Why didn't I-5 go through Bakersfield, Fresno, and Modesto?

[US 41]

I'm obviously not from California and I have never been there, but I-5 seems to take an odd alignment from Mettler to Stockton. What I don't understand is why did they route I-5 along a very rural route instead of routing it through Bakersfield and Fresno. They obviously had to go back through and redo it since SR 99 is now a freeway it's entire distance (from Mettler to Stockton).

Even north of Sacramento it seems like it would have made more sense to have I-5 go through Yuba City and Chico, rather than the western route it goes on.

Any thoughts on this?

[kkt]

Yes, it's pretty straightforward.  In the late 1950s, 99 was very far from interstate standards.  It needed a lot of real estate takings for width and exits and lots of bypasses.  The west valley route could be built for 70 mph speeds very quickly, done within 15 years, and was the shortest route between the L.A. and S.F. metro areas.  The 99 upgrades are still ongoing some 60 years later - although it's pretty much all freeway now, it doesn't have the shoulders an interstate is supposed to have.  You wouldn't want to have the construction projects along 99 restricting capacity when there was no freeway route available.

[Henry]

So CA (then US) 99 became the exception rather than the rule, in a place where other Interstates would be built directly on top of their US route counterparts. Perhaps it was better to route I-5 that way so that long-distance traffic could miss Bakersfield and Fresno entirely on their way to L.A. or S.F./Sacramento.

[US 41]

Yes, it's pretty straightforward.  In the late 1950s, 99 was very far from interstate standards.  It needed a lot of real estate takings for width and exits and lots of bypasses.  The west valley route could be built for 70 mph speeds very quickly, done within 15 years, and was the shortest route between the L.A. and S.F. metro areas.  The 99 upgrades are still ongoing some 60 years later - although it's pretty much all freeway now, it doesn't have the shoulders an interstate is supposed to have.  You wouldn't want to have the construction projects along 99 restricting capacity when there was no freeway route available.

Still though. It didn't stop anyone else from building interstates through cities. This is almost as bad as say New Mexico building an interstate from Raton to El Paso, but avoiding Santa Fe, Albuquerque, and Las Cruces just because they could build it faster and reduce congestion on US 85.

Even though the construction is still on going on SR 99, it would have been done long ago if it was I-5. If they had built I-580 to Modesto it wouldn't really have mattered.

Distance is basically irrelevant IMO. Driving from the I-5/SR 99 split near Mettler to the I-5/SR 132 interchange, it is only 13 miles longer to go via SR 99 rather than I-5.

Lastly I don't understand the logic of we couldn't build an interstate quickly through Fresno and Bakersfield. Maybe I'm missing something, but we have interstates everywhere in LA, SF, Chicago, NYC. I'm pretty sure we could've handled building one through Fresno and Bakersfield.

I'm not saying you're wrong. It just doesn't make a whole lot of sense. It didn't really seem to stop anyone else from building interstates through their cities, such as New Mexico.

[silverback1065]

why did California decommission US 99 at all?  I know they had a great renumbering, but what's the point of demoting it from a us route to a state route with the exact same number?  It seems pointless.  Why did Oregon and Washington do it too?  (In the near future, I believe it will be I-9 anyway.)

[roadfro]

I gotta imagine that, had US/CA 99 been at least mostly freeway at the time, Caltrans would have chosen it for the I-5 alignment. Would've been cheaper than a whole new alignment.

[TheStranger]

why did California decommission US 99 at all? 

This sounds absurd but based on some interpretation that I did a while back reading old California Highways and Public Works issues from the mid-1960s (I do recall posting about that on a thread where Jake and a few other folks had found these historic excerpts) that this was just part of the rollout of the white-on-green miners' spades, basically the rationale seems to have been "99 is an important route and the portion of it that wasn't supplanted by Interstate 5 from Wheeler Ridge to Red Bluff is intrastate, so let's make it a state highway with the new color shields."

[Quillz]

why did California decommission US 99 at all? 

This sounds absurd but based on some interpretation that I did a while back reading old California Highways and Public Works issues from the mid-1960s (I do recall posting about that on a thread where Jake and a few other folks had found these historic excerpts) that this was just part of the rollout of the white-on-green miners' spades, basically the rationale seems to have been "99 is an important route and the portion of it that wasn't supplanted by Interstate 5 from Wheeler Ridge to Red Bluff is intrastate, so let's make it a state highway with the new color shields."

