California

[Max Rockatansky]

I see a lot of discussion about if either Interstate 40 should be extended or if CA-99 should become I-7 or I-9. I get the assumption reading these comments that only one of these can happen, is that because of Federal Funds/Mileage?

Neither is anywhere close to becoming a thing.  99 has an actual concept behind it whereas 58 hasn't had one since the 1960s.

[kkt]

I see a lot of discussion about if either Interstate 40 should be extended or if CA-99 should become I-7 or I-9. I get the assumption reading these comments that only one of these can happen, is that because of Federal Funds/Mileage?

No Federal funds are likely to be coming for either project, unless some member of Congress manages to get them attached to some other bill.

[sparker]

I see a lot of discussion about if either Interstate 40 should be extended or if CA-99 should become I-7 or I-9. I get the assumption reading these comments that only one of these can happen, is that because of Federal Funds/Mileage?

No Federal funds are likely to be coming for either project, unless some member of Congress manages to get them attached to some other bill.

CA 99 from its southern terminus to Sacramento is also HPC #54 and correspondingly designated as a future Interstate, which means it's eligible for the current maximum 80% Federal funding for any efforts to bring it up to Interstate standards (it's already been fully built as a freeway, but only about 60% of it currently meets Interstate criteria).  But such funding needs to be included in yearly DOT outlays -- and matched by dedicated funds raised in-state (i.e., the remaining 20%).  In short, pretty much every party involved in planning and financing such a project needs to be on board at the same time -- and that certainly hasn't happened so far regarding CA 99's potential Interstate upgrades -- although chunks of the nearly 300-mile corridor have seen upgrades bit by bit.  At this time Caltrans seems to be quite content with the route's current rate of progress; to actually advance upgrades in a more timely or extensive fashion would likely require political input from the various congressional districts along the corridor -- and lately they seem to have other things on their collective plates (drought-related water issues affecting regional agriculture being the latest and most pressing); it'll take considerably more than the effort expended back in 2005 to get the high-priority/future Interstate corridor on the books to actually see Interstate shields on the corridor -- and as of now such an effort doesn't seem to be on anyone's "top ten" list!

[Max Rockatansky]

I see a lot of discussion about if either Interstate 40 should be extended or if CA-99 should become I-7 or I-9. I get the assumption reading these comments that only one of these can happen, is that because of Federal Funds/Mileage?

No Federal funds are likely to be coming for either project, unless some member of Congress manages to get them attached to some other bill.

CA 99 from its southern terminus to Sacramento is also HPC #54 and correspondingly designated as a future Interstate, which means it's eligible for the current maximum 80% Federal funding for any efforts to bring it up to Interstate standards (it's already been fully built as a freeway, but only about 60% of it currently meets Interstate criteria).  But such funding needs to be included in yearly DOT outlays -- and matched by dedicated funds raised in-state (i.e., the remaining 20%).  In short, pretty much every party involved in planning and financing such a project needs to be on board at the same time -- and that certainly hasn't happened so far regarding CA 99's potential Interstate upgrades -- although chunks of the nearly 300-mile corridor have seen upgrades bit by bit.  At this time Caltrans seems to be quite content with the route's current rate of progress; to actually advance upgrades in a more timely or extensive fashion would likely require political input from the various congressional districts along the corridor -- and lately they seem to have other things on their collective plates (drought-related water issues affecting regional agriculture being the latest and most pressing); it'll take considerably more than the effort expended back in 2005 to get the high-priority/future Interstate corridor on the books to actually see Interstate shields on the corridor -- and as of now such an effort doesn't seem to be on anyone's "top ten" list!

And FWIW the priority of upgrading 99 seems to come and go.  We aren't too removed from the Delano-Tulare segment upgrade being shelved.  That particular segment has a lot of the substandard bits and pieces most people associate the 99 freeway with (especially a couple nasty RORO exits). 

[nexus73]

Highway Heaven's tour of CA-60

How long before the Badlands section of 60 is finished?  I used to be stationed at March AFB when SAC had the base. 

Rick

[sparker]

I see a lot of discussion about if either Interstate 40 should be extended or if CA-99 should become I-7 or I-9. I get the assumption reading these comments that only one of these can happen, is that because of Federal Funds/Mileage?

No Federal funds are likely to be coming for either project, unless some member of Congress manages to get them attached to some other bill.

