15 interchange (bypassing the convoluted 2-lane Barstow routing) only dates from 1997.
Was this interchange always supposed to be where it was built? Because I seem to remember there being a large y-interchange further east on I-15 that looked like it was meant for a full freeway connection, which would have required a long bridge over the large train yard.
Are you referring to this?:
(https://i.imgur.com/gnl9kmK.png)
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on January 01, 2020, 07:34:38 PM
Quote from: DAL764 on January 01, 2020, 05:16:30 PM
Quote from: sparker on December 14, 2019, 03:56:13 PMthe I-15 interchange (bypassing the convoluted 2-lane Barstow routing) only dates from 1997.
Was this interchange always supposed to be where it was built? Because I seem to remember there being a large y-interchange further east on I-15 that looked like it was meant for a full freeway connection, which would have required a long bridge over the large train yard.
Are you referring to this?:
(https://i.imgur.com/gnl9kmK.png)
That was to have been the original connection between I-15 and westward US 466, later CA 58. At that point, the railyard didn't extend as far west as it does today. The decision to move the final configuration of the 15/58 interchange occurred after BNSF expanded its yard westward to handle the increased West Coast container traffic -- Barstow is where the lines from L.A. and the container port in Richmond merge. That, and the desire to eliminate LH exits and entrances, which the original configuration featured, prompted the relocation of the interchange about a mile SW of the previous point, which simplified the bridge structures over both the rail lines and the Mojave River.
Just fyi,
Construction Continues on State Route 58 Near Kramer Junction
SAN BERNARDINO — The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) will be closing lanes on State Route (SR-58) for continued work on the 4-lane divided highway project near Kramer Junction.
East and westbound lane closures will take place between the Kern County line and Twenty Mule Road. Lane #1 will be closed in both directions on February 19 and 20 from 6:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Crews will be removing material in the median of the old crossover detour. Expect delays during construction hours.
Remember to reduce your speed in the work zone. Be advised, weather conditions may affect this operation.
So after this will the project be completed? I want to drive the new bypass but I want it to be fully completed before I do it.
Quote from: Inyomono395 on February 18, 2020, 07:14:27 PM
So after this will the project be completed? I want to drive the new bypass but I want it to be fully completed before I do it.
Functionally, the project is complete; traffic is moving in both directions on the new alignment. What is apparently happening is that there is still some detritus (pavement in the median, etc.) from the various iterations of the connection to the original CA 58 alignment along the RR tracks through Kramer. That alignment saw several configurations during the process of "cutting in" the new freeway to the old Boron freeway section in order to maintain continuous traffic flow. So what they're doing is removing all the old alphalt, concrete, and any other items (paddles, signage) from the area between Kramer & Boron where the "temporary" (although it lasted about 40 years!) connection was located. Except for the short lane closures cited above, there shouldn't be any major disruption to CA 58 freeway travel.
I drove it on 2/15, and it looked like the entire roadbed is complete, including the culvert at the east end. However, both directions were routed onto the WB (north) side from a little east the US-395 interchange to the east end. It looked like they still hadn't striped or signed the EB side, from what I could see driving WB.
The old crossover that connected to 20MTR looked like much of it had been dug up, but the intersection with 20MTR hadn't changed yet.
I'd guess a month more before it's done.
I wonder how long before the three traffic lights in a row on US-395 will make them do a US-395 bypass.
Quote from: pderocco on February 27, 2020, 12:16:33 AM
I drove it on 2/15, and it looked like the entire roadbed is complete, including the culvert at the east end. However, both directions were routed onto the WB (north) side from a little east the US-395 interchange to the east end. It looked like they still hadn't striped or signed the EB side, from what I could see driving WB.
The old crossover that connected to 20MTR looked like much of it had been dug up, but the intersection with 20MTR hadn't changed yet.
I'd guess a month more before it's done.
I wonder how long before the three traffic lights in a row on US-395 will make them do a US-395 bypass.
Well, let's see...........the Boron bypass dates from the late '70's, and the Kramer Jct. bypass opened 2019. By that measure -- and the fact that there's not an inch of freeway on US 395 from its southern terminus to the Inyokern wye -- I'd guess somewhere in the mid-to-late 2050's! But if there's any activity on a freeway farther south in the Victorville/Adelanto area, there might be some call for a 395 Kramer bypass -- with an intervening expressway. Nevertheless, I wouldn't hold my breath.
There'd probably be a fair bit of local opposition from what locals there are, too. The businesses depend heavily on drive-thru traffic and they'll already lose some from CA 58 being bypassed.
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on February 28, 2020, 05:04:50 PM
There'd probably be a fair bit of local opposition from what locals there are, too. The businesses depend heavily on drive-thru traffic and they'll already lose some from CA 58 being bypassed.
Unfortunately, that would likely describe the local circumstances if a 395 bypass would be added to the mix. Right now the truck stops and/or convenience stores at the old crossroads still can be accessed directly from US 395, while traffic from CA 58 must exit at current 395 and head south (crossing the BNSF main line in the process) to patronize those businesses. The saving grace for them is that they're essentially the only services on 58 between Mojave and the outskirts of Barstow (not much in or around Boron!), so if they put a couple of billboards (and big blue signs are erected on 58 before the 395 interchange) hawking their presence, they'll continue to get
some business, albeit likely at a lower level. Also, right now quite a few commercial drivers have made the 395/58 routing into an effective bypass of metro L.A. -- and a US 395 freeway/expressway around Kramer with a free-flowing CA 58 interchange would probably mean the demise of at least one or two if not all of the road-related businesses there (a reasonably intelligent commercial driver would make sure that there was enough fuel to get to a more convenient service location such as Bakersfield or Victorville).
But so far no plans for such a bypass are in the current STIP, which IIRC extends out to 2024. And given the usual alignment study/feedback/funding ID/adoption/ROW acquisition process of Caltrans, the Kramer businesses likely have a reprieve well past 2030.
Quote from: sparker on February 28, 2020, 06:29:55 PM
Also, right now quite a few commercial drivers have made the 395/58 routing into an effective bypass of metro L.A.
It's 11 minutes and about 30 miles longer to take I-15 and CA 58 (in its current partial expressway state) instead of I-15, US 395, and CA 58. Google Maps shows only one bad traffic zone, and it's on the 395 route at the old 58/395 intersection. Why don't they just use that instead?
Quote from: X99 on February 28, 2020, 11:50:50 PM
Quote from: sparker on February 28, 2020, 06:29:55 PM
Also, right now quite a few commercial drivers have made the 395/58 routing into an effective bypass of metro L.A.
It's 11 minutes and about 30 miles longer to take I-15 and CA 58 (in its current partial expressway state) instead of I-15, US 395, and CA 58. Google Maps shows only one bad traffic zone, and it's on the 395 route at the old 58/395 intersection. Why don't they just use that instead?
Because it's 11 minutes and 30 miles longer. Looks longer on a map as well. Just about every commercial driver I know of fucking hates to "backtrack"; this includes driving the sides of a triangle rather than the hypotenuse. Having lived several years in Hesperia, I can attest to the fact that many commercial drivers use the D Street exit from I-15 in Victorville and then the National Trails Highway (historic US 66) up to Air Base Parkway and then over to 395 rather than slog through west Victorville and Adelanto along the southern reaches of 395, which is becoming increasingly more of a suburban arterial than a through highway. That generally cuts about 8-10 minutes off a trip straight up or down 395. Add that to the 11-minute saving cited above by using US 395, and you're averaging -20 minutes and about -25 miles vs. a Barstow detour. That alone will sway commercial drivers to remain on the surface road at least north of Adelanto.
It's not much of an alternative for passenger car traffic either.
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on February 29, 2020, 01:18:43 PM
It's not much of an alternative for passenger car traffic either.
I've driven between Palm Springs and Bakersfield a couple times since moving to PS. I preferred both the US 395/CA 58 and the CA 247/CA 58 alternatives around LA vs the standard CA/I-210 route. The Kramer Jct Bypass with four lanes will make it even easier.
I'm not sure what CA 247 adds (subtracts?), but I agree that US 395/CA 58 is much better than CA/I-210 for getting out of LA (especially if you're on the eastern side anyway). I-15/CA 58 is just too much of a detour though.
I-10 between Palm Springs and Banning can be a nightmare, especially during Coachella and other big events. There are no nearby public side roads through the pass. The nearest through East-West roads to the north and south go through Big Bear and Idyllwild respectively. Plus, CA 247 has so little traffic that it's fun and relaxing.
Quote from: skluth on March 03, 2020, 03:04:08 AM
I-10 between Palm Springs and Banning can be a nightmare, especially during Coachella and other big events. There are no nearby public side roads through the pass. The nearest through East-West roads to the north and south go through Big Bear and Idyllwild respectively. Plus, CA 247 has so little traffic that it's fun and relaxing.