This seems to be correct. I've read it elsewhere on other sites.

Also, I was under the impression that the purpose of the interstates (at least initially) was to provide the shortest distance between two points, even if it means bypassing cities along the way.

[Sub-Urbanite]

Keep in mind, too, that the Central Valley cities were not nearly as significant in 1960 as they are today.

In 1960, Kern, Fresno and Modesto counties were the 13th, 11th and 19th most populous counties in California, with a combined population of about 800,000. That number is closer to 2.5 million today. I mean, they had important economies back then ... but only Fresno had any semblance of being a significant player.

[kkt]

why did California decommission US 99 at all? 

This sounds absurd but based on some interpretation that I did a while back reading old California Highways and Public Works issues from the mid-1960s (I do recall posting about that on a thread where Jake and a few other folks had found these historic excerpts) that this was just part of the rollout of the white-on-green miners' spades, basically the rationale seems to have been "99 is an important route and the portion of it that wasn't supplanted by Interstate 5 from Wheeler Ridge to Red Bluff is intrastate, so let's make it a state highway with the new color shields."

In 99's case there's not just the legibility.  By 1960, California was pretty strongly anti-duplex.  I assume US 99 would have been dropped south of Wheeler Ridge.  But still, the whole way from Red Bluff to the Oregon border would be duplexed with I-5.  (Also more than half of the distance in Oregon and Washington, which may have been important to those states and to the feds if not to California.)

I think there may be an element of freedom to relocate or remove state routes whenever they wanted, without having to consult the feds first.

[ukfan758]

Are there still talks about making highway 99 an interstate (I-9)?

[jakeroot]

Are there still talks about making highway 99 an interstate (I-9)?

Not sure how things are going, but Caltrans is proceeding with numerous projects to upgrade the 99 between Stockton and South Bakersfield to Interstate standards. Once that's done, they fully intend to make the 99 Interstate 7 or 9 (not yet decided). Last I checked, current projects weren't expected to be complete until at least 2020.

[mcarling]

Distance is basically irrelevant IMO. Driving from the I-5/SR 99 split near Mettler to the I-5/SR 132 interchange, it is only 13 miles longer to go via SR 99 rather than I-5.

13 miles is a vast additional distance when multiplied by the number of vehicles per year.  That's a huge difference in wasted or saved time, fuel, pollution, collisions, etc.

[roadfro]

Are there still talks about making highway 99 an interstate (I-9)?

Not sure how things are going, but Caltrans is proceeding with numerous projects to upgrade the 99 between Stockton and South Bakersfield to Interstate standards. Once that's done, they fully intend to make the 99 Interstate 7 or 9 (not yet decided). Last I checked, current projects weren't expected to be complete until at least 2020.

Caltrans has not yet taken steps to convert other state highways to Interstates where they are already a continuation of an Interstate highway (e.g. SR 15, SR 210), where it seems pretty clear the intent is to have the Interstate shields on these extensions. Thus, it doesn't seem likely that Caltrans would be eager to convert a much longer highway like SR 99 to a completely new number like I-9.

[jakeroot]

Are there still talks about making highway 99 an interstate (I-9)?

Not sure how things are going, but Caltrans is proceeding with numerous projects to upgrade the 99 between Stockton and South Bakersfield to Interstate standards. Once that's done, they fully intend to make the 99 Interstate 7 or 9 (not yet decided). Last I checked, current projects weren't expected to be complete until at least 2020.

Caltrans has not yet taken steps to convert other state highways to Interstates where they are already a continuation of an Interstate highway (e.g. SR 15, SR 210), where it seems pretty clear the intent is to have the Interstate shields on these extensions. Thus, it doesn't seem likely that Caltrans would be eager to convert a much longer highway like SR 99 to a completely new number like I-9.

Not my words. See this PDF from Caltrans. The proposal was put forth Fresno's Regional Jobs Initiative (RJI) in 2003, which called for the transition from state route to interstate to help promote economic growth. Caltrans seems to have picked up on the idea.

Interstate designation, under the current proposal, would apply to the 260 mile segment between the junction of State Route 99 with I-5 south of Bakersfield to I-5 in Stockton using State Route 4 as the connector to I-5. Since there is an I-99 route currently in existence in Pennsylvania, it is anticipated that should designation be granted, the Route 99 designation would become I-7 or I-9 to satisfy Interstate numbering convention.

