CA-58 Kramer Junction Bypass

[sparker]

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. 

[X99]

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?

[sparker]

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. 

[ClassicHasClass]

It's not much of an alternative for passenger car traffic either.

[skluth]

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.

[ClassicHasClass]

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.

[skluth]

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.

[sparker]

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.

[mrsman]

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

[sparker]

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.   

[splashflash]

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.

[sparker]

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.   

[roadfro]

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.

[splashflash]

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?

[sparker]

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.   

[Bobby5280]

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.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^^^
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.   

[michravera]

^^^^^^^^^^^
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).

[roadfro]

^^^^^^^^^^^
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.

[skluth]

^^^^^^^^^^^
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.  You can probably find more info there.

[sparker]

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.

[splashflash]

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.

[kendancy66]

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?

[kkt]

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...

[sparker]

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.