On my weekly visit to the Caltrans Office Engineer website, noticed that the long awaited CA-58 Hinkley Bypass project is going out to bid (Contract 08-043514 (http://www.caltrans.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/project_ads_addenda/08/08-043514/)). This project will build a 4-lane expressway on a new alignment south of the current CA-58 that will connect the 4-lane freeway from Lenwood to I-15 to the 4-lane expressway west of Hinkley. Once this is built, the only remaining 2-lane section of CA-58 would be the segment in and around Kramer Junction.
While Caltrans characterizes the bypass as an expressway, it most certainly looks like a freeway as there aren't any at-grade intersections until you reach the western end of the project. Interchanges will be built at Lenwood Rd and Hinkley Rd.
Yay! Lord knows that this section of 58 has been waiting for a long time to get upgraded. Do you have any idea when the project will be finished Myosh?
Rick
Quote from: nexus73 on September 08, 2014, 06:50:47 PM
Yay! Lord knows that this section of 58 has been waiting for a long time to get upgraded. Do you have any idea when the project will be finished Myosh?
Rick
The $120M contract calls for 450 working days to complete the project. Using a 5-day week with no days off for holidays, that's 90 weeks so I would suspect that it may take 2 1/2 to 3 years. Bidding opens in late October.
Digging around showed that US 395 from Victorville to Kramer Junction is planned to be upgraded to a 4-lane expressway. I hope the powers that be can do "left hand meet right hand" and coordinate the connecting of the two new alignments.
There was also mention of a project to do an expressway upgrade of the Kramer Junction 2-lane section of 58. Put the three projects together and I would be very happy to see these High Desert highway gaps filled in after so many years of languishing. Maybe in the 2020 to 2022 timeframe they will all be done.
Let the roads roll!
Rick
Quote from: nexus73 on September 09, 2014, 01:49:27 PM
Digging around showed that US 395 from Victorville to Kramer Junction is planned to be upgraded to a 4-lane expressway. I hope the powers that be can do "left hand meet right hand" and coordinate the connecting of the two new alignments.
There was also mention of a project to do an expressway upgrade of the Kramer Junction 2-lane section of 58. Put the three projects together and I would be very happy to see these High Desert highway gaps filled in after so many years of languishing. Maybe in the 2020 to 2022 tiemframe they will all be done.
Let the roads roll!
Rick
It appears that Kramer Junction bypass might happen sooner rather than later. The EIR was released about a month ago with a finalized alignment that takes CA-58 north of the current 2-lane highway with a single interchange at US 395. There doesn't appear to be any mention of a realigned US 395.
The Hinkley Bypass EIR was released in July of 2013 so I would expect the Kramer Junction Bypass to go out to bid sometime in late 2015.
I noticed the Kramer bypass didn't show a US 395 realignment as well, which seems to be to the east of the current junction. It won't be that difficult to add later on anyway.
There are documents about US 395 being realigned east of Kramer Junction: http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist8/projects/san_bernardino/sr395/pdf/395_north_8x11_B%20update2%20031214.pdf
Quote from: rschen7754 on September 10, 2014, 12:44:57 AM
There are documents about US 395 being realigned east of Kramer Junction: http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist8/projects/san_bernardino/sr395/pdf/395_north_8x11_B%20update2%20031214.pdf
That project is years, if not decades, away from coming to fruition as no design work has been done as of now nor has an environmental impact report been prepared. One of the documents I ran across pegs the cost of converting US 395 from Adelanto to CA-58 from a conventional highway to a 4-lane expressway at about $500 million.
Route 395 Expressway Project Website (http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist8/projects/san_bernardino/us395/index.htm)
I'm not sure when this document was produced, but this seems to indicate a six-lane freeway on US 395 toward the southern end was to have been built for $1.5 billion with a completion date in 2013. I don't think this has happened. However, I have seen progress toward the goal of creating a wider median on US 395, which is needed on those long, two-lane sections north of Adelanto.
http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist8/projects/san_bernardino/us395/pdf/395_map_lrg.pdf
See Project G
Quote from: andy3175 on September 10, 2014, 11:46:27 PM
I'm not sure when this document was produced, but this seems to indicate a six-lane freeway on US 395 toward the southern end was to have been built for $1.5 billion with a completion date in 2013. I don't think this has happened. However, I have seen progress toward the goal of creating a wider median on US 395, which is needed on those long, two-lane sections north of Adelanto.
http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist8/projects/san_bernardino/us395/pdf/395_map_lrg.pdf
See Project G
Yeah, I saw that too but the project website (which I linked to in my previous post) was updated recently however, Project G is no longer listed. Project H is the freeway/expressway north of Adelanto.
I've been traveling on that stretch of 58 quite a bit recently, and I have to say the Kramer Junction section is more annoying than the Hinkley section. Sudden stoplight in the middle of two-lane stretch for the trucks to really clog traffic with, combined with mandatory no-passing zones that last miles... it's always such a relief to get to Kern County, and such a horror to return to the Bernardino wastelands.
But progress is progress, I suppose.
Quote from: admtrap on September 13, 2014, 11:36:46 AM
I've been traveling on that stretch of 58 quite a bit recently, and I have to say the Kramer Junction section is more annoying than the Hinkley section. Sudden stoplight in the middle of two-lane stretch for the trucks to really clog traffic with, combined with mandatory no-passing zones that last miles... it's always such a relief to get to Kern County, and such a horror to return to the Bernardino wastelands.
But progress is progress, I suppose.
All the more reason to extend I-40 to at least Bakersfield, if not all the way to I-5, but that may not come for a few more decades.
YES! Extend I-40... yeah yeah!
Quote from: Henry on September 18, 2014, 12:02:33 PM
All the more reason to extend I-40 to at least Bakersfield, if not all the way to I-5, but that may not come for a few more decades.
Why? State 58 is doing well on its own. Having the requirement of a full-freeway would add a lot to the cost. There are many places an expressway is more than sufficient.
Quote from: Henry on September 18, 2014, 12:02:33 PM
All the more reason to extend I-40 to at least Bakersfield, if not all the way to I-5, but that may not come for a few more decades.
Making CA-58 all freeway/expressway from I-5 to Barstow might come sooner than you think. Both the Hinkley Bypass (which like I said is going out to bid) and the Kramer Junction Bypass should be built within the next 5-7 years thus eliminating the two remaining 2-lane sections between Bakersfield and Barstow. I'm not sure how far along the connection of the Westside Parkway to the existing 58/99 junction is in the planning but it must be far enough along that it shows up on Google Maps as "proposed".
I'm thinking an all-freeway CA-58 from I-5 to Barstow is possible within the next 10-20 years (which would make it a "couple" rather than a "few" decades).
Quote from: sdmichael on September 18, 2014, 01:08:43 PM
Why? State 58 is doing well on its own. Having the requirement of a full-freeway would add a lot to the cost. There are many places an expressway is more than sufficient.
Not really.
The way I see it, to convert CA-58 between CA-99 in Bakersfield to Barstow, would mean building probably 5 interchanges. One at the 58/223 junction east of Bakersfield, two along the 4-lane expressway portion east of Mojave and two along the 4-lane expressway portion just west of Hinkley. Plans already call for 2 interchanges on the Hinkley Bypass and 1 interchange on the Kramer Junction Bypass at US 395.
NOTE: I just thought of one reason why Caltrans will not push to have CA-58 renumbered as I-40... exit numbering. Because I-40's exit numbering begins in Barstow, if it's extended west to either CA-99 or I-5, *all* existing exits would require renumbering because of the change in the western terminus of I-40.
Quote from: myosh_tino on September 18, 2014, 01:15:07 PM
NOTE: I just thought of one reason why Caltrans will not push to have CA-58 renumbered as I-40... exit numbering. Because I-40's exit numbering begins in Barstow, if it's extended west to either CA-99 or I-5, *all* existing exits would require renumbering because of the change in the western terminus of I-40.
I think Caltrans is in no hurry to promote state routes into Interstates. CA 15 into I-15 CA 905 into I-905 and CA 210 into I-210 have not happened, and heaven know when/if those will happen. Exit numbers are already consistent for these three routes. It will take leadership from the top of Caltrans HQ or from politicians to make these route conversions happen. Under this line of thought, I think CA 58 will simply upgrade to full freeway over the next decade or two, and it will stay that way with no I-40 extension. I would hope Caltrans would move toward Interstate promotion for these routes, and maybe that will happen someday. I had spoken one time with the local Caltrans district director, and she said that her agency does not plan any Interstate designation for I-15 and I-905, even though both designations are already AASHTO approved.