CA 99 from its southern terminus to Sacramento is also HPC #54 and correspondingly designated as a future Interstate, which means it's eligible for the current maximum 80% Federal funding for any efforts to bring it up to Interstate standards (it's already been fully built as a freeway, but only about 60% of it currently meets Interstate criteria).  But such funding needs to be included in yearly DOT outlays -- and matched by dedicated funds raised in-state (i.e., the remaining 20%).  In short, pretty much every party involved in planning and financing such a project needs to be on board at the same time -- and that certainly hasn't happened so far regarding CA 99's potential Interstate upgrades -- although chunks of the nearly 300-mile corridor have seen upgrades bit by bit.  At this time Caltrans seems to be quite content with the route's current rate of progress; to actually advance upgrades in a more timely or extensive fashion would likely require political input from the various congressional districts along the corridor -- and lately they seem to have other things on their collective plates (drought-related water issues affecting regional agriculture being the latest and most pressing); it'll take considerably more than the effort expended back in 2005 to get the high-priority/future Interstate corridor on the books to actually see Interstate shields on the corridor -- and as of now such an effort doesn't seem to be on anyone's "top ten" list!

And FWIW the priority of upgrading 99 seems to come and go.  We aren't too removed from the Delano-Tulare segment upgrade being shelved.  That particular segment has a lot of the substandard bits and pieces most people associate the 99 freeway with (especially a couple nasty RORO exits). 

Getting rid of the RORO's would be a minor undertaking compared to the big problem of underheight bridges in most of the smaller Tulare County towns through which CA 99 passes (several under 15').  Most of them are older concrete construction, so it's likely raising them wouldn't be attempted; either lowering the roadway (not a favored Caltrans practice) or simply replacing the bridges would be the probable solutions -- but the overall scope of the project would, if current Caltrans practice prevails, be broken up into small chunks -- one town or even one bridge at a time.  At that rate, it would be around 2040 or so when the job would be completed.  The one saving grace is that most of the bridges that CA 99 itself crosses have been brought out to 6 lanes already (much of that done during the repairs after the 1997 area flooding).    It wouldn't be that these D6 projects would be shelved -- just eked out at a "leisurely" pace.

[skluth]

Highway Heaven's tour of CA-60

(link removed)

How long before the Badlands section of 60 is finished?  I used to be stationed at March AFB when SAC had the base. 

Rick

The project was expected to be complete in 2022 when it started. I don't know if the project is on schedule, but it seems to be coming along quite nicely. I last went through about two weeks ago.

[jander]

 Pacific Coast Highway is open again.

https://sfist.com/2021/04/23/highway-1-washout-repaired-road-reopens-months-early/

[Max Rockatansky]

Pacific Coast Highway is open again.

https://sfist.com/2021/04/23/highway-1-washout-repaired-road-reopens-months-early/

We'll see if that lasts when the big weather front comes a knocking Sunday.

[sparker]

Pacific Coast Highway is open again.

https://sfist.com/2021/04/23/highway-1-washout-repaired-road-reopens-months-early/

We'll see if that lasts when the big weather front comes a knocking Sunday.

Supposedly D5 increased the capacity of the culvert under the new roadway by several hundred percent over the previous pipe (once bitten.......).   We'll soon see if their calculations were correct.

[Max Rockatansky]

Pacific Coast Highway is open again.

https://sfist.com/2021/04/23/highway-1-washout-repaired-road-reopens-months-early/

We'll see if that lasts when the big weather front comes a knocking Sunday.

Supposedly D5 increased the capacity of the culvert under the new roadway by several hundred percent over the previous pipe (once bitten.......).   We'll soon see if their calculations were correct.

That's interesting to hear, then in theory it shouldn't be a problem like before.  I always wonder though where the next slide will be. 

[mgk920]

Apologies if this has been covered elsewhere, but what are the latest plans for CA 178 between CA 99 and the freeway that is a bit to the east in Bakersfield, CA?  While perusing the aerial images of the CA 58/Centennial Corridor project,  I noticed some ROW clearance work that has been done on the street part of CA 178 between CA 99 and the north side of downtown Bakersfield.

Mike

[Max Rockatansky]

Apologies if this has been covered elsewhere, but what are the latest plans for CA 178 between CA 99 and the freeway that is a bit to the east in Bakersfield, CA?  While perusing the aerial images of the CA 58/Centennial Corridor project,  I noticed some ROW clearance work that has been done on the street part of CA 178 between CA 99 and the north side of downtown Bakersfield.

