What if Bakersfield, CA had freeway bypasses on either north or south of the cit

[ACSCmapcollector]

What if Bakersfield, CA had freeway bypasses on either north or south of the city?

What would the city of Bakersfield,CA would look like if it had freeway bypasses or beltways on either north or south of the city?   Any comments...?   

Scott C. Presnal
Morro Bay, CA

[Avalanchez71]

What if SR 99 was still US 99?  What if BUS SR 99 was SR 99?

[ACSCmapcollector]

Business Route CA 99, when that route goes north it turns into California state route 204 which is  not to be considered to be a bypass.  Caltrans would think up new state highway numbers for a beltway.

Scott C. Presnal
Morro Bay, CA

[coatimundi]

Google "Bakersfield Beltway" and you'll see that this has been in the works since the 80's. They're proposed as at-grade roads, but to be upgraded to freeways as traffic increases. One section already exists on the far west side of town.

[Max Rockatansky]

Not really necessary given the current traffic volume.  I don't seem to have much of an issue with traffic jams except sometimes on 99...but the disperse quick during rush hour.  The terrain with Kern River Canyon kind of makes a northern bypass incredibly difficult considering how expensive land costs would be.

Isn't this...ummmm.....kind of fictional?...like fictional forum type thread?

[ACSCmapcollector]

It sounds to me like a typical Simcity 4 Rush Hour traffic thing to me, not that much in the way of fantasy.  But I kind of enjoyed the idea as it can last.  Yes it does, Max...I agree.  I will look into searching for "Bakersfield Beltway".

This is what i seen so far: https://www.co.kern.ca.us/planning/pdfs/mbgp/MBGPChapterIII.pdf

http://www.kerncog.org/images/docs/studies/W_Beltway_Corridor_Study.pdf

Scott C. Presnal
Morro Bay, CA

[myosh_tino]

What if SR 99 was still US 99?  What if BUS SR 99 was SR 99?

That's not possible in California.  Route number duplication is not allowed.

[ACSCmapcollector]

Yes I agree with Myoso_Tino on that subject.

Scott C. Presnal
Morro Bay, CA

[Max Rockatansky]

What if SR 99 was still US 99?  What if BUS SR 99 was SR 99?

That's not possible in California.  Route number duplication is not allowed.

Which is probably the most silly rule Caltrans insists on sticking by on.  That's how that whole i-238 debacle got started because there couldn't conceivably be room for a CA 180 and I-180 in two separate parts of the state. I think what that poster was getting at is why couldn't CA 99 be a U.S. route still and the old loops that are listed as business routes be state highways?  You could probably do something with three dig x99 routes but why would Caltrans pick up maintenance on roadways that they already relinquished? 

[ACSCmapcollector]

This is about the possible beltway bypasses around Bakersfield, CA.  I think we are getting off the subject talking about CA 99 as U.S. 99.  I think Interstate 40 would never have a reality if AASHTO gets off their butt and approve CA 58 as an Interstate extension for Interstate 40, from Barstow, CA through Bakersfield, CA to Interstate 5, the Westside Freeway.

Scott C. Presnal
Morro Bay, CA

[cahwyguy]

Max: "Which is probably the most silly rule Caltrans insists on sticking by on.", referring to "Route number duplication is not allowed."

To be precise, that is not the "rule". What is the fact is that all state routes are defined in the state highway code, legislatively, and that -- as all such highways are maintained by the state -- there is no distinction made regarding the type of sign on the route. This means that, from the state's legislative point of view, it is Route 99 -- not CA 99 or US 99 or I-99, but Route 99. As such, a distinct I-180 cannot be created because Route 180 already exists. Existing Route 180 could be extended, but that means the extension must connect somehow.