Agree about the drive on 247; had to do round-trips on that road twice a week for three months about ten years ago when teaching a class out at Copper Mountain College out near Yucca Valley; only hit any appreciable traffic right at the CA 62 junction. Very interesting terrain on the north side of the San Bernardino Mountains; 247 traverses the alluvial at relatively high (3000' average) elevation, broken up by gullies and creekbeds; unlike CA 138 which crosses similar terrain about 40 miles west near Phelan, 247 lacks the "up-and-down" undulations through the creek beds found on 138, crossing most of them via bridges or culverts. That's fortunate for CA 247 drivers, who can avoid the sporadic flash-flood closures encountered on 138.
Based on everybody's comments it seems that's the best approach for 395 would be an upgrade to a divided highway expressway two lanes in each direction. That would still leave the possibility of business access. That would also be far cheaper than the freeway which doesn't appear is necessary at this time.
I think this would be justified all the way to the new 58. North of there it can remain the same winding highway it's always been.
Nexus 5X
Quote from: mrsman on March 03, 2020, 08:30:44 AM
Based on everybody's comments it seems that's the best approach for 395 would be an upgrade to a divided highway expressway two lanes in each direction. That would still leave the possibility of business access. That would also be far cheaper than the freeway which doesn't appear is necessary at this time.
I think this would be justified all the way to the new 58. North of there it can remain the same winding highway it's always been.
Nexus 5X
Since for the most part commercial traffic turns west onto CA 58 at Kramer, the segment of 395 north to the CA 14 junction seems to be one of the more forgotten sections of highway out in the desert -- except for Ridgecrest folks. But since the Ontario/Fontana area bisected by I-15 has become "distribution central" for SoCal, it'll only be a matter of time before commercial traffic heading north to Reno and other inland points increases to the level that improvements to the entire US 395 corridor are seriously considered.
Quote from: sparker on March 03, 2020, 04:47:26 PM
Quote from: mrsman on March 03, 2020, 08:30:44 AM
Based on everybody's comments it seems that's the best approach for 395 would be an upgrade to a divided highway expressway two lanes in each direction. That would still leave the possibility of business access. That would also be far cheaper than the freeway which doesn't appear is necessary at this time.
I think this would be justified all the way to the new 58. North of there it can remain the same winding highway it's always been.
Nexus 5X
Since for the most part commercial traffic turns west onto CA 58 at Kramer, the segment of 395 north to the CA 14 junction seems to be one of the more forgotten sections of highway out in the desert -- except for Ridgecrest folks. But since the Ontario/Fontana area bisected by I-15 has become "distribution central" for SoCal, it'll only be a matter of time before commercial traffic heading north to Reno and other inland points increases to the level that improvements to the entire US 395 corridor are seriously considered.
The planned Interstate 11 would throw a monkey wrench into timely robust upgrading of US 395, would it not? At one point there were thoughts of running Interstate 11 west, perhaps to Bishop and up 395 rather than to Hawthorne and Fernley. IMO, that would have provided optimal linkage to Reno, traffic east from Vegas and Phoenix, but also from east LA.
Quote from: splashflash on March 04, 2020, 07:54:04 PM
Quote from: sparker on March 03, 2020, 04:47:26 PM
Quote from: mrsman on March 03, 2020, 08:30:44 AM
Based on everybody's comments it seems that's the best approach for 395 would be an upgrade to a divided highway expressway two lanes in each direction. That would still leave the possibility of business access. That would also be far cheaper than the freeway which doesn't appear is necessary at this time.
I think this would be justified all the way to the new 58. North of there it can remain the same winding highway it's always been.
Nexus 5X
Since for the most part commercial traffic turns west onto CA 58 at Kramer, the segment of 395 north to the CA 14 junction seems to be one of the more forgotten sections of highway out in the desert -- except for Ridgecrest folks. But since the Ontario/Fontana area bisected by I-15 has become "distribution central" for SoCal, it'll only be a matter of time before commercial traffic heading north to Reno and other inland points increases to the level that improvements to the entire US 395 corridor are seriously considered.
The planned Interstate 11 would throw a monkey wrench into timely robust upgrading of US 395, would it not? At one point there were thoughts of running Interstate 11 west, perhaps to Bishop and up 395 rather than to Hawthorne and Fernley. IMO, that would have provided optimal linkage to Reno, traffic east from Vegas and Phoenix, but also from east LA.
Not necessarily -- the planned I-11 path, generally utilizing US 95 from Las Vegas to the Fallon/Fernley area in northern NV, is not an efficient way to get from southern CA points of origin to Reno and inland points beyond because of the detour through the LV area. US 395 still provides the most direct route to northern NV from greater L.A. (this includes CA 14 from the westerly portions of that metro complex); while hardly complete as an expressway/freeway between the regions in question, it
has seen quite a bit of improvement over the last couple of decades to the point that it's a viable commercial corridor. It's doubtful that would change significantly with the development of I-11, which in fact maintains a completely different trajectory and serves a separate set of markets.
Quote from: splashflash on March 04, 2020, 07:54:04 PM
The planned Interstate 11 would throw a monkey wrench into timely robust upgrading of US 395, would it not? At one point there were thoughts of running Interstate 11 west, perhaps to Bishop and up 395 rather than to Hawthorne and Fernley. IMO, that would have provided optimal linkage to Reno, traffic east from Vegas and Phoenix, but also from east LA.
Note that, beyond the initial Vegas-to-Phoenix extent, future planning for I-11 has been an exercise undertaken exclusively by NDOT and ADOT in their respective states.
At no point has any consideration been given to running I-11 in California. What you may be thinking of is one of the early corridors under consideration where, north of Hawthorne, I-11 would have jogged west from US 95 (via roughly the US 95 Alt and NV 208 corridors) to link up with US 395. This corridor was later rejected as it would have been less feasible to construct and a more indirect routing than the intended purpose of linking Vegas and Reno.
Quote from: roadfro on March 05, 2020, 11:14:54 AM
Quote from: splashflash on March 04, 2020, 07:54:04 PM
The planned Interstate 11 would throw a monkey wrench into timely robust upgrading of US 395, would it not? At one point there were thoughts of running Interstate 11 west, perhaps to Bishop and up 395 rather than to Hawthorne and Fernley. IMO, that would have provided optimal linkage to Reno, traffic east from Vegas and Phoenix, but also from east LA.
Note that, beyond the initial Vegas-to-Phoenix extent, future planning for I-11 has been an exercise undertaken exclusively by NDOT and ADOT in their respective states.
At no point has any consideration been given to running I-11 in California. What you may be thinking of is one of the early corridors under consideration where, north of Hawthorne, I-11 would have jogged west from US 95 (via roughly the US 95 Alt and NV 208 corridors) to link up with US 395. This corridor was later rejected as it would have been less feasible to construct and a more indirect routing than the intended purpose of linking Vegas and Reno.
Yes, that study had five options I believe. All of those options indeed were within Nevada. (One option was further east, past Gabbs and through Fallon). Earlier discussion had included a 395 option to the south, (definitely not precluding others as I wrongly indicated above and not an option for public viewing as an option to be selected). Quite likely, I-11 north of Las Vegas, or at least NV 160, won't occur for decades, especially since was it not a quid pro quo if nuclear waste storage at Yucca Mountain was to be resurrected?
Quote from: splashflash on March 05, 2020, 12:31:59 PM
Quote from: roadfro on March 05, 2020, 11:14:54 AM
Quote from: splashflash on March 04, 2020, 07:54:04 PM
The planned Interstate 11 would throw a monkey wrench into timely robust upgrading of US 395, would it not? At one point there were thoughts of running Interstate 11 west, perhaps to Bishop and up 395 rather than to Hawthorne and Fernley. IMO, that would have provided optimal linkage to Reno, traffic east from Vegas and Phoenix, but also from east LA.
Note that, beyond the initial Vegas-to-Phoenix extent, future planning for I-11 has been an exercise undertaken exclusively by NDOT and ADOT in their respective states.
At no point has any consideration been given to running I-11 in California. What you may be thinking of is one of the early corridors under consideration where, north of Hawthorne, I-11 would have jogged west from US 95 (via roughly the US 95 Alt and NV 208 corridors) to link up with US 395. This corridor was later rejected as it would have been less feasible to construct and a more indirect routing than the intended purpose of linking Vegas and Reno.
Yes, that study had five options I believe. All of those options indeed were within Nevada. (One option was further east, past Gabbs and through Fallon). Earlier discussion had included a 395 option to the south, (definitely not precluding others as I wrongly indicated above and not an option for public viewing as an option to be selected). Quite likely, I-11 north of Las Vegas, or at least NV 160, won't occur for decades, especially since was it not a quid pro quo if nuclear waste storage at Yucca Mountain was to be resurrected?