[Quillz]

Are there still talks about making highway 99 an interstate (I-9)?

On paper, yes. In practice, it will take decades, if it ever happens at all. It's one thing if all of 99 between Wheeler Ridge and at least Stockton was already interstate standards, then it's just a matter of submission and waiting, which itself has taken over a decade for the CA-210 segment. But it's not, and Caltrans still isn't sure where the northern end should be: Stockton, Sacramento, Red Bluff? In reality, there is still a lot of work to be done, and then there is the long waiting period. I wouldn't expect anything to happen to CA-99 in terms of renumbering for at least 20 years at this point.

[kkt]

Not my words. See this PDF from Caltrans. The proposal was put forth Fresno's Regional Jobs Initiative (RJI) in 2003, which called for the transition from state route to interstate to help promote economic growth. Caltrans seems to have picked up on the idea.

Interstate designation, under the current proposal, would apply to the 260 mile segment between the junction of State Route 99 with I-5 south of Bakersfield to I-5 in Stockton using State Route 4 as the connector to I-5. Since there is an I-99 route currently in existence in Pennsylvania, it is anticipated that should designation be granted, the Route 99 designation would become I-7 or I-9 to satisfy Interstate numbering convention.

Yeah, but that was a Fresno business proposal, not Caltrans or the state government endorsing it.  The state assembly bill seemed pretty lukewarm, allowing the governor to seek interstate approval only if it wasn't going to cost the state anything - so complete grandfathering of whatever substandard conditions the state wasn't fixing anyway, or else federal money to fix them all (like that's gonna happen).

It also seems weird to me to have the interstate end at CA 4 at the north end, instead of at Sacramento.  I know Stockton is the port, but still.

[Quillz]

Not my words. See this PDF from Caltrans. The proposal was put forth Fresno's Regional Jobs Initiative (RJI) in 2003, which called for the transition from state route to interstate to help promote economic growth. Caltrans seems to have picked up on the idea.

Interstate designation, under the current proposal, would apply to the 260 mile segment between the junction of State Route 99 with I-5 south of Bakersfield to I-5 in Stockton using State Route 4 as the connector to I-5. Since there is an I-99 route currently in existence in Pennsylvania, it is anticipated that should designation be granted, the Route 99 designation would become I-7 or I-9 to satisfy Interstate numbering convention.

Yeah, but that was a Fresno business proposal, not Caltrans or the state government endorsing it.  The state assembly bill seemed pretty lukewarm, allowing the governor to seek interstate approval only if it wasn't going to cost the state anything - so complete grandfathering of whatever substandard conditions the state wasn't fixing anyway, or else federal money to fix them all (like that's gonna happen).

It also seems weird to me to have the interstate end at CA 4 at the north end, instead of at Sacramento.  I know Stockton is the port, but still.

I assumed the logic is that CA-4 through Stockton is now on a freeway alignment, while some of CA-99 between Stockton and Sacramento still wasn't. Although that isn't the case anymore, IIRC.

There are just so many remaining issues regarding CA-99 becoming an interstate that I just don't think it will ever happen, at least in my lifetime. Not to mention that there might be a certain amount of "goodwill" associated with CA-99 in much the same way there is with CA-1 and US-101 (and the former US-66). In that it's a historic number that is associated with the state and evokes a certain image (this is just the roadgeek in me thinking out loud, I know that doesn't actually mean anything in the real world).

[TheStranger]

I assumed the logic is that CA-4 through Stockton is now on a freeway alignment, while some of CA-99 between Stockton and Sacramento still wasn't. Although that isn't the case anymore, IIRC.

Route 99 between Sacramento and Stockton has been freeway since the mid-1960s (when the South Sacramento Freeway portion towards Elk Grove was completed) when it was still US 50 & US 99.

There have been projects since 2013 to bypass some of the at-grades with new alignment dual carriageway, but that's way further south almost towards Madera.

[andy3175]

Are there still talks about making highway 99 an interstate (I-9)?

Not sure how things are going, but Caltrans is proceeding with numerous projects to upgrade the 99 between Stockton and South Bakersfield to Interstate standards. Once that's done, they fully intend to make the 99 Interstate 7 or 9 (not yet decided). Last I checked, current projects weren't expected to be complete until at least 2020.