Which is really dumb in the case of CA 15, given how short the SR section is, and where it is located. If there's one section of roadway in California that desperately needs the blue and red shield, it's that one.
https://www.google.com/maps/@32.688851,-117.1157583,3a,75y,316.39h,89.77t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sWOVGf-arHGlRGl4OhVykNg!2e0
NB I-5 @ CA 15. This does not scream "Hey, if you're a long range driver going pretty much anywhere other than the cities of the west coast, exit here now." Riverside's not the greatest control city, being basically unknown by people not from SoCal, but by California standards ("Other desert cities") it could be much worse...
https://www.google.com/maps/@32.7302743,-117.1082601,3a,75y,319.59h,93.87t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sKKWirPVEAdpUk0QInz8beg!2e0
And the signage at NB I-805 @ CA 15 IS worse. "Junction?" Really? Go home, CalTrans, you're drunk.
Going back to CA 58, which is at least not insanely signed,* I'm going to agree that the two existing Kern County expressway portions really aren't a hindrance, and probably not worth the expense of upgrading right now.
The first, going westbound, is between Boron and Mojave, through the southern edge of that thriving metropolis of California City. There's at least four at-grade intersections there, but all I remember is cruising past them at a velocity that I will assert my 5th amendment rights with respect to. Occasionally you see a car waiting to turn onto the expressway from one of the side routes, but that's about it.
The other is for the Bealville/Caliente cutoff. There are two exits, but the two roadways are linked by a frontage road, and there's a relatively flat section between the two existing at-grade intersections, so it looks to me like you could get away with just one interchange there, if you really had to upgrade the section. I'd rather see a third lane, personally - slow trucks passing each other all around that area.
* The exit for 58 EB from SB CA 99 really should have Barstow as a control city rather than Mojave, when you're considering cities of navigational importance. But the city name comes from the desert it stands near the edge of, so while it's a poor city, it's not a bad choice of words.)
I've always found it interesting that Barstow is mentioned as far west as I-5 along the 58 corridor. Maybe they're subconsciously promoting a freeway upgrade of 58?
Mojave is a junction point, however, with State 14. It isn't a bad city to use as a control point. Yes, there aren't many sections of expressway to upgrade, but the NEED to do it, simply for another color sign, isn't there. I personally prefer a highway that is freeway where it needs to be, instead of everywhere along it. US 101 from San Francisco to Los Angeles is a good example of this.
Is there even ANY thinking about finishing off 14 NB to the 58?
Quote from: admtrap on September 20, 2014, 12:44:43 PM
Which is really dumb in the case of CA 15, given how short the SR section is, and where it is located. If there's one section of roadway in California that desperately needs the blue and red shield, it's that one.
I HAVE read that the interstate shields won't go up on that section until the 15/94 junction (which has left exits) is reconfigured to more modern standards.
Quote from: admtrapNB I-5 @ CA 15. This does not scream "Hey, if you're a long range driver going pretty much anywhere other than the cities of the west coast, exit here now." Riverside's not the greatest control city, being basically unknown by people not from SoCal, but by California standards ("Other desert cities") it could be much worse...
But for the most part, in urban areas in California...large local destinations seem to have take precedence as a control city choice unless there simply is no other alternative, which is why Phoenix and San Francisco are not signed at freeway junctions in Los Angeles, and Los Angeles is not signed along 101 in San Francisco.
(5 north signed for Los Angeles in San Diego is a bit of an anomaly, since Santa Ana returns as a control city once you cross the Orange County line)
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on September 20, 2014, 03:12:05 PM
Is there even ANY thinking about finishing off 14 NB to the 58?
It is already an expressway and doesn't get nearly the traffic that 58 has. I haven't seen or heard of any plans beyond the initial one from the 1970's, which called for a western bypass, which no longer fits with the current Mojave bypass freeway. Those stub lanes, http://socalregion.com/highways/us_6/us6042/ (http://socalregion.com/highways/us_6/us6042/), will remain so for many years to come.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.socalregion.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F02%2Frt14_mojave_byp.jpg&hash=2429d49ae639b5dc8193bdc3602ddb9f5ee9a0c1)
Checking the aerial images and older maps of the area, I'm kind of curious as to why the originally-planned routing of the CA 58 freeway at Barstow (it would have crossed through the middle of the now BNSF yard) was abandoned in favor of the routing farther west that was completed.
Mike
Quote from: sdmichael on September 20, 2014, 01:57:49 PM
Mojave is a junction point, however, with State 14. It isn't a bad city to use as a control point. Yes, there aren't many sections of expressway to upgrade, but the NEED to do it, simply for another color sign, isn't there. I personally prefer a highway that is freeway where it needs to be, instead of everywhere along it. US 101 from San Francisco to Los Angeles is a good example of this.
Not disagreeing with respect to the expressway upgrade idea. Rather, pointing out where those sections actually are, and that they don't impede travel at all, unlike the two-lane sections at Kramer Jct and Hinkley.
Quote from: TheStranger on September 20, 2014, 04:21:33 PM
But for the most part, in urban areas in California...large local destinations seem to have take precedence as a control city choice unless there simply is no other alternative, which is why Phoenix and San Francisco are not signed at freeway junctions in Los Angeles, and Los Angeles is not signed along 101 in San Francisco.
(5 north signed for Los Angeles in San Diego is a bit of an anomaly, since Santa Ana returns as a control city once you cross the Orange County line)
If Mojave didn't happen to share its name with the vast desert it sits in, it'd be an awful control city. ("Local", check. "Large?") I think signage should allow the driver to recognize the correct road to take to get to their destination, and the more important (nationally or locally) the destination, the more clear the indication should be. I know what California's policy is; I grew up in SoCal. And until I lived in other states, I had no idea that control cities could actually be useful for navigation when you're disoriented.
But even by California standards, Riverside is a better control city for I-15 than Mojave is for CA 58. At least Riverside is a significant traffic generator in its own right. There are at least five worse control cities there I can think of which would not shock me to see on a CalTrans guide sign (Corona? Temecula? Perris? Escondido? Moreno Valley? Any of those could have been the choice instead).
But at that particular point, you have traffic coming NB from Mexico, San Diego locals, and visitors to San Diego, all passing that sign. Only the San Diego locals can really be expected to think "Riverside.. I know where that is." And they already should know that State 15 is the continuation of I-15. As an aid to navigation for long range travelers at that point, however, all they see is the state shield, and a destination which does not indicate a place of any real importance. If I was navigating by the rules that govern signage in the other lower 47, I'd pass that sign by and keep looking for one that had a blue shield and "Vegas" on it.
Even co-indicating San Bernardino as a second control city would help - San Bernardino is at least a bit more well known than Riverside.
Back to 58, Kern does in microcosm what California does nationally. Going WB from Barstow, 58's control city is Bakersfield all the way in - as it should be. EB from Bakersfield, on the other hand, we have signage for Tehachapi, then Mojave, then Boron. I'm sure if Kramer Jct was in Kern county, it'd be the next control city. Or maybe we can get them to sign "Other Traffic Lights" past Boron, to reflect the two stop lights ahead. That at least gives more useful information than "Other Desert Cities" does along I-10.
Barstow isn't a big city by any stretch of the imagination. Indeed, for any other California roadway, I'd be saying Barstow is an insane choice of control city. (At least Baker isn't signed next, I tell myself) But it's bigger than any of the cities between itself and Bakersfield, and its regional importance is magnified by its I-15/I-40 junction (and the US 91/66 junction before that). Mojave is to Barstow as Indio is to Phoenix, in terms of population.
Santa Ana on I-5 isn't a great control city either. It's not even the most important traffic generator along the 5 in Orange County. San Diego signing I-5 NB for Los Angeles is sensible. It's so unusually sensible that you needed to point it out for the anomaly that it is. Santa Ana would make a decent secondary control city, but only between downtown LA and Oceanside. Irvine or Anaheim would actually be an even better choice. (Although Irvine didn't really exist when the Santa Ana signs went up in the first place, and Anaheim wasn't as well known back then either, so that can certainly be forgiven)
Which really ought to be the way it's done - secondary control cities. Although going back to 58, they _did_ that. The exit there is signed for both Mojave and Tehachapi (although the way its done there implies you pass through Mojave on your way to Tehachapi, when in fact it's the other way around... so Mojave is actually the primary control city, and Tehachapi is secondary. Which itself is... CalTrans.)
tl;dr version - California control cities are useless, always have been, and always will be.
Quote from: admtrap on September 21, 2014, 12:05:43 PM
tl;dr version - California control cities are useless, always have been, and always will be.
That's been true forever. The adopt a "local" signing mentality in arbitrary places. ("Highland" as a control city?) And it's only getting worse. See the thread on here about District 7 attempting to remove all control cities because somebody misinterpreted the signing guide. Local is fine with me if you're consistent about it (e.g., why Pomona on the 60 but San Bernardino on the 10?), same with going regional or interstate instead. But you have to be consistent about it. A classic example of this inconsistency is the 5 (ignore Burbank, Santa Clarita and Stockton going north, but sign Santa Ana going south).
Quote from: admtrap on September 21, 2014, 12:05:43 PM
There are at least five worse control cities there I can think of which would not shock me to see on a CalTrans guide sign (Corona? Temecula? Perris? Escondido? Moreno Valley? Any of those could have been the choice instead).