IIRC, the 2016 addition of the I-11 designation to HPC #68, which effectively extended Interstate planning up to I-80, was several years after the discussion of Yucca Mountain nuke storage, which was to be predicated upon new/extended rail line into the storage area. Two options were a new line extending west from UP's Las Vegas-SLC main line, more or less paralleling NV 375, or an extension of the branch line (also UP-owned) from Hazen (between Fernley and Fallon) south to Hawthorne, historically serving the Army ammo storage/dump there; it would have continued down US 95 and then over US 6, accessing the nuclear facility from the opposite direction as the eastern proposal, which would have joined UP's current line near Caliente. Both met with opposition due to the need to transport nuclear waste through populated areas en route to either suggested option; AFAIK the concept has been indefinitely shelved. In the near term, I-11 will likely get out as far as Mercury, since it will in all likelihood be an upgrade of the current US 95 expressway -- but anything NW of there is still up in the air -- and off in the future -- as regards actual alignment planning. But even if there are upgrades to the existing facility, signage shouldn't be expected until the in-town alignment through LV has been finalized.
I have a strong feeling what will end up happening with I-11 in the long term is two separate regional efforts, one stemming up from Las Vegas and the other branching out from the Reno-Carson City area. I-11 will end up being completed when the two separate branches meet somewhere in the middle of Western Nevada.
Near term, I-11 upgrades to Indian Springs and possibly Mercury look decent. Coming up from Las Vegas it looks perfectly feasible to upgrade US-95 at least to Amargosa Valley and the NV-373 junction. The path of I-11 looks pretty simple going as far as Beatty. From there on North it gets pretty weird.
The Reno-Carson City area is growing. Then there's all the stuff off I-80 in Clark, such as Tesla's "Gigafactory." I think with growth in that region split apart in such a strange way we're likely to see multiple South outlet corridors get improved in parallel with each other. US-395 is the main route going South out of the Carson City area, but it goes down into California. US-95 going through Fallon is literally 50 miles East of Reno.
So, probably what needs to happen is the Reno area needs to figure out what the optimal South outlet to Vegas is going to be over the next 20-30 or so years and just kind of build towards that. In the meantime the difficult choices over what to do with the middle portion of the Reno-to-Vegas route, such as whether or not to bypass Tonopah in favor of a more direct route, can sort itself out as that town either grows or dries up.
^^^^^^^^^^^
The historic Reno-to-Vegas principal route has for years involved Alternate US 50 and US 50 between Fernley and Fallon. There's no reason to think that will significantly change with the advent of I-11; two of the accepted alignment alternatives involve a SW bypass of Fallon functionally connecting the N-S US 95 and the E-W US 50/50A. The area is rapidly growing as well due to its status, achieved over the last 15 years or so, as a lower-cost retirement location. Also, NDOT tends to avoid difficult terrain whenever possible (the routing of US 95 attests to that), which is why the I-11 options involving the Carson Valley were eliminated early in the process. Since much of the NV topography, particularly that in the central part of the state, consists of roughly parallel high mountain ranges separated by valleys, NDOT practice for N-S corridors has been to route them up the valleys, shunting them over to adjoining valleys via "saddles" or relatively low passes in order to connect the various points of the state. The problem with Reno and the Carson Valley is that the composite area is separated from the rest of the state by high mountains -- essentially, they're in an eastern Sierra Nevada "rift", with only a few viable ways across the eastern range (those currently occupied by I-80, US 50, and, in a convoluted fashion, NV 208 well to the south). While a few diehards have yet to give up on a Carson/Reno alignment for I-11, their numbers decidedly do not include NDOT. Fernley has been the principal southward divergence point from I-80 (and US 40 before that) since NV roads were paved; the fact that the planned corridor doesn't dump traffic directly into Reno isn't seen as a major problem.
Quote from: sparker on March 07, 2020, 01:14:59 AM
^^^^^^^^^^^
The historic Reno-to-Vegas principal route has for years involved Alternate US 50 and US 50 between Fernley and Fallon. There's no reason to think that will significantly change with the advent of I-11; two of the accepted alignment alternatives involve a SW bypass of Fallon functionally connecting the N-S US 95 and the E-W US 50/50A. The area is rapidly growing as well due to its status, achieved over the last 15 years or so, as a lower-cost retirement location. Also, NDOT tends to avoid difficult terrain whenever possible (the routing of US 95 attests to that), which is why the I-11 options involving the Carson Valley were eliminated early in the process. Since much of the NV topography, particularly that in the central part of the state, consists of roughly parallel high mountain ranges separated by valleys, NDOT practice for N-S corridors has been to route them up the valleys, shunting them over to adjoining valleys via "saddles" or relatively low passes in order to connect the various points of the state. The problem with Reno and the Carson Valley is that the composite area is separated from the rest of the state by high mountains -- essentially, they're in an eastern Sierra Nevada "rift", with only a few viable ways across the eastern range (those currently occupied by I-80, US 50, and, in a convoluted fashion, NV 208 well to the south). While a few diehards have yet to give up on a Carson/Reno alignment for I-11, their numbers decidedly do not include NDOT. Fernley has been the principal southward divergence point from I-80 (and US 40 before that) since NV roads were paved; the fact that the planned corridor doesn't dump traffic directly into Reno isn't seen as a major problem.
I haven't looked at the terrain (or a road- and topo- map recently), but is there a corridor south of Walker Lake where it would be reasonable to route an I-x11 into either Carson City or Reno? Is that what NV-208 does? I know that there is some way to get over to US-95 from Tahoe because I have done it (If I recall correctly, I didn't have to go through Carson City).
Quote from: michravera on March 07, 2020, 05:01:16 PM
Quote from: sparker on March 07, 2020, 01:14:59 AM
^^^^^^^^^^^
The historic Reno-to-Vegas principal route has for years involved Alternate US 50 and US 50 between Fernley and Fallon. There's no reason to think that will significantly change with the advent of I-11; two of the accepted alignment alternatives involve a SW bypass of Fallon functionally connecting the N-S US 95 and the E-W US 50/50A. The area is rapidly growing as well due to its status, achieved over the last 15 years or so, as a lower-cost retirement location. Also, NDOT tends to avoid difficult terrain whenever possible (the routing of US 95 attests to that), which is why the I-11 options involving the Carson Valley were eliminated early in the process. Since much of the NV topography, particularly that in the central part of the state, consists of roughly parallel high mountain ranges separated by valleys, NDOT practice for N-S corridors has been to route them up the valleys, shunting them over to adjoining valleys via "saddles" or relatively low passes in order to connect the various points of the state. The problem with Reno and the Carson Valley is that the composite area is separated from the rest of the state by high mountains -- essentially, they're in an eastern Sierra Nevada "rift", with only a few viable ways across the eastern range (those currently occupied by I-80, US 50, and, in a convoluted fashion, NV 208 well to the south). While a few diehards have yet to give up on a Carson/Reno alignment for I-11, their numbers decidedly do not include NDOT. Fernley has been the principal southward divergence point from I-80 (and US 40 before that) since NV roads were paved; the fact that the planned corridor doesn't dump traffic directly into Reno isn't seen as a major problem.
I haven't looked at the terrain (or a road- and topo- map recently), but is there a corridor south of Walker Lake where it would be reasonable to route an I-x11 into either Carson City or Reno? Is that what NV-208 does? I know that there is some way to get over to US-95 from Tahoe because I have done it (If I recall correctly, I didn't have to go through Carson City).
You're probably thinking of the NV 208/Alt US 95 connection. Topologically speaking, there's no other reasonable east-west route to connect between US 395 to US 95 that doesn't involve US 50, I-80, or going through California.
Quote from: roadfro on March 07, 2020, 06:23:42 PM
Quote from: michravera on March 07, 2020, 05:01:16 PM
Quote from: sparker on March 07, 2020, 01:14:59 AM
^^^^^^^^^^^
The historic Reno-to-Vegas principal route has for years involved Alternate US 50 and US 50 between Fernley and Fallon. There's no reason to think that will significantly change with the advent of I-11; two of the accepted alignment alternatives involve a SW bypass of Fallon functionally connecting the N-S US 95 and the E-W US 50/50A. The area is rapidly growing as well due to its status, achieved over the last 15 years or so, as a lower-cost retirement location. Also, NDOT tends to avoid difficult terrain whenever possible (the routing of US 95 attests to that), which is why the I-11 options involving the Carson Valley were eliminated early in the process. Since much of the NV topography, particularly that in the central part of the state, consists of roughly parallel high mountain ranges separated by valleys, NDOT practice for N-S corridors has been to route them up the valleys, shunting them over to adjoining valleys via "saddles" or relatively low passes in order to connect the various points of the state. The problem with Reno and the Carson Valley is that the composite area is separated from the rest of the state by high mountains -- essentially, they're in an eastern Sierra Nevada "rift", with only a few viable ways across the eastern range (those currently occupied by I-80, US 50, and, in a convoluted fashion, NV 208 well to the south). While a few diehards have yet to give up on a Carson/Reno alignment for I-11, their numbers decidedly do not include NDOT. Fernley has been the principal southward divergence point from I-80 (and US 40 before that) since NV roads were paved; the fact that the planned corridor doesn't dump traffic directly into Reno isn't seen as a major problem.