Mike

Ended up being relinquished between 99 and 204.

[cahwyguy]

It looks like Columbus was never posted on the Florida end of I-10, so it is essentially an orphan sign. And I doubt it's posted in between either. It's very possible that by posting the exact location of the sign, Caltrans' job may be done for them even before it gets to the legislature.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=2017.msg2566347#msg2566347

Just a note that the other end is/was on I-40. Here's my note from the names section of my page on I-10:

In additional to the other designations noted, Route 10 (in its entirety) has been officially designated the "Christopher Columbus Transcontinental Highway", although on the east coast, the corresponding sign is not on I-10 (it is on I-40). It acquired this name in Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 106, Chapter 71, in 1976. According to reports in 2003, the sign on I-10 has disappeared.

[Kniwt]

The Fresno Bee reports that the state has had a change of heart and now supports widening a dangerous two-lane 6-mile stretch of CA 41 south of Fresno:
https://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/article251598648.html

Assemblymember Jim Patterson, R-Fresno, led a group sounding the alarm earlier this week, saying it appeared the long-planned widening of 41 from Elkhorn to Excelsior avenues was in jeopardy of not being funded.

The roughly $65 million widening is a way to save lives on a deadly six-mile stretch southeast of Caruthers, according to Patterson.

The California State Transportation Authority had declined to submit a letter of support, which is not necessary to make the project go but was seen as a sign that the key connector between Fresno and the Hanford-Lemoore area would be left at two lanes.

But the state officials changed their minds this week, according to Patterson.

... The Highway 41 two-lane gap had a particularly deadly few months at the end of 2020, including five fatal crashes.

[Max Rockatansky]

The Fresno Bee reports that the state has had a change of heart and now supports widening a dangerous two-lane 6-mile stretch of CA 41 south of Fresno:
https://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/article251598648.html

Assemblymember Jim Patterson, R-Fresno, led a group sounding the alarm earlier this week, saying it appeared the long-planned widening of 41 from Elkhorn to Excelsior avenues was in jeopardy of not being funded.

The roughly $65 million widening is a way to save lives on a deadly six-mile stretch southeast of Caruthers, according to Patterson.

The California State Transportation Authority had declined to submit a letter of support, which is not necessary to make the project go but was seen as a sign that the key connector between Fresno and the Hanford-Lemoore area would be left at two lanes.

But the state officials changed their minds this week, according to Patterson.

... The Highway 41 two-lane gap had a particularly deadly few months at the end of 2020, including five fatal crashes.

Considering there is literally no alternate who people who commute that stretch (myself included) that statement about encouraging other modes of transportation is non-applicable.  The impression that I always got was that the state stopped at Elkohorn when 41 was expanded in the late 1990s due to it requiring eminent domain of most of the community of Camden.  I do think the safety aspect of this is overblown quite a bit but the two lane segment definitely does not meet the current needs of the Lemoore-Fresno commute.  Most of the accidents and fatalities come from instances where people drive too aggressively in the Tule Fog.  Similar accident trends occur on four lane 198 between Hanford-Lemoore every winter. 

[sparker]

The Fresno Bee reports that the state has had a change of heart and now supports widening a dangerous two-lane 6-mile stretch of CA 41 south of Fresno:
https://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/article251598648.html

Assemblymember Jim Patterson, R-Fresno, led a group sounding the alarm earlier this week, saying it appeared the long-planned widening of 41 from Elkhorn to Excelsior avenues was in jeopardy of not being funded.

The roughly $65 million widening is a way to save lives on a deadly six-mile stretch southeast of Caruthers, according to Patterson.

The California State Transportation Authority had declined to submit a letter of support, which is not necessary to make the project go but was seen as a sign that the key connector between Fresno and the Hanford-Lemoore area would be left at two lanes.

But the state officials changed their minds this week, according to Patterson.

... The Highway 41 two-lane gap had a particularly deadly few months at the end of 2020, including five fatal crashes.

Considering there is literally no alternate who people who commute that stretch (myself included) that statement about encouraging other modes of transportation is non-applicable.  The impression that I always got was that the state stopped at Elkohorn when 41 was expanded in the late 1990s due to it requiring eminent domain of most of the community of Camden.  I do think the safety aspect of this is overblown quite a bit but the two lane segment definitely does not meet the current needs of the Lemoore-Fresno commute.  Most of the accidents and fatalities come from instances where people drive too aggressively in the Tule Fog.  Similar accident trends occur on four lane 198 between Hanford-Lemoore every winter. 