It depends on whether you're doing the "local" vs. "regional" vs. "interstate" method of signing.
If you're doing local or regional, Corona is a great control city - It's population is over 200k and it's at the crossroads of another major highway. In fact, it's a better fit as a control city than Barstow using the same justification you gave for Barstow. Temecula is not bad either - 100k plus and at the split of a parent and 3di interstate.
If you're doing the interstate method, then 15 really should be "Las Vegas," "San Diego," and "Tijuana, BC, Mex."
Quote from: admtrap on September 21, 2014, 12:05:43 PM
Even co-indicating San Bernardino as a second control city would help - San Bernardino is at least a bit more well known than Riverside.
Maybe it once was. But between its decline and Riverside's growth in the 90s and oughts, I think the opposite is true now. The more important thing is that Caltrans "local" and "regional" control city signing seems to have been influenced by identifying county seats and areas where local government is transacted. Hence, Riverside, San Bernardino, Pomona, Santa Ana, etc. It also likely explains Indio's prominence as a control city over a more historically-popular destination city like Palm Springs. All of eastern Riverside County's government (courts, GSA, etc.) is sited in Indio.
Quote from: admtrap on September 21, 2014, 12:05:43 PM
Even co-indicating San Bernardino as a second control city would help - San Bernardino is at least a bit more well known than Riverside.
I'm not sure I agree with that - both are medium-sized centers of the Inland Empire that have major freeway junctions in them and were in the old days, junctions of several important US routes.
Quote from: admtrap on September 21, 2014, 12:05:43 PM
tl;dr version - California control cities are useless, always have been, and always will be.
What seems to have driven the local emphasis: long before the Interstate system, most of today's major freeways in California were already complete to particular destinations that remain as control cities into this era, but NOT to longer-distance destinations. (i.e. the Bayshore Freeway going to San Jose - stoplights in that area were not even bypassed until 1982! - or SoCal specific, the San Bernardino Freeway).
There is also the fact that California simply has way more sizeable cities that CAN be used as destinations at junctions - Sacramento isn't mentioned at all at the 80/101 split even though that is less than 82 miles away; Oakland rarely gets noted on I-80 west until Vallejo, and (as it was smaller than San Francisco until the 1990s tech boom) San Jose is not signed at all on 101 north as a mainline control city until Salinas.
There's a couple of CalTrans employees on here and I'm kinda curious if they have more info on what determines what cities get used by the individual CalTrans districts, and how often (if ever) that changes - the only time I recall it being changed wholesale was the switch for the Golden State Freeway/I-5 north destination from "Bakersfield" (dating to when that part of the freeway was US 99) to "Sacramento" in the 1980s.
---
Also, here's an interesting side thought I just had:
Is the "ideal control city" choice something that can change with time? i.e. 405 south as the San Diego Freeway, obviously "San Diego" would be the easy southbound suggestion - but for traffic from the San Fernando Valley, 5 south likely is the best option once the Norwalk widening is complete (and if the 710 tunnel is ever finished, 210/710 an even better alternative).
Quote from: TheStranger on September 20, 2014, 04:21:33 PM
But for the most part, in urban areas in California...large local destinations seem to have take precedence as a control city choice unless there simply is no other alternative, which is why Phoenix and San Francisco are not signed at freeway junctions in Los Angeles, and Los Angeles is not signed along 101 in San Francisco.
Ah...so the L.A.-SF rivalry runs much deeper than a certain baseball rivalry that has been staged annually since 1958!
Quote from: TheStranger on September 20, 2014, 04:21:33 PM
But for the most part, in urban areas in California...large local destinations seem to have take precedence as a control city choice unless there simply is no other alternative, which is why Phoenix and San Francisco are not signed at freeway junctions in Los Angeles, and Los Angeles is not signed along 101 in San Francisco.
Caltrans is right, in my opinion, not to sign L.A. as a control city for 101 in S.F. From S.F., much the best way to L.A. is via I-5, except for drivers whose criteria is "prettier than I-5 but not as slow as CA 1".
Quote from: kkt on September 22, 2014, 03:29:21 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on September 20, 2014, 04:21:33 PM
But for the most part, in urban areas in California...large local destinations seem to have take precedence as a control city choice unless there simply is no other alternative, which is why Phoenix and San Francisco are not signed at freeway junctions in Los Angeles, and Los Angeles is not signed along 101 in San Francisco.
Caltrans is right, in my opinion, not to sign L.A. as a control city for 101 in S.F. From S.F., much the best way to L.A. is via I-5, except for drivers whose criteria is "prettier than I-5 but not as slow as CA 1".
Though I see your point - I will note that the 101 route to SF is only an hour longer than 5/580 - to be fair, and more relevant to CalTrans's short-distance urban control city approach...San Francisco is not signed from ANY freeway in Los Angeles. Sacramento is (because I-5 directly goes there, unlike the former US 99 control city of Bakersfield), but compared to all other Los Angeles-area control cities, Sacramento is absolutely an anomaly.
From San Francisco,
none of the long-distance controls (Sacramento, Eureka, Reno, Los Angeles) are acknowledged at any point, with the furthest control city being San Jose 40 miles away. Two of the control cities at the 101/80 split are less than 4 miles away (Bay Bridge, Golden Gate Bridge), and a similar occurrence can be found at the Alemany Maze (Port of SF/Daly City, Civic Center/Bay Bridge).
US 101 gets San Francisco as a control starting at the State 126 interchange in Ventura, FWIW. I would gather that the Sacramento control heading out of Los Angeles is due it being the next major city on I-5. 99 goes through quite a few cities that would work, but may be confusing as they aren't on I-5. I-5 retains the Sacramento control at the 99 split, with 99 getting Fresno. Mileage signs right after the split still reflect Sacramento as a control city on 99, with a 7 mile difference between the 5 and 99.
Quote from: TheStranger on September 22, 2014, 04:29:27 PM
Quote from: kkt on September 22, 2014, 03:29:21 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on September 20, 2014, 04:21:33 PM
But for the most part, in urban areas in California...large local destinations seem to have take precedence as a control city choice unless there simply is no other alternative, which is why Phoenix and San Francisco are not signed at freeway junctions in Los Angeles, and Los Angeles is not signed along 101 in San Francisco.
Caltrans is right, in my opinion, not to sign L.A. as a control city for 101 in S.F. From S.F., much the best way to L.A. is via I-5, except for drivers whose criteria is "prettier than I-5 but not as slow as CA 1".
Though I see your point - I will note that the 101 route to SF is only an hour longer than 5/580 - to be fair, and more relevant to CalTrans's short-distance urban control city approach...San Francisco is not signed from ANY freeway in Los Angeles. Sacramento is (because I-5 directly goes there, unlike the former US 99 control city of Bakersfield), but compared to all other Los Angeles-area control cities, Sacramento is absolutely an anomaly.
From San Francisco, none of the long-distance controls (Sacramento, Eureka, Reno, Los Angeles) are acknowledged at any point, with the furthest control city being San Jose 40 miles away. Two of the control cities at the 101/80 split are less than 4 miles away (Bay Bridge, Golden Gate Bridge), and a similar occurrence can be found at the Alemany Maze (Port of SF/Daly City, Civic Center/Bay Bridge).
Yes, using the bridges as control points reflect S.F. being at the end of a peninsula, where the first question is "Which way do we want to get off this peninsula?" The bridges are landmarks in themselves, and all of them have too many major destinations after crossing to list them all. The Bay Bridge would be the direction for three of the four long distance control cities you list...
For the Golden Gate, I guess they could put San Rafael or Santa Rosa or Marin County.
Port of S.F. makes sense for 280; there are no other control cities on 280 past it. I guess they could add the ball park now, but not at the time 280 was built.
Daly City is one of few cities that's clearly shorter via 280 than 101. I'm not sure what you'd use instead that would clarify the difference from Bayshore. "Prettier and fewer traffic tieups, usually"? A VMS with Redwood City via 280 and via 101 in minutes?
Quote from: sdmichael on September 22, 2014, 05:06:53 PM
US 101 gets San Francisco as a control starting at the State 126 interchange in Ventura, FWIW. I would gather that the Sacramento control heading out of Los Angeles is due it being the next major city on I-5. 99 goes through quite a few cities that would work, but may be confusing as they aren't on I-5. I-5 retains the Sacramento control at the 99 split, with 99 getting Fresno. Mileage signs right after the split still reflect Sacramento as a control city on 99, with a 7 mile difference between the 5 and 99.
San Francisco is first mentioned in Thousand Oaks at the 23 freeway junction, some 15 miles north/west of the L.A. city limits, though not on overhead signs until the 126 and 33 junctions in Ventura (oddly enough, almost all exits within Ventura city limits are signed for Santa Barbara).
Quote from: sdmichael on September 20, 2014, 01:57:49 PM
Mojave is a junction point, however, with State 14. It isn't a bad city to use as a control point. Yes, there aren't many sections of expressway to upgrade, but the NEED to do it, simply for another color sign, isn't there. I personally prefer a highway that is freeway where it needs to be, instead of everywhere along it. US 101 from San Francisco to Los Angeles is a good example of this.