I haven't looked at the terrain (or a road- and topo- map recently), but is there a corridor south of Walker Lake where it would be reasonable to route an I-x11 into either Carson City or Reno? Is that what NV-208 does? I know that there is some way to get over to US-95 from Tahoe because I have done it (If I recall correctly, I didn't have to go through Carson City).
You're probably thinking of the NV 208/Alt US 95 connection. Topologically speaking, there's no other reasonable east-west route to connect between US 395 to US 95 that doesn't involve US 50, I-80, or going through California.
There's an entire thread on the I-11 alignment north of Vegas here (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7881.0). You can probably find more info there.
Pardon the digression into I-11 territory; it was simply to debunk the notion that any part of CA's share of US 395 (at least the southern portion that leaves the state at Topaz Lake) was being considered for an I-11 alignment. Any activity regarding upgrades of US 395 in San Bernardino County would be initiated by locally perceived need and expedited by Caltrans. My own "guesstimate" is about a 20-25 year horizon for such expansion, which would likely take the form of a freeway through the more urbanized areas from I-15 through Adelanto and an expressway north of there to north of Kramer, including a free-flow interchange with the new CA 58 freeway. Commercial traffic will only increase on that segment of 395, making safety and efficiency even more of an issue than it is today, so there will be additional pressure -- again locally initiated -- to expand the facility to safely accommodate that traffic.
Full Closure on US Route 395 at State Route 58 (Kramer Junction) starting May
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in partnership with Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad, will be closing US Route 395 (US-395) at Kramer Junction for five days to allow BNSF workers to replace concrete panels, rails and re-ballast the tracks crossing US-395 immediately north of the intersection of State Route 58 (SR-58). The railroad work is a portion of the completion work for the Kramer Junction project which began in late 2017 to realign Old State Route 58 to the new expressway east and west of "Four Corners" in San Bernardino County.
The full closure on US-395 will begin on Sunday, May 17 at 5:00 a.m. and continue through Thursday, May 21st at 5:00 p.m. at Kramer Junction. A 10-mile detour will be in place for traffic on US-395.
Does anyone else besides me feel that there are way too many route shields for US-395 on the CA-58 West exit ramp to US-395?
Quote from: kendancy66 on May 13, 2020, 01:09:12 AM
Does anyone else besides me feel that there are way too many route shields for US-395 on the CA-58 West exit ramp to US-395?
Google Streetview hasn't caught up with the CA 58 bypass yet...
Quote from: kkt on May 14, 2020, 01:41:55 AM
Quote from: kendancy66 on May 13, 2020, 01:09:12 AM
Does anyone else besides me feel that there are way too many route shields for US-395 on the CA-58 West exit ramp to US-395?
Google Streetview hasn't caught up with the CA 58 bypass yet...
Their area pix date from about 2014 or 2015; the Hinkley bypass several miles east, completed a couple of years ago, isn't shown either.
Quote from: sparker on May 14, 2020, 01:53:51 AM
Quote from: kkt on May 14, 2020, 01:41:55 AM
Quote from: kendancy66 on May 13, 2020, 01:09:12 AM
Does anyone else besides me feel that there are way too many route shields for US-395 on the CA-58 West exit ramp to US-395?
Google Streetview hasn't caught up with the CA 58 bypass yet...
Their area pix date from about 2014 or 2015; the Hinkley bypass several miles east, completed a couple of years ago, isn't shown either.
Streetview ≠ Aerial Imagery
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 14, 2020, 01:36:12 PM
Quote from: sparker on May 14, 2020, 01:53:51 AM
Quote from: kkt on May 14, 2020, 01:41:55 AM
Quote from: kendancy66 on May 13, 2020, 01:09:12 AM
Does anyone else besides me feel that there are way too many route shields for US-395 on the CA-58 West exit ramp to US-395?
Google Streetview hasn't caught up with the CA 58 bypass yet...
Their area pix date from about 2014 or 2015; the Hinkley bypass several miles east, completed a couple of years ago, isn't shown either.
Streetview ≠ Aerial Imagery
Aerial imagery is late to the party as well. Kramer, Hinkley -- nothing shown but the original 58 alignment. At least McNally has it on paper for their 2021 edition!
P.S. -- just checked; Google Maps definitely shows
both completed sections, Hinkley and Kramer. Just their airborne images that are lagging.
Let me preface this by saying I'm not an Apple fanboy (I have an Android phone and use Windows-based PCs to do graphics work). Nevertheless, the Hinkley and Kramer Junction bypasses are examples where Apple Maps is definitely ahead of Google. CA-58 is routed correctly. The satellite/aerial imagery is more up to date. It shows the finished version of the Hinkley bypass and at least shows the Kramer Junction project under construction.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 18, 2020, 12:22:34 AM
Let me preface this by saying I'm not an Apple fanboy (I have an Android phone and use Windows-based PCs to do graphics work). Nevertheless, the Hinkley and Kramer Junction bypasses are examples where Apple Maps is definitely ahead of Google. CA-58 is routed correctly. The satellite/aerial imagery is more up to date. It shows the finished version of the Hinkley bypass and at least shows the Kramer Junction project under construction.
Has anyone noticed whether the posted speed limit is 70 MPH, 65, or something else on the new section?
Quote from: michravera on May 18, 2020, 06:16:15 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 18, 2020, 12:22:34 AM
Let me preface this by saying I'm not an Apple fanboy (I have an Android phone and use Windows-based PCs to do graphics work). Nevertheless, the Hinkley and Kramer Junction bypasses are examples where Apple Maps is definitely ahead of Google. CA-58 is routed correctly. The satellite/aerial imagery is more up to date. It shows the finished version of the Hinkley bypass and at least shows the Kramer Junction project under construction.
Has anyone noticed whether the posted speed limit is 70 MPH, 65, or something else on the new section?
According to Waze, the speed limit is still at 65 mph. It could be wrong, but Waze is usually up-to-date when it comes to changes.
Hinkley Bypass is indeed signed at 65mph. A couple of speed limit signs are visible along the freeway in Google Street View.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 18, 2020, 11:05:32 PM
Hinkley Bypass is indeed signed at 65mph. A couple of speed limit signs are visible along the freeway in Google Street View.
The only part of CA 58 signed at 70 is the original freeway section through Boron; it drops to 65 WB about a mile before the California City Blvd. intersection, which Caltrans deems appropriate for expressways. I'm guessing that since the new Kramer bypass becomes an expressway once over the RR tracks east of the 395 junction they decided to set the speed at 65 to account for not only that but the likelihood of slow trucks entering or leaving the freeway at Kramer/US 395. However, in my years of driving on 58 I've found that most cars will be doing 75-80 in any case, with trucks about 5-10 less. On that corridor, it seems that everyone is trying to get from point A to point B in the least possible time; no stopping or even slowing to smell the roses (although the poppy fields near Tehachapi are pretty in the spring!).
Quote from: sparker on May 19, 2020, 02:12:53 AM
I've found that most cars will be doing 75-80 in any case
Heh, when I drove it, doing 75 mph was considered slow.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 19, 2020, 02:20:40 AM
Quote from: sparker on May 19, 2020, 02:12:53 AM
I've found that most cars will be doing 75-80 in any case
Heh, when I drove it, doing 75 mph was considered slow.
Yeah, my experience has been that 80 MPH was pretty normal for cars on the freeway and 4-lane expressway sections and more like 70 on the undivided sections. But, with the opening of a section that is freeway, 70 MPH would be legal to post. As I indicated, there was a section with nominal but infrequent cross traffic and left turns (which may now be illegal) between Mojave and California City that was posted 70 MPH before CalTrans discovered that it was illegal.
I had noticed that the Mojave bypass was originally only posted at 65MPH when it opened and I wondered why it hadn't been put up to 70. I had assumed that they were waiting for everything to complete before raising it. My question is whether that subsequently happened (and what the impediment was to doing so). I was last through there last July just before the opening. I could see the new freeway, but couldn't drive on it.
65 mph is probably a default speed limit and there has no been no push or traffic study to increase it to 70 mph since its opened. Same goes for the Kramer Junction and Hinkley bypasses. The Boron bypass likely had a speed study conducted and determined 70 mph was appropriate for the entire stretch, posted it, then realized the non-limited-access segment is not legally allowed above 65 mph. Goes to show that speed limit differentials based on functional class results in artificial limits. All highways (2-lane, 4-lane, freeway, interstate) should be permitted at 70 mph, not just freeways, and everything else 65 mph.