Sometimes the California State Transportation Authority fails to consider context -- particularly in regards the differentials between rural and urban needs -- within their policy goals and statements.   A presumption that there are viable alternative forms of transportation in rural/outlying areas is at best naive and at worst troublesome from a standpoint of public safety.  Much of what passes for "mass transit" in the Valley is privately-commissioned transport of agricultural workers from one location to another on public roads; higher-capacity facilities such as what is projected for CA 41 are intrinsically safer due to separation of directional traffic as well as the channelization of intersections, removing stopped vehicles from the main traffic lanes.  It's a matter of protection of human life along with increased efficiency of travel.  Out that far the concept of "induced demand" simply evaporates (if it was viable to begin with!); folks from Fresno who want to hit the beach at Morro Bay or Pismo would be heading down 41 regardless (as they have done for most of the last century); making it less likely they'll tragically encounter a left-turning ag worker van should be considered a worthwhile endeavor!

[Max Rockatansky]

The Fresno Bee reports that the state has had a change of heart and now supports widening a dangerous two-lane 6-mile stretch of CA 41 south of Fresno:
https://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/article251598648.html

Assemblymember Jim Patterson, R-Fresno, led a group sounding the alarm earlier this week, saying it appeared the long-planned widening of 41 from Elkhorn to Excelsior avenues was in jeopardy of not being funded.

The roughly $65 million widening is a way to save lives on a deadly six-mile stretch southeast of Caruthers, according to Patterson.

The California State Transportation Authority had declined to submit a letter of support, which is not necessary to make the project go but was seen as a sign that the key connector between Fresno and the Hanford-Lemoore area would be left at two lanes.

But the state officials changed their minds this week, according to Patterson.

... The Highway 41 two-lane gap had a particularly deadly few months at the end of 2020, including five fatal crashes.

Considering there is literally no alternate who people who commute that stretch (myself included) that statement about encouraging other modes of transportation is non-applicable.  The impression that I always got was that the state stopped at Elkohorn when 41 was expanded in the late 1990s due to it requiring eminent domain of most of the community of Camden.  I do think the safety aspect of this is overblown quite a bit but the two lane segment definitely does not meet the current needs of the Lemoore-Fresno commute.  Most of the accidents and fatalities come from instances where people drive too aggressively in the Tule Fog.  Similar accident trends occur on four lane 198 between Hanford-Lemoore every winter. 

Sometimes the California State Transportation Authority fails to consider context -- particularly in regards the differentials between rural and urban needs -- within their policy goals and statements.   A presumption that there are viable alternative forms of transportation in rural/outlying areas is at best naive and at worst troublesome from a standpoint of public safety.  Much of what passes for "mass transit" in the Valley is privately-commissioned transport of agricultural workers from one location to another on public roads; higher-capacity facilities such as what is projected for CA 41 are intrinsically safer due to separation of directional traffic as well as the channelization of intersections, removing stopped vehicles from the main traffic lanes.  It's a matter of protection of human life along with increased efficiency of travel.  Out that far the concept of "induced demand" simply evaporates (if it was viable to begin with!); folks from Fresno who want to hit the beach at Morro Bay or Pismo would be heading down 41 regardless (as they have done for most of the last century); making it less likely they'll tragically encounter a left-turning ag worker van should be considered a worthwhile endeavor!

Interestingly Kings County does provide bus service for commuters down to 198 to NAS Lemoore.  To my knowledge the same service isn't available on any part of the 41 corridor.  It certainly doesn't help commuters from Fresno down to NAS Lemoore (there are a lot of them) or for that matter anyone working one of the numerous agricultural jobs in the area.  That's the problem with that one size fits all approach to transportation planning, it is a far different ballgame out in the Central Valley than the big urban areas. 

Amusingly though it interesting to see people put a political push into getting a road expanded for once.  Usually it goes the other way as late in California. 

[ClassicHasClass]

CA 259 is once again posted in the field, albeit likely briefly and probably just a contractor's oversight since the TO 210 signs are up everywhere else. A 259 shield is up on the separation from northbound I-215 to CA 259, on the right just past the gore point. Roadgeek while ye can.

[TheStranger]

CA 259 is once again posted in the field, albeit likely briefly and probably just a contractor's oversight since the TO 210 signs are up everywhere else. A 259 shield is up on the separation from northbound I-215 to CA 259, on the right just past the gore point. Roadgeek while ye can.