If only that were true. It seems more like the inexpensive rural sections were built, and the worst of the urban sections were bypassed, but the intermediate sections -- urban areas too big to bypass easily yet too expensive to build through the city -- are what remain. And a few farm roads with their own driveway on one direction of the expressway.
Quote from: kkt on September 22, 2014, 07:08:29 PM
Yes, using the bridges as control points reflect S.F. being at the end of a peninsula, where the first question is "Which way do we want to get off this peninsula?" The bridges are landmarks in themselves, and all of them have too many major destinations after crossing to list them all. The Bay Bridge would be the direction for three of the four long distance control cities you list...
Thinking out loud: not everywhere uses this approach where the toll crossing is a destination in its own right:
- In Tacoma, along I-5, SR 16 is signed for "Bremerton" instead of "Tacoma Narrows Bridge".
- At the Route 4/I-680 junction north of Concord, 680 north is signed from Route 4 for "Benicia/Sacramento" with no mention of the bridge
- At Route 4's western terminus, I-80 east is signed for "Vallejo/Sacramento".
- In Antioch, Route 160 north is signed from Route 4 east for "Rio Vista/Sacramento"
Now for comparison, the George Washington Bridge is one of the control destinations for I-95 south at I-87 in the Bronx. I also recall the Delaware Memorial Bridge as a control destination at the 495/295/95 split in Wilmington.
In San Rafael, 580 east is signed as "Richmond Bridge/Oakland" off of 101; in San Mateo, "San Mateo Bridge" is a destination for 92 east from 101 (and further south, Dumbarton Bridge gets noted for the exits for Route 84 east).
Quote from: kkt on September 22, 2014, 07:08:29 PM
For the Golden Gate, I guess they could put San Rafael or Santa Rosa or Marin County.
Over in the East Bay, 580 west DOES have more signage for San Rafael than "Richmond Bridge" (i.e. at the Hoffman Split, it is signed specifically as "Point Richmond/San Rafael".
Quote from: kkt on September 22, 2014, 07:08:29 PM
Port of S.F. makes sense for 280; there are no other control cities on 280 past it. I guess they could add the ball park now, but not at the time 280 was built.
The reconstruction of 280 to feed into King Street occurred around the time the ballpark was approved, IIRC. I do remember getting a drive along the old viaduct to 4th Street back in 1995-1996, about a year or so after it reopened following post-Loma Prieta repairs.
Not sure what control city 280 north had before the earthquake. Post-1995, it has been signed for "Downtown SF" as well too, probably to encourage usage of the usually less-busy extension instead of the somewhat closer (but much busier) 101/80 routing into the Financial District.
Quote from: kktIt seems more like the inexpensive rural sections were built, and the worst of the urban sections were bypassed, but the intermediate sections -- urban areas too big to bypass easily yet too expensive to build through the city -- are what remain.
Any examples of the latter? Would you classify Prunedale in that category? Seems to me that in the LA-SF stretch of 101, any area over about 15K in population has a freeway bypass until you get to Mission/Duboce in San Francisco.
Quote from: JustDriveSan Francisco is first mentioned in Thousand Oaks at the 23 freeway junction, some 15 miles north/west of the L.A. city limits, though not on overhead signs until the 126 and 33 junctions in Ventura (oddly enough, almost all exits within Ventura city limits are signed for Santa Barbara).
In comparison, the first time Los Angeles pops up in any signage on 101 south is at the split with Route 85 in Mountain View, approximately 30 miles south of downtown SF.
Quote from: admtrap on September 21, 2014, 12:05:43 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on September 20, 2014, 04:21:33 PM
But for the most part, in urban areas in California...large local destinations seem to have take precedence as a control city choice unless there simply is no other alternative, which is why Phoenix and San Francisco are not signed at freeway junctions in Los Angeles, and Los Angeles is not signed along 101 in San Francisco.
(5 north signed for Los Angeles in San Diego is a bit of an anomaly, since Santa Ana returns as a control city once you cross the Orange County line)
....
Santa Ana on I-5 isn't a great control city either. It's not even the most important traffic generator along the 5 in Orange County. San Diego signing I-5 NB for Los Angeles is sensible. It's so unusually sensible that you needed to point it out for the anomaly that it is. Santa Ana would make a decent secondary control city, but only between downtown LA and Oceanside. Irvine or Anaheim would actually be an even better choice. (Although Irvine didn't really exist when the Santa Ana signs went up in the first place, and Anaheim wasn't as well known back then either, so that can certainly be forgiven)
Which really ought to be the way it's done - secondary control cities. Although going back to 58, they _did_ that. The exit there is signed for both Mojave and Tehachapi (although the way its done there implies you pass through Mojave on your way to Tehachapi, when in fact it's the other way around... so Mojave is actually the primary control city, and Tehachapi is secondary. Which itself is... CalTrans.)
tl;dr version - California control cities are useless, always have been, and always will be.
With regard to Santa Ana on NB I-5, this is a fairly recent phenomenon. When I was growing up, you'd only see Los Angeles on the northbound BGS, all the way from San Diego to the East LA Interchange.
Apparently, Dist. 12 had the idea that this was a good way to promote Orange County.
I agree that control cities for US 101 and the 2dis should be cities of national importance. Using two control cities on the BGS would also be OK.
For roads that act like bypasses or beltways, 2 control cities would also be ideal. One is a suburb that the road actually reaches and the second is a city of national importance that can be reached via interchange.
For other roads, local destinations are OK. Better a destination that you never heard of, then no destination at all.
Quote from: mrsman on September 22, 2014, 11:44:33 PM
With regard to Santa Ana on NB I-5, this is a fairly recent phenomenon. When I was growing up, you'd only see Los Angeles on the northbound BGS, all the way from San Diego to the East LA Interchange.
Apparently, Dist. 12 had the idea that this was a good way to promote Orange County.
I think the city of Santa Ana requested the I-5 northbound control city change.
Quote from: mrsman on September 22, 2014, 11:44:33 PM
For roads that act like bypasses or beltways, 2 control cities would also be ideal. One is a suburb that the road actually reaches and the second is a city of national importance that can be reached via interchange.
At what distance would the national-level destination be "near enough" for signage? i.e. would you have Route 85 south in Mountain View signed for "Los Angeles" (due to its role as a US 101 bypass)? Would Reno be a viable control city in the Bay Area by this metric?
Quote from: TheStranger on September 22, 2014, 07:26:18 PM
Quote from: kkt on September 22, 2014, 07:08:29 PM
Yes, using the bridges as control points reflect S.F. being at the end of a peninsula, where the first question is "Which way do we want to get off this peninsula?" The bridges are landmarks in themselves, and all of them have too many major destinations after crossing to list them all. The Bay Bridge would be the direction for three of the four long distance control cities you list...
Thinking out loud: not everywhere uses this approach where the toll crossing is a destination in its own right:
- In Tacoma, along I-5, SR 16 is signed for "Bremerton" instead of "Tacoma Narrows Bridge".
- At the Route 4/I-680 junction north of Concord, 680 north is signed from Route 4 for "Benicia/Sacramento" with no mention of the bridge
- At Route 4's western terminus, I-80 east is signed for "Vallejo/Sacramento".
- In Antioch, Route 160 north is signed from Route 4 east for "Rio Vista/Sacramento"
Now for comparison, the George Washington Bridge is one of the control destinations for I-95 south at I-87 in the Bronx. I also recall the Delaware Memorial Bridge as a control destination at the 495/295/95 split in Wilmington.
In San Rafael, 580 east is signed as "Richmond Bridge/Oakland" off of 101; in San Mateo, "San Mateo Bridge" is a destination for 92 east from 101 (and further south, Dumbarton Bridge gets noted for the exits for Route 84 east).
Yeah, the Bay and Golden Gate Bridges are particularly well known. The GGB is better known than any of the Marin suburbs it connects to. I would add Oakland to the list of I-80 control cities eastbound.
Quote from: TheStranger
Quote from: kkt on September 22, 2014, 07:08:29 PM
For the Golden Gate, I guess they could put San Rafael or Santa Rosa or Marin County.
Over in the East Bay, 580 west DOES have more signage for San Rafael than "Richmond Bridge" (i.e. at the Hoffman Split, it is signed specifically as "Point Richmond/San Rafael".
Quote from: kkt on September 22, 2014, 07:08:29 PM
Port of S.F. makes sense for 280; there are no other control cities on 280 past it. I guess they could add the ball park now, but not at the time 280 was built.
The reconstruction of 280 to feed into King Street occurred around the time the ballpark was approved, IIRC. I do remember getting a drive along the old viaduct to 4th Street back in 1995-1996, about a year or so after it reopened following post-Loma Prieta repairs.
Not sure what control city 280 north had before the earthquake. Post-1995, it has been signed for "Downtown SF" as well too, probably to encourage usage of the usually less-busy extension instead of the somewhat closer (but much busier) 101/80 routing into the Financial District.