Honestly, California ought to change the law to permit 70 mph on non-limited-access highways where safe, and increase the rest of CA-58 to 70 mph, with the exception of through Tehachapi Mountains where 65 mph is appropriate.
The speed limit here should be minimum 85MPH. I doubt California changes it's laws to allow faster speeds. Urbanists are trying to remove a law preventing policing for profit which requires speed limits on city streets to be set within the 85th percentile which requires a traffic study or else speeding tickets can be thrown out. I hope that law stays in plane but seeing the dumb shit California keeps doing I bet it is removed.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 19, 2020, 03:06:53 PM
The speed limit here should be minimum 85MPH. I doubt California changes it's laws to allow faster speeds. Urbanists are trying to remove a law preventing policing for profit which requires speed limits on city streets to be set within the 85th percentile which requires a traffic study or else speeding tickets can be thrown out. I hope that law stays in plane but seeing the dumb shit California keeps doing I bet it is removed.
80 mph would be appropriate and in line with other western states on rural freeways.
I-15 north of Barstow, I-40, CA-58 freeway portions, and I-5 north of CA-99 split would be reasonable candidates for 80 mph in the southern part of the state, mostly where it is already posted at 70 mph.
It should at least be 75 mph on rural freeways, and 70 mph on divided highways.
It would be nice to see 75MPH on HOT lanes in the city.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 19, 2020, 02:48:04 PM
65 mph is probably a default speed limit and there has no been no push or traffic study to increase it to 70 mph since its opened. Same goes for the Kramer Junction and Hinkley bypasses. The Boron bypass likely had a speed study conducted and determined 70 mph was appropriate for the entire stretch, posted it, then realized the non-limited-access segment is not legally allowed above 65 mph. Goes to show that speed limit differentials based on functional class results in artificial limits. All highways (2-lane, 4-lane, freeway, interstate) should be permitted at 70 mph, not just freeways, and everything else 65 mph.
Honestly, California ought to change the law to permit 70 mph on non-limited-access highways where safe, and increase the rest of CA-58 to 70 mph, with the exception of through Tehachapi Mountains where 65 mph is appropriate.
I've been advocating "Drive Carefully" on most highways that carry "a majority of traffic not destined for places within 50 km of that section of road" since the 1995 debates on speed limits. I've been advocating that California go metric and permit 130 km'h especially on portions of I-5, I-8, I-10, I-15, I-40 and CASR-99 and CASR-58. Limits in Eastern California are usually reasonable when they aren't the State Maximum.
The Legislature isn't as anti-increase as one might think. Back in 1995, there wasn't, as far as I remember, a single dissenting vote on the reinstating of the pre-1974 limits. Cars have gotten a lot safer (and fuel efficient) at higher speed since 1995 and several-fold better than 1974.
A reasonable law would allow CalTrans engineers to post "any speed limit consistent with the maximum speed of safe and orderly flowing of traffic under ideal conditions" and create some interim statutory limits on sections of roads (like the 7 that I named above) that are already the state (former) maximum for which you don't need to be a professional traffic engineer to work out that a higher limit is justified. In other words, let the legislature say "85MPH on I-15 from Barstow to Nevada until the engineers have a chance to work out what is right." The reason that I would do that is that current traffic studies are based upon the posted 70MPH limit. If we have to wait for a survey, some places might never conduct one. I doubt that a study has been conducted on many of the 70MPH roads since 1974 and probably not on many of the roads posted for the maxed out at 65MPH either. My guess is that these roads were surveyed and the survey said "Safe and orderly well above the state maximum."
If they want to avoid some local opposition, they could exempt the 10 or 11 urban coastal counties from having to post above 70MPH.
I'm not a big advocate of significantly raising multi-axle vehicle speed limits, but a few adjustments, especially where cars can go 85MPH, might be in order to keep the speed differential down and let them pass REALLY slow vehicles without causing a back up all of the way to the Mexican frontier.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 19, 2020, 03:06:53 PM
The speed limit here should be minimum 85MPH. I doubt California changes it's laws to allow faster speeds. Urbanists are trying to remove a law preventing policing for profit which requires speed limits on city streets to be set within the 85th percentile which requires a traffic study or else speeding tickets can be thrown out. I hope that law stays in plane but seeing the dumb shit California keeps doing I bet it is removed.
No, it shouldn't. Drivers in California and other states are not trained well enough to safely drive at such speeds.
They're busy drinking their coffees and texting their friends and getting laws passed that these are not primary violations.
And a speed limit of 85 would attract people from all over California just to try out their high speed vehicles; CA 58 doesn't need that.
If you want to go that fast, try a track.
Quote from: kkt on May 20, 2020, 12:29:12 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 19, 2020, 03:06:53 PM
The speed limit here should be minimum 85MPH. I doubt California changes it's laws to allow faster speeds. Urbanists are trying to remove a law preventing policing for profit which requires speed limits on city streets to be set within the 85th percentile which requires a traffic study or else speeding tickets can be thrown out. I hope that law stays in plane but seeing the dumb shit California keeps doing I bet it is removed.
No, it shouldn't. Drivers in California and other states are not trained well enough to safely drive at such speeds.
They're busy drinking their coffees and texting their friends and getting laws passed that these are not primary violations.
And a speed limit of 85 would attract people from all over California just to try out their high speed vehicles; CA 58 doesn't need that.
If you want to go that fast, try a track.
75 mph or 80 mph is not unreasonable on rural freeway segments.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 19, 2020, 03:58:33 PM
80 mph would be appropriate and in line with other western states on rural freeways.
I don't think any of the three west coast states has any posted speed limits over 70 mph.
Quote from: kkt on May 20, 2020, 12:32:14 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 19, 2020, 03:58:33 PM
80 mph would be appropriate and in line with other western states on rural freeways.
I don't think any of the three west coast states has any posted speed limits over 70 mph.
Washington allows 75, and I heard that they were going to post it on I-90, but I don't think they have yet.
Quote from: kkt on May 20, 2020, 12:29:12 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 19, 2020, 03:06:53 PM
The speed limit here should be minimum 85MPH. I doubt California changes it's laws to allow faster speeds. Urbanists are trying to remove a law preventing policing for profit which requires speed limits on city streets to be set within the 85th percentile which requires a traffic study or else speeding tickets can be thrown out. I hope that law stays in plane but seeing the dumb shit California keeps doing I bet it is removed.
No, it shouldn't. Drivers in California and other states are not trained well enough to safely drive at such speeds.
They're busy drinking their coffees and texting their friends and getting laws passed that these are not primary violations.
And a speed limit of 85 would attract people from all over California just to try out their high speed vehicles; CA 58 doesn't need that.
If you want to go that fast, try a track.
People already go 85 MPH or higher on rural freeways in normal vehicles. 75 MPH on something like 58 in the Mojave Desert would be fine. If I was king of California for the day I-5 on the West Side Freeway would be signed as 85 MPH already. We have absurd things like a 70 MPH standing cap but 55 MPH is fine on one-lane/two-lane mountain highways unless otherwise signed.
An 80mph speed limit along CA-58 between Barstow and Mojave would be appropriate. When I'm on the turnpikes here in Oklahoma I tend to drive a little closer to the 75mph speed limit, but only because the gas mileage in my crew cab pickup truck starts dropping off at 80mph. It would suck having to drive at 65mph.
Regarding unsafe driver behavior, particularly the inattentive activity like texting while driving, that nonsense is happening everywhere.
Really I see far more aggravation from it while driving in urban locations along surface streets. Every traffic signaled intersection is an opportunity for conflict. There's always some idiot up front not paying attention to the lights. The light turns green but he can't move until he finishes sending his text or tweet.
We have a LOT of drivers in Lawton who routinely drive 10mph-20mph UNDER the posted speed limits. The slow poke constipating traffic flow is usually either an elderly driver or someone in a vehicle with tribal plates. People playing with their phones, eating or putting on makeup clog up the traffic flow too. Driving with the flow of traffic is basic driver's education 101 stuff. The slow pokes create conflict. All other cars moving at normal speed have to weave around. Road rage builds up in some people when they're stuck behind a slow poke and can't get around. When they see an opening they hit the gas. And that creates more differences in traffic flow. Some of the slow poke drivers think they're actually making the roads safer by driving slow. The fact is they make the situation far more dangerous.
80 mph along the freeway segments.
75 mph is currently the highest speed limit posted on a non-limited-access highway in the country, so the divided highway segments would likely be maxed out at 75 mph if even increased from 65 mph.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 20, 2020, 02:58:37 PM
80 mph along the freeway segments.
75 mph is currently the highest speed limit posted on a non-limited-access highway in the country, so the divided highway segments would likely be maxed out at 75 mph if even increased from 65 mph.