Ooh, this actually leads to an interesting thought:

How many California state routes that were unsigned prior to 2000 have since been signed in the field, even briefly?

262 is one that has come up a lot (and that looks to be permanent based on the 680 express lanes signage, the street sign blades at Warm Springs Boulevard, and the spring 2021 set of trailblazers eastbound past Warren and westbound past 680).

112 was signed about 8 years ago in San Leandro along Davis Street

259 is the one you mentioned and also had noted had been signed before at least once

14U is goofy but would absolutely count in this category.

114 I think was signed off 101 briefly about 3 or 4 years ago, during the interchange reconstruction for Willow Road along the Bayshore Freeway in Menlo Park.

Was 103 ever a hidden route?  187 is scantly signed but I think has had some signage for years.

When was 77 first signed along the short East Oakland freeway spur off 880? 

Pre-2000, 242 might be the example I can think of (as it existed on paper in 1964 even though the signed route remained 24 until the late 1980s).

[oscar]

CA 259 is once again posted in the field, albeit likely briefly and probably just a contractor's oversight since the TO 210 signs are up everywhere else. A 259 shield is up on the separation from northbound I-215 to CA 259, on the right just past the gore point. Roadgeek while ye can.

Is the 259 marker a standard green spade, or an orange construction-zone-type sign that is more likely to be short-lived (like the one for CA 114 in the Bay Area, which didn't last)?

Any photos would be welcome. I was just out there last month, but only briefly and didn't have a chance to check out CA 259's signage.

[mrsman]

CA 259 is once again posted in the field, albeit likely briefly and probably just a contractor's oversight since the TO 210 signs are up everywhere else. A 259 shield is up on the separation from northbound I-215 to CA 259, on the right just past the gore point. Roadgeek while ye can.

Ooh, this actually leads to an interesting thought:

How many California state routes that were unsigned prior to 2000 have since been signed in the field, even briefly?

When I was living in northern CA in the late 1990's, there was a construction project on Sacramento's 29th-30th freeway around the bridge over the American River.  While the road was signed as BIZ-80, there were construction signs ("your tax dollars at work") that had CA-51 shields on them.  This may have been the only on-road acknowledgement of the road's status as CA-51 that was easily visible to motorists.

[sparker]

CA 259 is once again posted in the field, albeit likely briefly and probably just a contractor's oversight since the TO 210 signs are up everywhere else. A 259 shield is up on the separation from northbound I-215 to CA 259, on the right just past the gore point. Roadgeek while ye can.

Ooh, this actually leads to an interesting thought:

How many California state routes that were unsigned prior to 2000 have since been signed in the field, even briefly?

262 is one that has come up a lot (and that looks to be permanent based on the 680 express lanes signage, the street sign blades at Warm Springs Boulevard, and the spring 2021 set of trailblazers eastbound past Warren and westbound past 680).

112 was signed about 8 years ago in San Leandro along Davis Street

259 is the one you mentioned and also had noted had been signed before at least once

14U is goofy but would absolutely count in this category.

114 I think was signed off 101 briefly about 3 or 4 years ago, during the interchange reconstruction for Willow Road along the Bayshore Freeway in Menlo Park.

Was 103 ever a hidden route?  187 is scantly signed but I think has had some signage for years.

When was 77 first signed along the short East Oakland freeway spur off 880? 

Pre-2000, 242 might be the example I can think of (as it existed on paper in 1964 even though the signed route remained 24 until the late 1980s).

The single remaining CA 112 indication is on an EB overhead BGS just before the I-880 interchange, which itself was rebuilt a year or two ago; prior to that rebuilding there was a single CA 112 shield posted, again EB, on a lamppost just east of the interchange.   Nothing westbound except for a single CA 61 trailblazer with a RH arrow immediately before the Doolittle Drive intersection. 

[ClassicHasClass]

Is the 259 marker a standard green spade

I've never figured out how to post pictures here, but it's a green spade. It seems to lack the PROPERTY STATE OF CALIFORNIA decal, though, which is why I hypothesise it's a contractor oversight even though it looks spec in every other aspect.

If Chris meant CA 103 near Terminal Island, I think that's always been posted in some fashion.

[Max Rockatansky]

It would be hilarious if CA 225 popped back up via a construction shield if the rail underpass ever undergoes construction.