Quote from: kktIt seems more like the inexpensive rural sections were built, and the worst of the urban sections were bypassed, but the intermediate sections -- urban areas too big to bypass easily yet too expensive to build through the city -- are what remain.
Any examples of the latter? Would you classify Prunedale in that category? Seems to me that in the LA-SF stretch of 101, any area over about 15K in population has a freeway bypass until you get to Mission/Duboce in San Francisco.
Yes, I was particularly thinking of Prunedale. At the back of my mind was also how long it took to get the bypass from south San Jose past Gilroy. Also, the north state portions of 101 where it's still city streets (Eureka) or is expressway with farm exits along one side or the other.
Quote from: TheStranger
Quote from: JustDriveSan Francisco is first mentioned in Thousand Oaks at the 23 freeway junction, some 15 miles north/west of the L.A. city limits, though not on overhead signs until the 126 and 33 junctions in Ventura (oddly enough, almost all exits within Ventura city limits are signed for Santa Barbara).
In comparison, the first time Los Angeles pops up in any signage on 101 south is at the split with Route 85 in Mountain View, approximately 30 miles south of downtown SF.
That's just silly. San Jose would be a better choice of control point there. From Mountain View to Los Angeles it would be quicker to go 237-680-580-5, barring especially bad traffic.
Quote from: kkt on September 24, 2014, 01:30:02 PM
Yeah, the Bay and Golden Gate Bridges are particularly well known. The GGB is better known than any of the Marin suburbs it connects to. I would add Oakland to the list of I-80 control cities eastbound.
80 east is indeed signed for "Bay Bridge/Oakland" at 101. Wondering if Sacramento not being mentioned until after the Bay Bridge is just a matter of a lack of signage space (it isn't particularly common to use more than 2 control destinations in the Bay Area, and even the examples elsewhere I can think of - i.e. 405 south at 101 for Santa Monica, LAX, and Long Beach - are rare).
Quote from: kkt on September 24, 2014, 01:30:02 PM
Yes, I was particularly thinking of Prunedale. At the back of my mind was also how long it took to get the bypass from south San Jose past Gilroy. Also, the north state portions of 101 where it's still city streets (Eureka) or is expressway with farm exits along one side or the other.
For the former: wasn't the area between South San Jose and Gilroy much more rural around the time the freeway was extended south from the old Y at Monterey Road to just north of Route 25? Certainly it still took until a few years ago before that stretch of freeway was widened to adequately handle the suburban commute there.
Quote from: kkt on September 24, 2014, 01:30:02 PM
That's just silly. San Jose would be a better choice of control point there. From Mountain View to Los Angeles it would be quicker to go 237-680-580-5, barring especially bad traffic.
At the 85 split, 101 is signed for "Los Angeles/San Jose".
From 101/85, a routing of 237-680-84-580-5 adds 20 miles (and leads you right into commuter corridors such as the Altamont Pass) compared to a 101-152-5 routing southward. Then again, even in Gilroy, 101 is still marked for Los Angeles southbound.
Quote from: TheStranger on September 24, 2014, 02:20:44 PM
Quote from: kkt on September 24, 2014, 01:30:02 PM
Yeah, the Bay and Golden Gate Bridges are particularly well known. The GGB is better known than any of the Marin suburbs it connects to. I would add Oakland to the list of I-80 control cities eastbound.
80 east is indeed signed for "Bay Bridge/Oakland" at 101. Wondering if Sacramento not being mentioned until after the Bay Bridge is just a matter of a lack of signage space (it isn't particularly common to use more than 2 control destinations in the Bay Area, and even the examples elsewhere I can think of - i.e. 405 south at 101 for Santa Monica, LAX, and Long Beach - are rare).
CalTrans has never been fond of making big new signs when greenout would do...
Quote
Quote from: kkt on September 24, 2014, 01:30:02 PM
Yes, I was particularly thinking of Prunedale. At the back of my mind was also how long it took to get the bypass from south San Jose past Gilroy. Also, the north state portions of 101 where it's still city streets (Eureka) or is expressway with farm exits along one side or the other.
For the former: wasn't the area between South San Jose and Gilroy much more rural around the time the freeway was extended south from the old Y at Monterey Road to just north of Route 25? Certainly it still took until a few years ago before that stretch of freeway was widened to adequately handle the suburban commute there.
It was more rural than it is now, certainly, but still suburban enough that traffic was clogged most hours every day from at least the mid 1970s on. Lots of truck traffic for Pacheco Pass and some for the Salinas Valley and Monterey, car traffic both for Pacheco Pass and continuing south for Salinas Valley and LA by the prettier route, local traffic both for farms and the housing that was starting to spring up, back then it was inexpensive housing by Bay Area standards so people in low wages jobs in the city could commute from there, lots of fruit stands, a fair amount of cross traffic. Sometimes cross traffic would get stuck in the intersections waiting for a train on the parallel tracks. Fun and games.
Quote
Quote from: kkt on September 24, 2014, 01:30:02 PM
That's just silly. San Jose would be a better choice of control point there. From Mountain View to Los Angeles it would be quicker to go 237-680-580-5, barring especially bad traffic.
At the 85 split, 101 is signed for "Los Angeles/San Jose".
Still an odd choice for that location.
Quote
From 101/85, a routing of 237-680-84-580-5 adds 20 miles (and leads you right into commuter corridors such as the Altamont Pass) compared to a 101-152-5 routing southward. Then again, even in Gilroy, 101 is still marked for Los Angeles southbound.
I haven't been on the stretch of 84 from Sunol to Livermore in donkey's years. Is that a pretty fast road now? Subject to what the traffic report says; yes, at commute hours 101-152-5 would likely be faster.
Quote from: kkt on September 24, 2014, 07:38:12 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on September 24, 2014, 02:20:44 PM
Quote from: kkt on September 24, 2014, 01:30:02 PM
Yeah, the Bay and Golden Gate Bridges are particularly well known. The GGB is better known than any of the Marin suburbs it connects to. I would add Oakland to the list of I-80 control cities eastbound.
80 east is indeed signed for "Bay Bridge/Oakland" at 101. Wondering if Sacramento not being mentioned until after the Bay Bridge is just a matter of a lack of signage space (it isn't particularly common to use more than 2 control destinations in the Bay Area, and even the examples elsewhere I can think of - i.e. 405 south at 101 for Santa Monica, LAX, and Long Beach - are rare).
CalTrans has never been fond of making big new signs when greenout would do...
Certainly, they are a lot more conscious of sign height aesthetics than other states!
Quote from: kkt on September 24, 2014, 07:38:12 PM
It was more rural than it is now, certainly, but still suburban enough that traffic was clogged most hours every day from at least the mid 1970s on. Lots of truck traffic for Pacheco Pass and some for the Salinas Valley and Monterey, car traffic both for Pacheco Pass and continuing south for Salinas Valley and LA by the prettier route, local traffic both for farms and the housing that was starting to spring up, back then it was inexpensive housing by Bay Area standards so people in low wages jobs in the city could commute from there, lots of fruit stands, a fair amount of cross traffic. Sometimes cross traffic would get stuck in the intersections waiting for a train on the parallel tracks. Fun and games.
I drove down Monterey Road as part of a SF-LA roadtrip in 2010 (in which I and a friend tried to take as much of old 101 as we could) and it amazed me how quiet that divided road is nowadays (with all of the commuter traffic on the newer freeway).
Going back to an earlier thing you noted: Eureka not being bypassed is the specific result of the city blocking any plans to either have a freeway built through it, or around it at all.
Quote from: kkt on September 24, 2014, 07:38:12 PM
Quote
Quote from: kkt on September 24, 2014, 01:30:02 PM
That's just silly. San Jose would be a better choice of control point there. From Mountain View to Los Angeles it would be quicker to go 237-680-580-5, barring especially bad traffic.
At the 85 split, 101 is signed for "Los Angeles/San Jose".
Still an odd choice for that location.
My guess as to why 85 isn't signed for "Los Angeles" instead: truck restrictions along the newer bypass.
Quote from: kkt on September 24, 2014, 07:38:12 PM
Quote
From 101/85, a routing of 237-680-84-580-5 adds 20 miles (and leads you right into commuter corridors such as the Altamont Pass) compared to a 101-152-5 routing southward. Then again, even in Gilroy, 101 is still marked for Los Angeles southbound.
I haven't been on the stretch of 84 from Sunol to Livermore in donkey's years. Is that a pretty fast road now? Subject to what the traffic report says; yes, at commute hours 101-152-5 would likely be faster.
I've taken it many times as part of a San Mateo County-Sacramento (and Sacramento-SJ) route and 84 is a lot better between 580 and 680 than it ever has been. Portions are still being actively widened but I think there's only one or two stoplights left on that segment.