There are sections of US-95 in Arizona that are two-lane undivided with really wide shoulders that could handle 80 or 85MPH pretty easily. There are similar sections in Nevada. In addition to good sight lines and the wide shoulders (especially in Arizona), if you run off the road, there is basically nothing to hit. We should let the Engineers decide the speed limits. If the undivided road can only handle 40MPH safely and orderly under ideal conditions, that should be the speed limit. If can safely and orderly handle 85 under ideal conditions, that should be the limit. Every limit should be justified either by the design speed of the road (for newly constructed segments) or by an engineering assessment.
California has a specific law against driving more than 100 MPH on a public road. I would retain that law.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 19, 2020, 04:26:02 PM
It would be nice to see 75MPH on HOT lanes in the city.
It is on the HOT lanes on the LBJ in Dallas
Quote from: michravera on May 20, 2020, 10:51:47 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 20, 2020, 02:58:37 PM
80 mph along the freeway segments.
75 mph is currently the highest speed limit posted on a non-limited-access highway in the country, so the divided highway segments would likely be maxed out at 75 mph if even increased from 65 mph.
There are sections of US-95 in Arizona that are two-lane undivided with really wide shoulders that could handle 80 or 85MPH pretty easily. There are similar sections in Nevada. In addition to good sight lines and the wide shoulders (especially in Arizona), if you run off the road, there is basically nothing to hit. We should let the Engineers decide the speed limits. If the undivided road can only handle 40MPH safely and orderly under ideal conditions, that should be the speed limit. If can safely and orderly handle 85 under ideal conditions, that should be the limit. Every limit should be justified either by the design speed of the road (for newly constructed segments) or by an engineering assessment.
California has a specific law against driving more than 100 MPH on a public road. I would retain that law.
I wish ARDOT would understand that concept (setting speed limits based on design speed). Anyway, I'm glad Caltrans finally got the Kramer Bypass fully open. Now, they just need to work on US 395 and 4 lane it from there [bypass] down to I-15.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 20, 2020, 12:35:52 AM
Quote from: kkt on May 20, 2020, 12:32:14 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 19, 2020, 03:58:33 PM
80 mph would be appropriate and in line with other western states on rural freeways.
I don't think any of the three west coast states has any posted speed limits over 70 mph.
Washington allows 75, and I heard that they were going to post it on I-90, but I don't think they have yet.
WSDOT did a study and determined that the projected time savings didn't outweigh the projected increase in crashes, so it won't be happening.
I think all of you assuming the engineers would be raising limits extra high everywhere are a bit optimistic. From my couple years' experience in the field, engineers are definitely more on the cautious side when it comes to design standards, and all you have to do to see that is look at the speeds posted on warning signs for curves and intersections and such. In fact, those are purposely posted 5-10 mph under the design speed of the curve to allow for a safety margin, and the MUTCD even says this explicitly in its standards for them.
And if you think about putting yourself in the position of the engineer, you might be hesitant to set a speed limit right at the design speed because there is no room for error, leaving you potentially liable if you cannot justify that decision in a lawsuit after multiple crashes happen on the highway you designed.
In any case, unless California decides to start strictly enforcing their speed limits, I don't see them as a problem at all. Most traffic flows at near 80 mph in 65 zones, even in urban areas. In fact, I drove across the whole state north to south and back last September and had no issues going 78-80 in 65 zones and 83-85 in 70 zones the whole way, for 1600+ miles. In fact I only remember seeing maybe 2 officers checking speeds, and they were pulling over the traffic that was surely going as fast as I was.
Quote from: stevashe on May 23, 2020, 03:30:45 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 20, 2020, 12:35:52 AM
Quote from: kkt on May 20, 2020, 12:32:14 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 19, 2020, 03:58:33 PM
80 mph would be appropriate and in line with other western states on rural freeways.
I don't think any of the three west coast states has any posted speed limits over 70 mph.
Washington allows 75, and I heard that they were going to post it on I-90, but I don't think they have yet.
WSDOT did a study and determined that the projected time savings didn't outweigh the projected increase in crashes, so it won't be happening.
I think all of you assuming the engineers would be raising limits extra high everywhere are a bit optimistic. From my couple years' experience in the field, engineers are definitely more on the cautious side when it comes to design standards, and all you have to do to see that is look at the speeds posted on warning signs for curves and intersections and such. In fact, those are purposely posted 5-10 mph under the design speed of the curve to allow for a safety margin, and the MUTCD even says this explicitly in its standards for them.
And if you think about putting yourself in the position of the engineer, you might be hesitant to set a speed limit right at the design speed because there is no room for error, leaving you potentially liable if you cannot justify that decision in a lawsuit after multiple crashes happen on the highway you designed.
In any case, unless California decides to start strictly enforcing their speed limits, I don't see them as a problem at all. Most traffic flows at near 80 mph in 65 zones, even in urban areas. In fact, I drove across the whole state north to south and back last September and had no issues going 78-80 in 65 zones and 83-85 in 70 zones the whole way, for 1600+ miles. In fact I only remember seeing maybe 2 officers checking speeds, and they were pulling over the traffic that was surely going as fast as I was.
It's already been proven multiple times that increasing the speed limit by +5 only increases 85th percentile speeds by 2 or 3 mph at most. Most people drive at a speed they're conformable with, and the closer the speed limit is to that, the less speeding occurs.
I don't buy this whole "safety" nonsense. People aren't going to be going 85 - 90 mph now that it's 75 mph. From my experience driving in Texas, people in the 75 mph zones drove usually at or under 80 mph, with some going up to 85 mph. In the 80 mph zones, people usually drove at or under 85 mph, with only a few going above 85 mph. In the one 85 mph stretch near Austin, nearly everybody drives 90 mph or under, very rare to see anybody surpass that, and if they do, it's still under 95 mph. Some people like to push it to 100 mph since the limit gets close, but that's not the majority of drivers. For me, I have no problem driving 75 - 80 mph in a 75 mph zone, 80 - 82 mph in an 80 mph zone, 85 - 87 mph in an 85 mph zone, though in a 70 or 65 mph zone I may drive 75 - 80 mph, especially on rural segments.
On two lane roads with 70 or 75 mph in Texas, it's rare to see people exceed the limit, especially by +5 mph. Again, if the speed limit reflects the design of the road, people will have no problem obeying it. Post it low, and there's speeders. Then there's people who believe if you raise it, everybody will speed by 5-10 mph which is simply not true.
75 mph would be an appropriate speed limit for I-90 in Washington, and I find it hard to believe crashes would significantly increase. I'm willing to bet most people already drive 75 mph to 80 mph, and increasing it would not change that figure more than maybe 2 or 3 mph. It would bring the speed limit closer to reality, and the number of people disobeying it would be lowered.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 23, 2020, 03:40:06 PM
75 mph would be an appropriate speed limit for I-90 in Washington, and I find it hard to believe crashes would significantly increase. I'm willing to bet most people already drive 75 mph to 80 mph, and increasing it would not change that figure more than maybe 2 or 3 mph. It would bring the speed limit closer to reality, and the number of people disobeying it would be lowered.
Funnily enough WSDOT effectively used that fact (that speeds only increase by 2-3 mph) as a reason
against raising the speed limit since assuming there will only be a couple minutes' worth of time savings causes the cost/benefit calculation to rule in favor of preventing even a very small number of extra crashes over saving barely any time. And I don't think they considered "number of people disobeying speed limits will decrease" at all or maybe the outcome would have been different. Link to a summary of the study is below.
https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/planning/Studies/i90speedlimit/default.htm
Personally I do think 75 would be appropriate on the section of I-90 they were considering since it has the least amount of traffic, is very straight and flat, and almost exclusively serves long-distance traffic between Seattle and Spokane.
I'd also be in favor of posting the freeway sections of 58 at 70 mph. I do have reservations about posting any road with cross traffic at 70. Sure there are states like Montana and Texas that do have limits that high or higher but I'm sure the traffic volumes there in most cases are significantly lower. In a similar vain, I'd also argue 75+ is too fast for the vast majority of freeways in California since even the rural sections have much more traffic than other states that use higher limits. Exceptions to this may be I-40, eastern portions of I-8, and maybe I-10.
Quote from: stevashe on May 24, 2020, 02:08:33 AM
Sure there are states like Montana and Texas that do have limits that high or higher but I'm sure the traffic volumes there in most cases are significantly lower.
Not necessarily... in Texas at least there's numerous examples of divided highway segments with at-grade intersections carrying 15,000 - 30,000 AADT and are posted at 75 mph, including some corridors with high truck percentages such as US-59, US-77, US-281, US-84, and others.
From my experience driving on CA-58 before, I'd say 70 mph would be appropriate. Most traffic already does 75 - 80 mph, so it's not like it would make much of a difference. Most of the at-grade intersections that are spread far apart are minor.
Quote from: stevashe on May 24, 2020, 02:08:33 AM
In a similar vain, I'd also argue 75+ is too fast for the vast majority of freeways in California since even the rural sections have much more traffic than other states that use higher limits. Exceptions to this may be I-40, eastern portions of I-8, and maybe I-10.