This, perhaps, is why you won't all the renumberings talked about here. Would Route 58 become an extension of Route 40 if it becomes Interstate standard? Remember, such a distinction would require not only AASHTO approval, but the state legislature to pass a bill, and the governor to sign it, to change the state highway code. The governor would consider all the costs, and it would likely require significant Caltrans recommendations to justify the cost. If the route is already defined in the code (such as Route 210), it is easier to change the sign, but Caltrans then might not see the point in doing so -- again, they have limited budget, which they would rather spend on repairing existing roads and making things safer, then to just swap a shield to satisfy some nebulous road aficionado's desire.

[Avalanchez71]

What does AAHSTO have to do with Caltrans and SR58? 

[ACSCmapcollector]

Then the same thing happened to California state route 215 from Moreno Valley to Temecula, I would still have the old maps from the Automobile Club of Southern California for Riverside County, and the Riverside & Moreno Valley city map from ACSC showing a California state route 215, it wasn't until 1994 when that section was upgraded to Interstate 215, between CA 60/I-215 jct to Hemet, CA (which I would get another map for the city, because I collect ACSC maps) too.  Have you noticed that cahwyguy too, like I have?  Maybe AASHTO approved that ahead of time, knowing it would be a freeway back then?

Scott C. Presnal
Morro Bay, CA

[cahwyguy]

What does AAHSTO have to do with Caltrans and SR58? 

In another discussion, there is talk of extending I-40 along Route 58 and renumbering it.

[ACSCmapcollector]

Where can I find that discussion, cahwyguy at, please?

Scott C. Presnal
Morro Bay, CA

[cahwyguy]

Then the same thing happened to California state route 215 from Moreno Valley to Temecula, I would still have the old maps from the Automobile Club of Southern California for Riverside County, and the Riverside & Moreno Valley city map from ACSC showing a California state route 215, it wasn't until 1994 when that section was upgraded to Interstate 215, between CA 60/I-215 jct to Hemet, CA (which I would get another map for the city, because I collect ACSC maps) too.  Have you noticed that cahwyguy too, like I have?  Maybe AASHTO approved that ahead of time, knowing it would be a freeway back then?

Scott C. Presnal
Morro Bay, CA

Actually, if you read my website, that's what happened. Route 215 was approved as non-chargable interest, which could be upgraded to interstate signage once completed. See http://www.cahighways.org/itypes.html

[Max Rockatansky]

Max: "Which is probably the most silly rule Caltrans insists on sticking by on.", referring to "Route number duplication is not allowed."

To be precise, that is not the "rule". What is the fact is that all state routes are defined in the state highway code, legislatively, and that -- as all such highways are maintained by the state -- there is no distinction made regarding the type of sign on the route. This means that, from the state's legislative point of view, it is Route 99 -- not CA 99 or US 99 or I-99, but Route 99. As such, a distinct I-180 cannot be created because Route 180 already exists. Existing Route 180 could be extended, but that means the extension must connect somehow.

This, perhaps, is why you won't all the renumberings talked about here. Would Route 58 become an extension of Route 40 if it becomes Interstate standard? Remember, such a distinction would require not only AASHTO approval, but the state legislature to pass a bill, and the governor to sign it, to change the state highway code. The governor would consider all the costs, and it would likely require significant Caltrans recommendations to justify the cost. If the route is already defined in the code (such as Route 210), it is easier to change the sign, but Caltrans then might not see the point in doing so -- again, they have limited budget, which they would rather spend on repairing existing roads and making things safer, then to just swap a shield to satisfy some nebulous road aficionado's desire.

Yes I'm aware of all this.  It still seems silly as all hell that after all this correcting of the LRNs to what was actually signed that California can't seem to do what almost every other DOT can. At the end of the day it wouldn't have been a big deal to have an I-180 and CA-180 if the legislative rules were altered.  Hell the 180 could have been freed up decades ago or even an I-x80 from somewhere else.  But having anything change in California legislatively even for something so simple as that is like trying to get a life long alcoholic to go into rehab.  At the end of the day it's just a pet peeve that's all.  I'm aware of budgets, constraints, annoyances to the general public...sometimes it's just fun to dream the dream about road signage I suppose. 