Quote from: andy3175 on September 19, 2014, 11:21:43 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on September 18, 2014, 01:15:07 PM
NOTE: I just thought of one reason why Caltrans will not push to have CA-58 renumbered as I-40... exit numbering. Because I-40's exit numbering begins in Barstow, if it's extended west to either CA-99 or I-5, *all* existing exits would require renumbering because of the change in the western terminus of I-40.
I think Caltrans is in no hurry to promote state routes into Interstates. CA 15 into I-15 CA 905 into I-905 and CA 210 into I-210 have not happened, and heaven know when/if those will happen. Exit numbers are already consistent for these three routes. It will take leadership from the top of Caltrans HQ or from politicians to make these route conversions happen. Under this line of thought, I think CA 58 will simply upgrade to full freeway over the next decade or two, and it will stay that way with no I-40 extension. I would hope Caltrans would move toward Interstate promotion for these routes, and maybe that will happen someday. I had spoken one time with the local Caltrans district director, and she said that her agency does not plan any Interstate designation for I-15 and I-905, even though both designations are already AASHTO approved.
Agreed Andy. If you may recall, I started a thread last spring about debating whether Caltrans should consider renumbering CA 58 between I-15 and I-5 as CA 40 in anticipation of a westward extension of I-40 to I-5 west of Bakersfield. It looks like Caltrans is in fact trying to build the seamless freeway in piecemeal fashion by building the Hinkley bypass, the Kramer junction bypass, as well as the Centennial corridor/Westside Parkway in Bakersfield proper. I noticed that Google maps even is showing the planned alignment of the CA 58 Centennial corridor: https://www.google.com/maps/@35.3540664,-119.0441788,17z
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.3686286,-119.0582677,17z
It isn't so much a "seamless freeway" as a seamless four-lane highway. In many areas, an expressway is more than sufficient where others a grade-separation is needed. These last two - Hinkley and Kramer - will create that needed four-lane roadway.
Quote from: sdmichael on September 26, 2014, 01:27:24 AM
It isn't so much a "seamless freeway" as a seamless four-lane highway. In many areas, an expressway is more than sufficient where others a grade-separation is needed. These last two - Hinkley and Kramer - will create that needed four-lane roadway.
I will agree with you on this point, however Caltrans will probably be more aggressive pursuing the I-40 designation as these projects become completed .....
Do they really think they will get away with punching through that short section west of 99 anytime soon.
Quote from: I94RoadRunner on September 26, 2014, 03:30:44 AM
I will agree with you on this point, however Caltrans will probably be more aggressive pursuing the I-40 designation as these projects become completed .....
I somehow doubt this, since Caltrans has seemingly been in no hurry to get I-shields posted on CA 15...
Or 210, or 905... I think Caltrans is just trying to get a roadway upgraded. A different sign isn't a part of that. The push for an Interstate shield for 99 isn't through Caltrans, but through the local groups wanting it. Otherwise, there is no point to it.
Quote from: roadfro on September 26, 2014, 10:25:10 AM
Quote from: I94RoadRunner on September 26, 2014, 03:30:44 AM
I will agree with you on this point, however Caltrans will probably be more aggressive pursuing the I-40 designation as these projects become completed .....
I somehow doubt this, since Caltrans has seemingly been in no hurry to get I-shields posted on CA 15...
Going back to something I noted earlier: if signed Interstate status on the portion of 15 between 5 and 8 is dependent on the 94/15 interchange being rebuilt...when is that project supposed to happen?
I think it's dependent on the HOV lanes that are going to be added on 94 and the direct connection to 805 southbound. That would necessitate getting rid of the left exits on 94 at 15.
And for that matter the left exits are on CA 94 not 15. So what is the issue that 15 could not have interstate status since there are no left exits on the road in question .....? :confused:
Quote from: MarkF on September 24, 2014, 01:39:58 AM
Quote from: mrsman on September 22, 2014, 11:44:33 PM
With regard to Santa Ana on NB I-5, this is a fairly recent phenomenon. When I was growing up, you'd only see Los Angeles on the northbound BGS, all the way from San Diego to the East LA Interchange.
Apparently, Dist. 12 had the idea that this was a good way to promote Orange County.
I think the city of Santa Ana requested the I-5 northbound control city change.
But why listen to them? If they really wanted to include Santa Ana, the better course would have been 2 control cities (Santa Ana and Los Angeles) throughout I-5 northbound in southern Orange county.
Quote from: mrsman on October 03, 2014, 01:36:18 PM
Quote from: MarkF on September 24, 2014, 01:39:58 AM
Quote from: mrsman on September 22, 2014, 11:44:33 PM
With regard to Santa Ana on NB I-5, this is a fairly recent phenomenon. When I was growing up, you'd only see Los Angeles on the northbound BGS, all the way from San Diego to the East LA Interchange.
Apparently, Dist. 12 had the idea that this was a good way to promote Orange County.
I think the city of Santa Ana requested the I-5 northbound control city change.
But why listen to them? If they really wanted to include Santa Ana, the better course would have been 2 control cities (Santa Ana and Los Angeles) throughout I-5 northbound in southern Orange county.
I agree. I wasn't happy with the removal of Los Angeles from the signs. Here's an article about how the city of Santa Ana got the signs changed:
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/santa-188399-city-freeway.html
Quote from: MarkF on October 04, 2014, 02:33:46 AM
Quote from: mrsman on October 03, 2014, 01:36:18 PM
Quote from: MarkF on September 24, 2014, 01:39:58 AM
Quote from: mrsman on September 22, 2014, 11:44:33 PM
With regard to Santa Ana on NB I-5, this is a fairly recent phenomenon. When I was growing up, you'd only see Los Angeles on the northbound BGS, all the way from San Diego to the East LA Interchange.
Apparently, Dist. 12 had the idea that this was a good way to promote Orange County.
I think the city of Santa Ana requested the I-5 northbound control city change.
But why listen to them? If they really wanted to include Santa Ana, the better course would have been 2 control cities (Santa Ana and Los Angeles) throughout I-5 northbound in southern Orange county.
I agree. I wasn't happy with the removal of Los Angeles from the signs. Here's an article about how the city of Santa Ana got the signs changed:
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/santa-188399-city-freeway.html
I read the article and I can see why Santa Ana would want some extra promotion, but I still feel that they would have adequate promotion by having both SA and LA signed on the BGSes.
And Dist. 12 is not allergic to having two control cities on the BGS. From the article, you can see a picture of the CA-55/I-5 interchange where they show CA-55 as being a control city of Anaheim/Riverside. Leaving aside the question of whether Anaheim is appropriate (Yorba Linda would be a better choice), they do acknowledge that two control cities would be helpful to motorists heading to northern Orange County (and then many continuing further east on the 91 toward Riverside).
A control of Santa Ana / Los Angeles would be a win-win. Alas, they don't listen to me.
Ugh, let's not even get into the utter mess that is SR 55 and SR 91's control city of "Anaheim/Riverside" [sic].
The Hinkley Bypass is now under construction. I wasn't even aware of it until I went up there to see if the Lenwood Road bridge over the railroad was complete. It is, but Lenwood is now closed just before you get to CA-58, with a big pile of dirt that will be part of a new interchange on the freeway alignment. Hinkley Road is similarly closed, and you can see the new roadbed cleared pretty much along its entire length. I was unable to find any projected completion date online, however.
It seems odd that they'd do Hinkley before the Kramer Junction Bypass. That's where the real backups occur. In the long run, the two-lane stretch through Hinkley would have been a problem, but not immediately. There's no sign of work further west.
Quote from: pderocco on October 08, 2015, 01:30:54 AM
The Hinkley Bypass is now under construction. I wasn't even aware of it until I went up there to see if the Lenwood Road bridge over the railroad was complete. It is, but Lenwood is now closed just before you get to CA-58, with a big pile of dirt that will be part of a new interchange on the freeway alignment. Hinkley Road is similarly closed, and you can see the new roadbed cleared pretty much along its entire length. I was unable to find any projected completion date online, however.
It seems odd that they'd do Hinkley before the Kramer Junction Bypass. That's where the real backups occur. In the long run, the two-lane stretch through Hinkley would have been a problem, but not immediately. There's no sign of work further west.
Here's your completion date:
The $201 million project was awarded to Skanska USA Civil and is expected to be finished by December 2016. Crews have already started work. The project will widen and realign Highway 58 from a two-lane conventional highway to a four-lane expressway. Two interchanges will be built at Hinkley Road and Lenwood Road.
http://www.vvdailypress.com/article/20150801/NEWS/150809981
Rick
Quote from: pderocco on October 08, 2015, 01:30:54 AM
It seems odd that they'd do Hinkley before the Kramer Junction Bypass. That's where the real backups occur. In the long run, the two-lane stretch through Hinkley would have been a problem, but not immediately. There's no sign of work further west.
The Kramer Junction Bypass project has not gone out to bid yet which is why there's no work going on there. If I had to guess, I would say the Kramer Junction project will be advertised sometime late this year or early next year with construction starting about a year after that.