SH-130 near Austin is posted at 80 mph with over 60,000 AADT.
75 mph is posted on many interstates carrying over 30,000 AADT, including I-35 between Austin and Dallas-Fort Worth seeing over 50,000 AADT.
Quote from: stevashe on May 24, 2020, 02:08:33 AM
Funnily enough WSDOT effectively used that fact (that speeds only increase by 2-3 mph) as a reason against raising the speed limit since assuming there will only be a couple minutes' worth of time savings causes the cost/benefit calculation to rule in favor of preventing even a very small number of extra crashes over saving barely any time. And I don't think they considered "number of people disobeying speed limits will decrease" at all or maybe the outcome would have been different. Link to a summary of the study is below.
https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/planning/Studies/i90speedlimit/default.htm
Interesting they use "average speed". If "half the drivers" are traveling at 73 mph, that means there's much faster speeds on the higher end. What's the 85th percentile? I'd estimate closer to 80 mph. There's no reason I-90 shouldn't be raised to 75 mph.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 23, 2020, 03:40:06 PM
Quote from: stevashe on May 23, 2020, 03:30:45 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 20, 2020, 12:35:52 AM
Quote from: kkt on May 20, 2020, 12:32:14 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 19, 2020, 03:58:33 PM
80 mph would be appropriate and in line with other western states on rural freeways.
I don't think any of the three west coast states has any posted speed limits over 70 mph.
Washington allows 75, and I heard that they were going to post it on I-90, but I don't think they have yet.
WSDOT did a study and determined that the projected time savings didn't outweigh the projected increase in crashes, so it won't be happening.
I think all of you assuming the engineers would be raising limits extra high everywhere are a bit optimistic. From my couple years' experience in the field, engineers are definitely more on the cautious side when it comes to design standards, and all you have to do to see that is look at the speeds posted on warning signs for curves and intersections and such. In fact, those are purposely posted 5-10 mph under the design speed of the curve to allow for a safety margin, and the MUTCD even says this explicitly in its standards for them.
And if you think about putting yourself in the position of the engineer, you might be hesitant to set a speed limit right at the design speed because there is no room for error, leaving you potentially liable if you cannot justify that decision in a lawsuit after multiple crashes happen on the highway you designed.
In any case, unless California decides to start strictly enforcing their speed limits, I don't see them as a problem at all. Most traffic flows at near 80 mph in 65 zones, even in urban areas. In fact, I drove across the whole state north to south and back last September and had no issues going 78-80 in 65 zones and 83-85 in 70 zones the whole way, for 1600+ miles. In fact I only remember seeing maybe 2 officers checking speeds, and they were pulling over the traffic that was surely going as fast as I was.
It's already been proven multiple times that increasing the speed limit by +5 only increases 85th percentile speeds by 2 or 3 mph at most. Most people drive at a speed they're conformable with, and the closer the speed limit is to that, the less speeding occurs.
I don't buy this whole "safety" nonsense. People aren't going to be going 85 - 90 mph now that it's 75 mph. From my experience driving in Texas, people in the 75 mph zones drove usually at or under 80 mph, with some going up to 85 mph. In the 80 mph zones, people usually drove at or under 85 mph, with only a few going above 85 mph. In the one 85 mph stretch near Austin, nearly everybody drives 90 mph or under, very rare to see anybody surpass that, and if they do, it's still under 95 mph. Some people like to push it to 100 mph since the limit gets close, but that's not the majority of drivers. For me, I have no problem driving 75 - 80 mph in a 75 mph zone, 80 - 82 mph in an 80 mph zone, 85 - 87 mph in an 85 mph zone, though in a 70 or 65 mph zone I may drive 75 - 80 mph, especially on rural segments.
On two lane roads with 70 or 75 mph in Texas, it's rare to see people exceed the limit, especially by +5 mph. Again, if the speed limit reflects the design of the road, people will have no problem obeying it. Post it low, and there's speeders. Then there's people who believe if you raise it, everybody will speed by 5-10 mph which is simply not true.
75 mph would be an appropriate speed limit for I-90 in Washington, and I find it hard to believe crashes would significantly increase. I'm willing to bet most people already drive 75 mph to 80 mph, and increasing it would not change that figure more than maybe 2 or 3 mph. It would bring the speed limit closer to reality, and the number of people disobeying it would be lowered.
Agreed. On the 80 MPH sections of various western rural interstates, I rarely drive over and sometimes under, depending on the terrain. It really is a comfort issue given the engineering of the road and the terrain.
Safety issues occur when slow traffic uses the fast lanes, causing speed differentials and weaving. Also, when people decide to cross multiple lanes in 10 seconds to do a last minute exit (has become a much bigger problem in California given the absolute lack of CHP on the roads over the past 5 years).
Quote from: mrsman on March 03, 2020, 08:30:44 AM
Based on everybody's comments it seems that's the best approach for 395 would be an upgrade to a divided highway expressway two lanes in each direction. That would still leave the possibility of business access. That would also be far cheaper than the freeway which doesn't appear is necessary at this time.
I think this would be justified all the way to the new 58. North of there it can remain the same winding highway it's always been.
Nexus 5X
395 gets no love from the state. They're still trying to piece together funding to continue the 4-lane widening from the 14 / 395 interchange south to China Lake Blvd. (Bus-395 to Ridgecrest). At this rate, it will take forever to make it south to 58, though I appreciate the safety upgrades they made among much of the route.
At least they are tackling widening from I-15 to Desert Flower, with the first section under construction from Adelanto north for several miles. Not sure if this will be expressway or just upgraded 4-lane divided highway. Ultimately they will need a 395 Freeway bypass of Adelanto and Victorville and I hope they preserve ROW before all the housing gets built. Not too confident of that since California does little ROW preservation for freeways anymore.
Quote from: don1991 on May 30, 2020, 02:13:23 AM
395 gets no love from the state. They're still trying to piece together funding to continue the 4-lane widening from the 14 / 395 interchange south to China Lake Blvd. (Bus-395 to Ridgecrest). At this rate, it will take forever to make it south to 58, though I appreciate the safety upgrades they made among much of the route.
At least they are tackling widening from I-15 to Desert Flower, with the first section under construction from Adelanto north for several miles. Not sure if this will be expressway or just upgraded 4-lane divided highway. Ultimately they will need a 395 Freeway bypass of Adelanto and Victorville and I hope they preserve ROW before all the housing gets built. Not too confident of that since California does little ROW preservation for freeways anymore.
Quote from: mrsman on March 03, 2020, 08:30:44 AM
Based on everybody's comments it seems that's the best approach for 395 would be an upgrade to a divided highway expressway two lanes in each direction. That would still leave the possibility of business access. That would also be far cheaper than the freeway which doesn't appear is necessary at this time.
I think this would be justified all the way to the new 58. North of there it can remain the same winding highway it's always been.
Nexus 5X
Actually, there is a pathway preserved for a US 395 freeway/expressway facility through the west end of Hesperia and Victorville, extending north from the current 395 split from I-15 and closely following the current US 395 alignment, but shifting from one side (west) to the other (east) from time to time. That continues out to where US 395 veers slightly NW south of Adelanto. Any freeway alignment would have to arc west from the current 395 facility to circumvent development in that town -- but not too far, maybe a mile to a mile and a half west. That was planned to allow as much of the present US 395 to remain as a site for commercial activity. Alternate alignments well to the west have also been proposed; most of those simply skirt the west end of Victorville development by veering NW from the 15/395 interchange around the north end of Baldy Mesa and then heading due north (and steering around the industrial parks in NW Victorville) to align with any Adelanto bypass; all of which would rejoin current US 395 at some point north of town. For a time, there was thought of simply multiplexing US 395 traffic with the eastern extension of the High Desert Corridor to interchange with I-15 north of Victorville, but since the removal of the freeway portion from those plans, it's likely that US 395 will, when upgraded, simply use one of the above options to reach the current interchange in Hesperia.
BTW, it's Hesperia and Victorville, not Caltrans, that has engaged in the preservation of the 395 corridor; those cities have elected to (hopefully) determine their own destiny as regards upgrades to the arterial in their midst. Adelanto didn't get incorporated until later in the game; San Bernardino County tends not to have that much foresight for the territory under their jurisdiction, so an outer bypass will be a necessity.
Quote from: sparker on May 30, 2020, 06:41:45 PM
Quote from: don1991 on May 30, 2020, 02:13:23 AM
395 gets no love from the state. They're still trying to piece together funding to continue the 4-lane widening from the 14 / 395 interchange south to China Lake Blvd. (Bus-395 to Ridgecrest). At this rate, it will take forever to make it south to 58, though I appreciate the safety upgrades they made among much of the route.