[cahwyguy]

Where can I find that discussion, cahwyguy at, please?

Scott C. Presnal
Morro Bay, CA

Uh, you said it about 4 posts ago: " I think Interstate 40 would never have a reality if AASHTO gets off their butt and approve CA 58 as an Interstate extension for Interstate 40, from Barstow, CA through Bakersfield, CA to Interstate 5, the Westside Freeway."

[ACSCmapcollector]

Ok good, that is what I thought, cahwyguy.  Anyway I am sure glad that California state route 58 is getting the proper treatment to expressway standards for the Kramer Jct./U.S. 395 interchange and bypass along with the Hinkley, CA bypass too.  It is ABOUT TIME Caltrans, they get this finished!

Scott C. Presnal
Morro Bay, CA

[coatimundi]

because there couldn't conceivably be room for a CA 180 and I-180 in two separate parts of the state

I don't know if I'm stating the obvious, but there was an Interstate 180 on the San Rafael Bridge. I have/had a Rand McNally atlas from the 80's that showed it.

[ACSCmapcollector]

Yes for a short period of time, that is.  I wonder when Interstate 580 got the extension through that area, to U.S. 101? (San Rafael, city that is).

Scott C. Presnal
Morro Bay, CA

[myosh_tino]

The I-580 designation over the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge came into being when CA-17 was renumbered to I-880 back in the mid-1980's.

[kkt]

Nonduplication is a good policy.  It's stupid to have the same number on different routes within the same state.  Other states have nonduplication policies as well, unfortunately not all of them yet.

Route numbers are supposed to help hapless motorists, not confuse them further.

Getting the Legislature to change a route number is quite possible, if there's a good reason for it.

[cahwyguy]

I don't know if I'm stating the obvious, but there was an Interstate 180 on the San Rafael Bridge. I have/had a Rand McNally atlas from the 80's that showed it.

Just because it exists in an atlas doesn't mean it was actually signed. Often the mapmakers of that era would sign based on proposals. In this case, 180 was proposed for the bridge, but never approved and the legislative definition was never change. Out in the real world, the bridge was never signed as 180, despite what Rand McNally said.

[cahwyguy]

I wonder when Interstate 580 got the extension through that area, to U.S. 101? (San Rafael, city that is).

Wonder no longer. Remember, all this information is on my site.

For segment 1: From Route 5 southwest of Vernalis to Route 80 in Oakland via the vicinity of Dublin and Hayward.  Approved as chargeable Interstate on 7/7/1947, later adjusted in 1955 and 1957. In August 1957, this was tentatively approved as I-5W. In November 1957, the designation I-72 was proposed as part of the first attempt to give urban routes numbers (there were no 3-digit routes at the time). The proposal went back to I-5W in August 1958, and it was finally approved as I-5W, and later renumbered as I-580. In August 1958, the designation I-580 was proposed by the department for what is now I-680.

For segment 2: From Route 80 near Albany to Route 101 near San Rafael via the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge. Approved as chargeable interstate in April 1978; originally to be numbered as I-180; the portion between Castro Street in Richmond and Route 101 is 139(a) non-chargeable mileage. As for the segment itself, In 1984, Chapter 409 this segment was added by transfer from Route 17. The segment was originally submitted (1983) to have been I-180; however, state numbering rules changed it to be part of I-580. Before the transfer in 1984, the section from the junction of I-80 and I-580 ("McArthur Freeway" or "the Maze") to the interchange at Hoffman Blvd (approximately 3 miles), was signed as I-80 and Route 17. Before the completion of the freeway portion between the Hoffman Blvd/I-80 Interchange to the foot of the San Rafeal Bridge, the Route 17 routing was as follows: Hoffman Blvd, to Cutting Blvd, to Standard Ave, and then to the foot of the Richmond-San Rafael bridge. This was signed as "Temporary I-580" until construction of the freeway I-580 was completed. The 4.0-mile Richmond-San Rafael Bridge opened in 1956.