I think CA-58 should be completely freeway from Barstow to Interstate 5, even if it never becomes an extension of Interstate 40.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 08, 2015, 04:43:37 PM
I think CA-58 should be completely freeway from Barstow to Interstate 5, even if it never becomes an extension of Interstate 40.
Like I said earlier, plans are moving forward on the Kramer Junction bypass project. Once these two projects are completed, CA-58 will be a freeway or expressway from Bakersfield to Barstow. There's probably not enough cross traffic east of Mojave to warrant the removal of the at-grade intersections so conversion to a full freeway seems unlikely.
With that said, I do think an upgrade of the CA-223 intersection east of Bakersfield by building an interchange is warranted.
Quote from: myosh_tino on October 08, 2015, 05:11:20 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 08, 2015, 04:43:37 PM
I think CA-58 should be completely freeway from Barstow to Interstate 5, even if it never becomes an extension of Interstate 40.
Like I said earlier, plans are moving forward on the Kramer Junction bypass project. Once these two projects are completed, CA-58 will be a freeway or expressway from Bakersfield to Barstow. There's probably not enough cross traffic east of Mojave to warrant the removal of the at-grade intersections so conversion to a full freeway seems unlikely.
With that said, I do think an upgrade of the CA-223 intersection east of Bakersfield by building an interchange is warranted.
For most rural roads, including this stretch of CA 58, 4-lane divided expressway treatment is generally good enough. Full interchanges with other major highways (like Kramer Jct), freeways through cities, and expressways that skip lights but have a few at-grade intersections would work on CA-58 just as well as it does on US 101 through central CA.
This is probably more fit for the Fictional Highways thread, but I have a solution for CA-58 if it never becomes I-40: Make the Barstow-Bakersfield section CA-40 as a continuation of sorts of I-40.
Quote from: Rover_0 on October 09, 2015, 11:50:33 AM
This is probably more fit for the Fictional Highways thread, but I have a solution for CA-58 if it never becomes I-40: Make the Barstow-Bakersfield section CA-40 as a continuation of sorts of I-40.
Yes. That was suggested on another thread recently:
Quote from: english si on September 30, 2015, 02:15:24 PM
Renumber CA58 as CA40. Renumber I-580 as I-58, just dropping the zero at the end.
CA 40 should be at least to I-5, using the Westside Parkway. Or even west of I-5, taking over the CA 46 route to 101 at or near Paso Robles.
Quote from: kkt on October 09, 2015, 12:44:38 PM
Quote from: Rover_0 on October 09, 2015, 11:50:33 AM
This is probably more fit for the Fictional Highways thread, but I have a solution for CA-58 if it never becomes I-40: Make the Barstow-Bakersfield section CA-40 as a continuation of sorts of I-40.
Yes. That was suggested on another thread recently:
Quote from: english si on September 30, 2015, 02:15:24 PM
Renumber CA58 as CA40. Renumber I-580 as I-58, just dropping the zero at the end.
CA 40 should be at least to I-5, using the Westside Parkway. Or even west of I-5, taking over the CA 46 route to 101 at or near Paso Robles.
It's a good idea, especially since CA-58's interchange with I-15 was moved to south of I-40, so that people can make a seemless connection from I-40 to CA-40 via I-15.
Quote from: mrsman on October 09, 2015, 03:14:57 PM
Quote from: kkt on October 09, 2015, 12:44:38 PM
Quote from: Rover_0 on October 09, 2015, 11:50:33 AM
This is probably more fit for the Fictional Highways thread, but I have a solution for CA-58 if it never becomes I-40: Make the Barstow-Bakersfield section CA-40 as a continuation of sorts of I-40.
Yes. That was suggested on another thread recently:
Quote from: english si on September 30, 2015, 02:15:24 PM
Renumber CA58 as CA40. Renumber I-580 as I-58, just dropping the zero at the end.
CA 40 should be at least to I-5, using the Westside Parkway. Or even west of I-5, taking over the CA 46 route to 101 at or near Paso Robles.
It's a good idea, especially since CA-58's interchange with I-15 was moved to south of I-40, so that people can make a seemless connection from I-40 to CA-40 via I-15.
I'm sorry but I don't see the point of renumbering CA-58, especially when you factor in the cost of having to change signs and route shields. I am definitely not in favor of renumbering CA-46 between I-5 and US 101 due to the historical significance of the route's previous number, US 466.
Quote from: admtrap on October 08, 2014, 08:33:59 PM
Ugh, let's not even get into the utter mess that is SR 55 and SR 91's control city of "Anaheim/Riverside" [sic].
Oh please, let's. I like envisioning some poor family who 20 minutes beforehand was pulling out of the rental car lot at John Wayne Airport and excited to arrive at Disneyland now stuck in bumper-to-bumper traffic on the 91 unknowingly headed to Corona.
Quote from: mrsman on October 03, 2014, 01:36:18 PM
Quote from: MarkF on September 24, 2014, 01:39:58 AM
Quote from: mrsman on September 22, 2014, 11:44:33 PM
With regard to Santa Ana on NB I-5, this is a fairly recent phenomenon. When I was growing up, you'd only see Los Angeles on the northbound BGS, all the way from San Diego to the East LA Interchange.
Apparently, Dist. 12 had the idea that this was a good way to promote Orange County.
I think the city of Santa Ana requested the I-5 northbound control city change.
But why listen to them? If they really wanted to include Santa Ana, the better course would have been 2 control cities (Santa Ana and Los Angeles) throughout I-5 northbound in southern Orange county.
District 12 listens to almost anyone, including, sometimes, the voices in their heads, when it comes to signage. At least that's my theory to explain why they decided to spend money to rename the Newport Freeway to the Costa Mesa Freeway and why Artesia is a control city on the 91.
Connecting the California State Route 58 Kramer Jct. to the rest of the expwy.? (expressway)
I also go on the Caltrans District 8 for San Bernardino and Riverside Counties for the California state route 58, I am talking about the portion of east of the Kramer Jct. to the next section that is just to the west of Barstow, CA on that highway, to bring it up to expressway standards or freeway standards.
EA: 04351
EA 04351
County SBD
Route 058
Construction Started January 28, 2015
Construction to End February 27, 2017
Project Total 157,835
Location IN HINKLEY, FR 2.4 MI W/O HIDDEN RIVER RD TO 0.7 MI E/O LENWOOD RD
Description REALIGN & WIDEN SR-58 TO 4-LANE EXPRESSWAY (SOUTHERLY ALT) PHASE 2
http://www.dot.ca.gov/d8/
Scott C. Presnal
Morro Bay, CA
To answer your question, the Hinkley Bypass is being built to expressway standards, not freeway standards even though it includes 2 interchanges at Lenwood and Hinkley.
You can read more about this project in a discussion I started back in the 2014 when the project went out to bid... https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=13433.msg2005716#msg2005716
I am thinking about the section Caltrans is working on just west of Barstow, CA not the Kramer Jct. CA 58 expressway. In Hinkley, CA not at U.S. 395 but further down the highway just outside of Barstow at the city of Hinkley, CA
This is what I have brought up as the project:
EA: 04351
EA 04351
County SBD
Route 058
Construction Started January 28, 2015
Construction to End February 27, 2017
Project Total 157,835
Location IN HINKLEY, FR 2.4 MI W/O HIDDEN RIVER RD TO 0.7 MI E/O LENWOOD RD
Description REALIGN & WIDEN SR-58 TO 4-LANE EXPRESSWAY (SOUTHERLY ALT) PHASE 2
It was started on January 28, 2015 and will be finished by February 27, 2017 according to Caltrans District 8, for San Bernardino & Riverside Counties.
The Kramer Jct. Section of California State Route 58 from the same Caltrans District 8 is here:
Location ID: 39
Location ID 39
EA 34770
ProjectNumber 0800000616
County SBD
Route 058
Begin Postmile 0.0
End Postmile 12.9
Description CONSTRUCT 4-LANE DIVIDED EXPWY; SR58/US395 IC & RR OH BR
URL
Scott C. Presnal
Morro Bay, CA
Quote from: ACSCmapcollector on July 09, 2016, 03:59:02 PM
I am thinking about the section Caltrans is working on just west of Barstow, CA not the Kramer Jct. CA 58 expressway.
Scott C. Presnal
Morro Bay, CA
Yes, that's the
Hinkley Bypass. I started a discussion on it back in 2014 which I linked to in my previous post.
Mods, its it possible to merge this with the topic with the one I started... https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=13433.msg2005716#msg2005716 or modify the title of this topic to refer to the Hinkley Bypass and not the Kramer Junction Bypass? Thanks!
Note, just to clarify...
Hinkley Bypass Project (started Sept 2014) - https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=13433
Kramer Junction Bypass Project (started July 2016) - https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18308.0
New thread started July 2016 merged into existing thread. –Roadfro
Just a quick note. I'm headed to Las Vegas on Friday (10/21/16) and plan to get some photos of the Hinkley Bypass construction from Hwy 58. I'm thinking they should be nearing completion of the bypass as it's supposed to open in a couple of months. I will post the photos here once I get them uploaded to my server.
