News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

CA-58 Kramer Junction Bypass

Started by myosh_tino, July 09, 2016, 03:00:43 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

sprjus4

#300
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.


stevashe

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.

sprjus4

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.

don1991

#303
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).

don1991

#304
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.

sparker

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.   

don1991

#306
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.

Inyomono395

Does anyone know if the Kramer Junction bypass is fully open at this point?

pderocco

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.

Inyomono395

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.

Max Rockatansky

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

sparker

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!

nexus73

That was quite the cloudy sky view.  Once again an excellent photo essay shows us what the roads are rolling like these days!

Rick
US 101 is THE backbone of the Pacific coast from Bandon OR to Willits CA.  Industry, tourism and local traffic would be gone or severely crippled without it being in functioning condition in BOTH states.

michravera

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.

sparker

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. 

Max Rockatansky

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

ClassicHasClass

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.

sprjus4

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.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.