Caltrans has not yet taken steps to convert other state highways to Interstates where they are already a continuation of an Interstate highway (e.g. SR 15, SR 210), where it seems pretty clear the intent is to have the Interstate shields on these extensions. Thus, it doesn't seem likely that Caltrans would be eager to convert a much longer highway like SR 99 to a completely new number like I-9.

Not my words. See this PDF from Caltrans. The proposal was put forth Fresno's Regional Jobs Initiative (RJI) in 2003, which called for the transition from state route to interstate to help promote economic growth. Caltrans seems to have picked up on the idea.

Interstate designation, under the current proposal, would apply to the 260 mile segment between the junction of State Route 99 with I-5 south of Bakersfield to I-5 in Stockton using State Route 4 as the connector to I-5. Since there is an I-99 route currently in existence in Pennsylvania, it is anticipated that should designation be granted, the Route 99 designation would become I-7 or I-9 to satisfy Interstate numbering convention.

California 99 is undergoing a major transformation currently. One of the key focal points is to expand the freeway to six lanes for its entire length, along with elimination of at-grade intersections (at least for the portion of CA 99 south of Sacramento). Significant strides in this direction can be seen especially near Atwater and Merced, where the roadway has been realigned to allow expansion. Most of the route in Kern County (Bakersfield) is at least six lanes if not eight lanes. Additional improvements are needed to make full Interstate standards, and in addition to shoulder widths, bridge heights also remain a concern. The expansion projects will address bridges as they proceed, but they won't raise all bridge heights to Interstate standards, at least not for several years. CA 99 has multiple construction zones currently, so it is getting a makeover and will be a much better drive very soon ... and once it is consistently six lanes from Bakersfield to Stockton, it may have some advantages over mostly four-lane I-5 between Wheeler Ridge and Stockton. CA 99 around Stockton has seen major changes recently too, even north of CA 4. As for an Interstate designation for CA 99 ... I will believe it when I see it. Caltrans does not prioritize adding Interstates, as evidenced by the continuing state route status for those portions of CA 15, CA 210, and CA 905 that already meet Interstate standards (just as roadfro said). And when the easternmost segment of I-210 was removed from the Orange Freeway (CA 57), the Interstate status was removed along with it. So, we'll just have to wait to see how much improvements are completed along CA 99 and whether someone will make application to request an Interstate designation (either I-7 or I-9 appear most likely, although they could call it the western I-99 and not confuse very many people, ha ha!). At this point, I think CA 99 will remain CA 99 until these major upgrades (as outlined in the corridor business plan at 2012 estimated cost of $6.5 billion - see executive summary of the 2012 update of the 99 corridor business plan at http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist6/planning/sr99bus/updated_bp_vol1_feb2013.pdf) are completed, along with another $1.0 billion of upgrades to bring the corridor to Interstate standards (see page 20 of Economic Impact Analysis of Transportation Improvements and Interstate Designation to Route 99 in the San Joaquin Valley Region at http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist6/planning/docs/sr99econ_benefits_study_final_jul2009_remi.pdf).

Speaking of Interstate standards on California highways, I found this passage from the CA 99 corridor business plan somewhat instructive about how Caltrans standardizes its freeway construction:

http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist6/planning/sr99bus/updated_bp_vol1_feb2013.pdf (page 38)

3.5 Caltrans Design Standards: Background and Application: The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) continually updates design guidelines for roads through the publication of A Policy on the Geometric Design of Highway and Streets (Green Book). These guidelines are created in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and State transportation agencies. The FHWA has adopted applicable parts of the Green Book as the national standard for roads on the National
Highway System (NHS). NHS roads comprise all the Interstate system and some other primary routes. While not an Interstate, Route 99 is included in the NHS. Although the standards contained in the Green Book also apply to the Interstate system, additional guidance applicable to the design of highways on the Interstate system is included in another AASHTO publication, A Policy on Design Standards — Interstate System, dated January 2005.

Caltrans typically adopts the guidelines established by AASHTO, including the Interstate System design standards, and incorporates
them into Caltrans' Highway Design Manual (Black Book). The Black Book then serves as the basis for design standards for all State highways in California, Interstate and non-Interstate.

While new standards are periodically adopted, it does not imply that existing standards or highways are unsafe, nor does it mandate the initiation of highway improvement projects to meet these new standards. It is industry practice to compare existing features to the new standards whenever a highway improvement project is proposed. Specific investigations, accident history, and engineering analysis often indicate that existing non-standard features are performing in a satisfactory manner. These findings are documented in a Design Exception Fact Sheet and retained in the project files. These design exceptions are critical for the defense of tort liability cases filed against the State.

