Interstate 40

[Max Rockatansky]

How busy do the desert portions of CA-58 west of Mojave get during peak weekends?

It's not so much passenger traffic but rather freight which causes most of the issues over Tehachapi Pass.

I meant to say east of Mojave, not west, that's my fault.

It seems from the above post, CA-58 isn't carrying any large volumes that would warrant an immediate need for full control of access at minor intersections. Not to say it shouldn't happen, but it certainly does not seem like a priority or pressing need.

I'll say it then, it shouldn't happen because the current highway is sufficient.  I'm not sure what the new traffic counts are now that the Hinkley/Kramer Junctions bypasses are complete, but it definitely isn't heavy.

[sprjus4]

If over time various intersections are closed off one by one with an ultimate result of creating a fully controlled access facility, that wouldn't be a problem necessarily.

It's not pressing to the point a full blown project is needed to "upgrade the highway to interstate standards". At most, piecemeal. But I wouldn't say no upgrades at all.

[skluth]

The only needed upgrades along the corridor are a third lane through Tehachapi Pass and and an interchange at the CA 223 intersection east of Arvin. The recent upgrades around Kramer Jct. were the last needed upgrades east of Mojave. The highway right now is more than adequate. US 395 around Kramer Jct. should still be improved, but that's another discussion.

[Max Rockatansky]

If over time various intersections are closed off one by one with an ultimate result of creating a fully controlled access facility, that wouldn't be a problem necessarily.

It's not pressing to the point a full blown project is needed to "upgrade the highway to interstate standards". At most, piecemeal. But I wouldn't say no upgrades at all.

Might want to give those interior shoulders a gander in that Mojave-Barstow corridor, they aren't up to par with Interstate standards and would be a hard sell for state highway funds with the CTC.

[sprjus4]

I never said bringing the corridor up to interstate standards, per se, I was saying in fact not doing that. But simply creating a freeway (fully controlled access facility) over a long period of time by one by one closing intersections.

Not touching the mainline itself.

[Max Rockatansky]

I never said bringing the corridor up to interstate standards, per se, I was saying in fact not doing that. But simply creating a freeway (fully controlled access facility) over a long period of time by one by one closing intersections.

Not touching the mainline itself.

But even that isn't necessary.  There is a lot of rural ranches and California City property that just plain does not need interchanges.  If US 101 isn't getting interchanges when they are far more merited than CA 58 isn't.

[stevashe]

If over time various intersections are closed off one by one with an ultimate result of creating a fully controlled access facility, that wouldn't be a problem necessarily.

It's not pressing to the point a full blown project is needed to "upgrade the highway to interstate standards". At most, piecemeal. But I wouldn't say no upgrades at all.

Might want to give those interior shoulders a gander in that Mojave-Barstow corridor, they aren't up to par with Interstate standards and would be a hard sell for state highway funds with the CTC.

The interstate standard for interior shoulders is only 4 ft when there are two lanes per direction. Those shoulders look like they could be 4 feet wide to me. /shrug

(I do agree with you that upgrades in general aren't really needed, just wanted to set that straight.)

[Max Rockatansky]

If over time various intersections are closed off one by one with an ultimate result of creating a fully controlled access facility, that wouldn't be a problem necessarily.

It's not pressing to the point a full blown project is needed to "upgrade the highway to interstate standards". At most, piecemeal. But I wouldn't say no upgrades at all.

Might want to give those interior shoulders a gander in that Mojave-Barstow corridor, they aren't up to par with Interstate standards and would be a hard sell for state highway funds with the CTC.

The interstate standard for interior shoulders is only 4 ft when there are two lanes per direction. Those shoulders look like they could be 4 feet wide to me. /shrug

(I do agree with you that upgrades in general aren't really needed, just wanted to set that straight.)

To be specific I'm referring to the soft portions which are largely located between the end of the freeway in Mojave and Kramer Junction.  This would also be the same segment of CA 58 which has the California City at-grade intersections.  East of Kramer Junction there are a handful of at-grade intersections but I believe the rest of the roadway would meet current Interstate specifications otherwise.

[stevashe]

If over time various intersections are closed off one by one with an ultimate result of creating a fully controlled access facility, that wouldn't be a problem necessarily.

It's not pressing to the point a full blown project is needed to "upgrade the highway to interstate standards". At most, piecemeal. But I wouldn't say no upgrades at all.

Might want to give those interior shoulders a gander in that Mojave-Barstow corridor, they aren't up to par with Interstate standards and would be a hard sell for state highway funds with the CTC.

The interstate standard for interior shoulders is only 4 ft when there are two lanes per direction. Those shoulders look like they could be 4 feet wide to me. /shrug

(I do agree with you that upgrades in general aren't really needed, just wanted to set that straight.)