At least they are tackling widening from I-15 to Desert Flower, with the first section under construction from Adelanto north for several miles. Not sure if this will be expressway or just upgraded 4-lane divided highway. Ultimately they will need a 395 Freeway bypass of Adelanto and Victorville and I hope they preserve ROW before all the housing gets built. Not too confident of that since California does little ROW preservation for freeways anymore.
Quote from: mrsman on March 03, 2020, 08:30:44 AM
Based on everybody's comments it seems that's the best approach for 395 would be an upgrade to a divided highway expressway two lanes in each direction. That would still leave the possibility of business access. That would also be far cheaper than the freeway which doesn't appear is necessary at this time.
I think this would be justified all the way to the new 58. North of there it can remain the same winding highway it's always been.
Nexus 5X
Actually, there is a pathway preserved for a US 395 freeway/expressway facility through the west end of Hesperia and Victorville, extending north from the current 395 split from I-15 and closely following the current US 395 alignment, but shifting from one side (west) to the other (east) from time to time. That continues out to where US 395 veers slightly NW south of Adelanto. Any freeway alignment would have to arc west from the current 395 facility to circumvent development in that town -- but not too far, maybe a mile to a mile and a half west. That was planned to allow as much of the present US 395 to remain as a site for commercial activity. Alternate alignments well to the west have also been proposed; most of those simply skirt the west end of Victorville development by veering NW from the 15/395 interchange around the north end of Baldy Mesa and then heading due north (and steering around the industrial parks in NW Victorville) to align with any Adelanto bypass; all of which would rejoin current US 395 at some point north of town. For a time, there was thought of simply multiplexing US 395 traffic with the eastern extension of the High Desert Corridor to interchange with I-15 north of Victorville, but since the removal of the freeway portion from those plans, it's likely that US 395 will, when upgraded, simply use one of the above options to reach the current interchange in Hesperia.
BTW, it's Hesperia and Victorville, not Caltrans, that has engaged in the preservation of the 395 corridor; those cities have elected to (hopefully) determine their own destiny as regards upgrades to the arterial in their midst. Adelanto didn't get incorporated until later in the game; San Bernardino County tends not to have that much foresight for the territory under their jurisdiction, so an outer bypass will be a necessity.
Good to hear. So the ROW is actually preserved (owned) by the cities? Kind of like La Verne and cities east did with the CA-30 (later CA-210) corridor? That is great news and almost assures it will be done then.
By the way, the High Desert Corridor is not permanently dead. Just in hibernation. According to: http://sbcsentinel.com/2019/10/caltrans-pulls-plug-on-high-desert-corridor-freeway-effort/
"Rather, the agency agreed to a settlement agreement to bring to a stop any further efforts toward pursuing the freeway component of the project, including not acquiring land for the freeway right-of-way until and unless a supplemental environmental impact report is completed at some subsequent point. Under the agreement, the light rail and bike aspects of the planning process, and even acquisition process, can proceed."
Basically, Caltrans could return at a later time with a SEIR (Supplemental Environmental Impact Report) if it wanted to re-pursue the freeway portion. Not likely for a long time but it could. If it waits too long, it may have to do a full-on new EIR. By the way, IMO, no way does any kind of high speed rail, bike paths, or light rail happen along the corridor. There is no demand for any of that.
Does anyone know if the Kramer Junction bypass is fully open at this point?
Quote from: Inyomono395 on June 18, 2020, 11:41:19 PM
Does anyone know if the Kramer Junction bypass is fully open at this point?
Yes it is. Just drove it Saturday the 20th. It's open in both directions. Along the old routing, there's still work. They haven't dug up the closed part east of the junction.
Finally drove the Kramer Junction bypass. They are still doing some final touches to the bypass and it looks like there is one at-grade intersection they have not completed. Overall I was very pleased.
Finally got around to driving through the Kramer Junction Bypass. I did an album east from US 395 to Barstow to pick up both the Kramer Junction Bypass and earlier Hinkley Bypass. Definitely isn't an exciting road segment but a welcome upgrade nonetheless:
https://www.flickr.com/gp/151828809@N08/X8ohX4
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 25, 2021, 08:27:40 PM
Finally got around to driving through the Kramer Junction Bypass. I did an album east from US 395 to Barstow to pick up both the Kramer Junction Bypass and earlier Hinkley Bypass. Definitely isn't an exciting road segment but a welcome upgrade nonetheless:
https://www.flickr.com/gp/151828809@N08/X8ohX4
And there it is -- the last 2-lane section of CA 58 from CA 99 to I-15 eliminated. Knowing Caltrans, this is a laurel on which they'll rest for quite some time -- with zero traffic signals and only a handful of at-grade intersections, there'll be no rush within either agency HQ, D6, or D8 for any significant upgrades past current status (although the CA 223 intersection remains a relatively dangerous issue and will likely be the sole recipient of any official attention). If anyone's itching for an I-40 extension, holding one's breath isn't advised!
That was quite the cloudy sky view. Once again an excellent photo essay shows us what the roads are rolling like these days!
Rick
Quote from: sparker on March 26, 2021, 02:39:46 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 25, 2021, 08:27:40 PM
Finally got around to driving through the Kramer Junction Bypass. I did an album east from US 395 to Barstow to pick up both the Kramer Junction Bypass and earlier Hinkley Bypass. Definitely isn't an exciting road segment but a welcome upgrade nonetheless:
https://www.flickr.com/gp/151828809@N08/X8ohX4
And there it is -- the last 2-lane section of CA 58 from CA 99 to I-15 eliminated. Knowing Caltrans, this is a laurel on which they'll rest for quite some time -- with zero traffic signals and only a handful of at-grade intersections, there'll be no rush within either agency HQ, D6, or D8 for any significant upgrades past current status (although the CA 223 intersection remains a relatively dangerous issue and will likely be the sole recipient of any official attention). If anyone's itching for an I-40 extension, holding one's breath isn't advised!
... And just one two-lane section on CASR-152 left between San Jose and Las Vegas.
Quote from: michravera on March 26, 2021, 02:53:53 PM
Quote from: sparker on March 26, 2021, 02:39:46 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 25, 2021, 08:27:40 PM
Finally got around to driving through the Kramer Junction Bypass. I did an album east from US 395 to Barstow to pick up both the Kramer Junction Bypass and earlier Hinkley Bypass. Definitely isn't an exciting road segment but a welcome upgrade nonetheless:
https://www.flickr.com/gp/151828809@N08/X8ohX4
And there it is -- the last 2-lane section of CA 58 from CA 99 to I-15 eliminated. Knowing Caltrans, this is a laurel on which they'll rest for quite some time -- with zero traffic signals and only a handful of at-grade intersections, there'll be no rush within either agency HQ, D6, or D8 for any significant upgrades past current status (although the CA 223 intersection remains a relatively dangerous issue and will likely be the sole recipient of any official attention). If anyone's itching for an I-40 extension, holding one's breath isn't advised!
... And just one two-lane section on CASR-152 left between San Jose and Las Vegas.
And one that will, as the history of attempts at a remedy indicates, be difficult to develop. The CA 25 project in Santa Clara and San Benito counties, which includes a US 101 interchange upgrade, is considered the logical place to branch off an eastward CA 152 realignment south of the wetlands adjoining the current highway that have proven to be the principal obstacle to any on-site improvements. But so far there hasn't been much talk of this realignment -- not even of any location along CA 25 where such a facility would diverge. Part of the problem is that both the CA 25 overall project, which expands that facility all the way south to Hollister, instigated by that city's outsize growth as a commuter exurb,
and any CA 152 realignment that far south toggles between the two counties -- the dividing line for which also divides Caltrans districts 4 and 5. The details of the 25 revamp effort are still being hashed out by district engineers; adding 152 into the mix right now probably is something that will be pushed "down the road", so to speak; the principal brief is to address the commuter mess that exists on 25 between Hollister and US 101. As a consequence the 2-lane section of CA 152 will be around for some time to come.
In that respect, D6 and D8 are fortunate that CA 58 was well out of the SoCal "commuter zone" -- so they wouldn't have metro planners breathing down their necks about project details or twice-per-day traffic situations to interfere with construction efforts.
Updated the Gribblenation blog on CA 58 east of Bakersfield which now has all the new road segments:
https://www.gribblenation.org/2019/05/california-state-route-58-from-ca-99-in.html
Finally did this drive myself. I don't care for how this impairs NB traffic on US 395, but unfortunately its volumes are lower, so it'll get the short end of this stick. The old connector road (T-58) from Twenty Mule Team Rd is completely ploughed over.
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on October 04, 2021, 01:05:28 PM
Finally did this drive myself. I don't care for how this impairs NB traffic on US 395, but unfortunately its volumes are lower, so it'll get the short end of this stick. The old connector road (T-58) from Twenty Mule Team Rd is completely ploughed over.
US-395 is already impeded by going through Kramer Junction south of the bypass. If a free-flowing route is desired there, it would need a new location routing either east or west as well.