The FHWA has mandated that design exceptions be justified for 13 controlling criteria on State freeways. The authority to approve design exceptions for these 13 criteria has been delegated to Caltrans for non-Interstate freeways; however, FHWA retains approval authority for these 13 criteria on Interstate highways. FHWA's 13 controlling criteria are the following:

 Design speed
 Shoulder width
 Horizontal alignment
 Grade
 Cross slope
 Horizontal clearance
 Bridge structural capacity
 Lane width
 Bridge width
 Vertical alignment
 Stopping sight distance
 Superelevation
 Vertical clearance

Meanwhile, over on the I-5 corridor, I believe the focus currently is on high speed rail as a means of moving passengers between Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area. There have been repaving jobs especially in Kern County over the last few years, but I am not aware of any pending capacity improvements on I-5 at least between Wheeler Ridge and Tracy.

And there is always the thought that CA 65 should someday be built to provide an eastern alternative to CA 99, but I can't easily locate the outcome of the last study or studies on feasibility to construct a portion or all of the long missing link.

[Occidental Tourist]

Excellent comments, Andy!

[myosh_tino]

Meanwhile, over on the I-5 corridor, I believe the focus currently is on high speed rail as a means of moving passengers between Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area. There have been repaving jobs especially in Kern County over the last few years, but I am not aware of any pending capacity improvements on I-5 at least between Wheeler Ridge and Tracy.

This is a topic of discussion that comes up every once in a while up here in the S.F. Bay Area, typically around major holidays due to the sheer number of people who travel to and from the Los Angeles area.  Many want to see Caltrans add a 3rd lane in each direction but according to our traffic pundits like Gary Richards of the San Jose Mercury News, the cost of adding an additional lane from Tracy to the 99/5 interchange near the Grapevine is pretty steep.  From my personal experience driving I-5 between CA-152 and CA-46 a couple of times a year going to and from Las Vegas, I think a 3rd lane should be considered given the amount of truck traffic on I-5.  Either that or remove the 55 MPH speed limit for trucks (which isn't going to happen).

[kkt]

So the posted speed limit is now 55 mph truck, 70 mph car?  That seems like an excessive difference.

Disappointed to learn that the 3rd lane would be too much.  I thought enough space for a third lane in the median was a design criterion for the interstates.  (Perhaps to the Murky News $1 would be too much?)

[Desert Man]

Pretty odd for an interstate like the 5 to avoid 3 significant areas of population: Bakersfield, Fresno and Stockton-Modesto. The need for a modern interstate is why it was planned to go further west away from the Central Valley cities and the old 99 wasn't standard at the time when I-5 was developed.   

[coatimundi]

Still though. It didn't stop anyone else from building interstates through cities. This is almost as bad as say New Mexico building an interstate from Raton to El Paso, but avoiding Santa Fe, Albuquerque, and Las Cruces just because they could build it faster and reduce congestion on US 85.

Well, I-25 does mostly avoid Santa Fe, partially for geography, costs of bringing it into the city, and for the fact that the road would have had to go even farther out of the way than it already does. Santa Fe then built out toward the interstate, in a much less aesthetically pleasing manner, and swallowed up Agua Dulce, which is near where I-25 meets NM 14. I-25's course through the Sangre de Cristos is along the Santa Fe Trail and is the easiest way to get through. It's also common sense: connect the state's largest city and commercial center with the capital. It brings in the traffic volumes that justify interstates. With all of the tribal land on the corridor though, I don't think it would be built again today.
But the interstates were originally built to service a certain amount of traffic and, even in the 50's, the numbers likely warranted a highway separate from both 99 and 101.

I'm pretty sure we could've handled building one through Fresno and Bakersfield.

I've thought about this before, and my guess would be that, for one, it duplicates I-5 and doesn't really provide any benefit to the system as a whole, but it also would be another intrastate, which I thought was somewhat of an official faux pas in modern times of interstate numbering.

I prefer using 99 in almost all cases. Mostly because the options for stopping are a lot better, but it's also more pleasant. 99 carries more local traffic while the cars on the Westside Freeway seem to almost all be going as fast as possible between the Bay Area and LA.