To be specific I'm referring to the soft portions which are largely located between the end of the freeway in Mojave and Kramer Junction.  This would also be the same segment of CA 58 which has the California City at-grade intersections.  East of Kramer Junction there are a handful of at-grade intersections but I believe the rest of the roadway would meet current Interstate specifications otherwise.

Yes that is the area I'm looking at. For example this is right before one of those California City intersections going eastbound. The shoulder looks adequate to me.

https://goo.gl/maps/WKiJZXrUSEB3aErL8

[Max Rockatansky]

^^^

Yes, that's the segment I'm referencing with the soft interior shoulders.  The hard portion of the left shoulder never appeared to be the required four feet in the California City area.  Looking through some of my older photos of the Tehachapi Pass-Mojave corridor it appears that segment is barely four feet hard surface.

Anyone passing through CA 58 any time soon?  If I would like to send you my tape measure along with $20 dollars.   

[stevashe]

Yeah it definitely looks skinny, but as far as I can tell from the measurements I can do here remotely, it is just barely 4 feet. Here's a screenshot of actual Interstate 40 for comparison:

[kkt]

Yeah, looks like 3, maybe 4, feet.    The desert sand is probably hard enough to drive on, so I would care more about putting in a median barrier.

[ethanhopkin14]

Given the historical importance of US-66 it's baffling how that route wound up being decommissioned while so many far less important US Highway-signed routes remained signed as such. Our highway system has US route overlaps that often run as deep as 3 route designations. Here in the Lawton area we have US-62/277/281 sharing the same pavement in certain locations. I can't think of any examples off-hand, but it wouldn't surprise me to see any US highway concurrencies that run 4 route numbers deep.

The US highway system has a great deal of 3-digit sub-routes. US-166 and US-266 still have active route segments even though their parent route is effectively dead. Given all the discretion I see in how highways are named there just doesn't seem to be any legit excuse for US-66 to be taken out of the system.

I would argue that US-66 being decommissioned adds to it's appeal and charm.  Now people "hunt" for old alignments.   

[Scott5114]

Given the historical importance of US-66 it's baffling how that route wound up being decommissioned while so many far less important US Highway-signed routes remained signed as such. Our highway system has US route overlaps that often run as deep as 3 route designations. Here in the Lawton area we have US-62/277/281 sharing the same pavement in certain locations. I can't think of any examples off-hand, but it wouldn't surprise me to see any US highway concurrencies that run 4 route numbers deep.

The US highway system has a great deal of 3-digit sub-routes. US-166 and US-266 still have active route segments even though their parent route is effectively dead. Given all the discretion I see in how highways are named there just doesn't seem to be any legit excuse for US-66 to be taken out of the system.

I would argue that US-66 being decommissioned adds to it's appeal and charm.  Now people "hunt" for old alignments.   

I mean, you can do that with US-99 or US-91 too. Nobody outside the roadgeek community gives a damn about old US-91 or finds it "appealing" or "charming", so it's not like merely being a decommissioned route has any difference in terms of that.

[Max Rockatansky]

Given the historical importance of US-66 it's baffling how that route wound up being decommissioned while so many far less important US Highway-signed routes remained signed as such. Our highway system has US route overlaps that often run as deep as 3 route designations. Here in the Lawton area we have US-62/277/281 sharing the same pavement in certain locations. I can't think of any examples off-hand, but it wouldn't surprise me to see any US highway concurrencies that run 4 route numbers deep.

The US highway system has a great deal of 3-digit sub-routes. US-166 and US-266 still have active route segments even though their parent route is effectively dead. Given all the discretion I see in how highways are named there just doesn't seem to be any legit excuse for US-66 to be taken out of the system.

I would argue that US-66 being decommissioned adds to it's appeal and charm.  Now people "hunt" for old alignments.   

I mean, you can do that with US-99 or US-91 too. Nobody outside the roadgeek community gives a damn about old US-91 or finds it "appealing" or "charming", so it's not like merely being a decommissioned route has any difference in terms of that.

Regarding US 99 there has been some attempts to give it a US 66 mainstream appeal.  While to some extent there has been "some"  advancement towards that mainstream appeal the highway has far more of a Roadgeek following by a large margin.  When I did a presentation for the alignment of history of US 99 in the Central Valley for the CCITE it was very apparent the talking points were not mainstream like US 66 would have been.  I would go as far to say that the 99 corridor is now more associated as a state highway. 

Truth be told, one of the biggest turn offs to US 66 is that it has mainstream appeal.  It is very hard to get anywhere with that crowd regarding breaking through the conjecture and myth that has been allowed to accumulate with US 66 for so long.  The fact that people still believe that US 66 ended at 7th and Broadway is pretty telling that the myth means more than reality.