Quote from: myosh_tino on October 21, 2016, 04:31:26 AM
Just a quick note. I'm headed to Las Vegas on Friday (10/21/16) and plan to get some photos of the Hinkley Bypass construction from Hwy 58. I'm thinking they should be nearing completion of the bypass as it's supposed to open in a couple of months. I will post the photos here once I get them uploaded to my server.
I'll be looking forward to seeing it....from the perspective of someone else. I literally went all the way up to Trona-Wildrose Road and CA 190 to get Vegas. I'll be taking whatever crazed series of mountain highways like CA 18, 138 and CA 2 over Angeles Crest to get back to Bakersfield. I usually got out of my way just to avoid Kramer Junction...no matter what it takes. :rolleyes:
I'll be looking forward to those pix Myosh. Some day we'll have real roads in the High Desert!
Rick
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 21, 2016, 10:00:50 AM
I literally went all the way up to Trona-Wildrose Road and CA 190 to get Vegas. I'll be taking whatever crazed series of mountain highways like CA 18, 138 and CA 2 over Angeles Crest to get back to Bakersfield. I usually got out of my way just to avoid Kramer Junction...no matter what it takes. :rolleyes:
That's a bit over-dramatic, isn't it? I mean, I don't like driving through there, but going far out of the way and over isolated mountain passes seems a bit extreme to avoid a few miles of 2-lane road and a traffic signal.
Quote from: coatimundi on October 21, 2016, 05:50:44 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 21, 2016, 10:00:50 AM
I literally went all the way up to Trona-Wildrose Road and CA 190 to get Vegas. I'll be taking whatever crazed series of mountain highways like CA 18, 138 and CA 2 over Angeles Crest to get back to Bakersfield. I usually got out of my way just to avoid Kramer Junction...no matter what it takes. :rolleyes:
That's a bit over-dramatic, isn't it? I mean, I don't like driving through there, but going far out of the way and over isolated mountain passes seems a bit extreme to avoid a few miles of 2-lane road and a traffic signal.
The thing I hate about writing is that it seldom conveys a tone properly. I'll rephrase, generally I can think of some more scenic way that isn't going to take me to Phoenix or Las Vegas that isn't as grating as taking notes 58 to I-40 or I-15. Generally when I'm heading east it's for some recreational purpose. So that being the case I tend just avoid almost anything with a lot of traffic unless it's necessary. This trip would be a good example, I think that I've taken barely more than 200 miles of I-15, I-70, I-40, and I-17.
But for what it's worth I've always had terrible luck eastbound on 58 at Kramer Junction due to the slow down with it down grading from an expressway to two-land road just past Boron as it crosses a series of rails. Usually the back up is one to five miles if you try to get through in the middle of a weekday.
Besides its a beautiful time of year right before winter. Missing out on Dantes View Road and Angeles Crest just was something that wasn't going to happen.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 21, 2016, 10:00:50 AM
Quote from: myosh_tino on October 21, 2016, 04:31:26 AM
Just a quick note. I'm headed to Las Vegas on Friday (10/21/16) and plan to get some photos of the Hinkley Bypass construction from Hwy 58. I'm thinking they should be nearing completion of the bypass as it's supposed to open in a couple of months. I will post the photos here once I get them uploaded to my server.
I'll be looking forward to seeing it....from the perspective of someone else. I literally went all the way up to Trona-Wildrose Road and CA 190 to get Vegas. I'll be taking whatever crazed series of mountain highways like CA 18, 138 and CA 2 over Angeles Crest to get back to Bakersfield. I usually got out of my way just to avoid Kramer Junction...no matter what it takes. :rolleyes:
The photos I took didn't come out so well. From what I can tell, the entire bypass is going to be paved in concrete which doesn't really show up well in the photos I took. I did capture a decent photo of the Lenwood overpass. None of the ramp at that interchange appeared to be paved. The travel lanes look like they're paved but the shoulders are still not complete. I seem to recall reading somewhere that the bypass is supposed to open in November of 2016 but from what I can tell, I don't think they're going to make that deadline. I'm thinking a mid-2017 opening is more realistic.
BTW, because I made the drive on a Friday (versus Sunday in years past) I can really see a need to get the Kramer Junction Bypass constructed ASAP. The traffic was a really mess and there were trucks everywhere!
Quote from: myosh_tino on October 22, 2016, 04:14:16 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 21, 2016, 10:00:50 AM
Quote from: myosh_tino on October 21, 2016, 04:31:26 AM
Just a quick note. I'm headed to Las Vegas on Friday (10/21/16) and plan to get some photos of the Hinkley Bypass construction from Hwy 58. I'm thinking they should be nearing completion of the bypass as it's supposed to open in a couple of months. I will post the photos here once I get them uploaded to my server.
I'll be looking forward to seeing it....from the perspective of someone else. I literally went all the way up to Trona-Wildrose Road and CA 190 to get Vegas. I'll be taking whatever crazed series of mountain highways like CA 18, 138 and CA 2 over Angeles Crest to get back to Bakersfield. I usually got out of my way just to avoid Kramer Junction...no matter what it takes. :rolleyes:
The photos I took didn't come out so well. From what I can tell, the entire bypass is going to be paved in concrete which doesn't really show up well in the photos I took. I did capture a decent photo of the Lenwood overpass. None of the ramp at that interchange appeared to be paved. The travel lanes look like they're paved but the shoulders are still not complete. I seem to recall reading somewhere that the bypass is supposed to open in November of 2016 but from what I can tell, I don't think they're going to make that deadline. I'm thinking a mid-2017 opening is more realistic.
BTW, because I made the drive on a Friday (versus Sunday in years past) I can really see a need to get the Kramer Junction Bypass constructed ASAP. The traffic was a really mess and there were trucks everywhere!
Even raising the road over the rail tracks or vice versa would help a ton. That's a pretty wild swing for those truckers which is made only worst eastbound by the sudden railroad track. Then throw that stop sign and all those truck stops at Kramer Junction and it's a complete disaster almost every working day. It tends to flow much better heading back westbound despite the Hinkley Bypass not being complete.
They've recently opened the Hinkley Rd overpass, and closed the detour via Dixie Rd, so they can fill in the gap in the new roadbed. The Lenwood Rd overpass isn't even paved yet, though, so I doubt it will be open this year.
The new freeway is completely open now, except for the Lenwood Road overpass and the ramps connecting it to the westbound freeway. Those look like they're a couple months away.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 21, 2016, 10:00:50 AM
I'll be looking forward to seeing it....from the perspective of someone else.
Quote from: nexus73 on October 21, 2016, 12:27:37 PM
I'll be looking forward to those pix Myosh. Some day we'll have real roads in the High Desert!
Rick
Like I said earlier, the pictures didn't come out so good but I was in Vegas last weekend on a mini-vacation and I had enough foresight to bring a camera that takes HD video so I was able to record my westbound drive on the new bypass. After doing some editing to add some graphics and commentary, here's the final product. Be forewarned, the video is rather shaky at times due to the mount I used to hold the camera...
Note: Click the "YouTube" icon to view the video in 1080p or simply CLICK HERE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WY6r9e7WUHU)
As noted in the video, the Lenwood Road interchange is not finished yet as are the final connections of the westbound lanes between the existing roadway and the new bypass.
Since California is Earthquake Country, a little shaking is okay...LOL! Nice to see another fine piece of roadway in the High Desert. Thank you for posting up the video Myosh!
Rick
Thanks for making and posting the video! Nice road.
A couple of interesting notes about the bypass...
* While the bypass was supposedly built to "expressway" standards, "END FREEWAY" signs were posted at the west end just before the Wagner Rd intersection.
* Although Caltrans is supposed to be phasing out Botts Dots, the lane lines on the bypass were marked with Botts Dots on top of a 4-inch white stripe on top of an 8-inch black stripe.
* There is no access to the realigned highway from the old road at the west end of the bypass. Wagner Road, which has an at-grade intersection with CA-58 does connect to the old alignment but Caltrans dead-ends the road less than a mile east of the intersection.
* The speed limit on the bypass is 65 MPH. This matches the speed limit on the existing 4-lane expressway to the west but traffic mostly flows at 70+. FWIW, the speed limit on I-15 *through* Barstow is 70 MPH.
Weird to see that section of 58 a full four-lane divided, thanks for the video!
One down, many more to go. Slow but steady seems to be the prevailing mode when it comes to CA 58 upgrades. We'll take what we can get at this point in time. Nice video, by the way!
If the Hinkley Bypass is built to expressway standards what has to be improved to bring it up to Interstate standards? The only thing I saw that could be sub-par is the inner left lane shoulders were a bit narrow.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 16, 2017, 10:22:40 PM
If the Hinkley Bypass is built to expressway standards what has to be improved to bring it up to Interstate standards? The only thing I saw that could be sub-par is the inner left lane shoulders were a bit narrow.
I see I'm not the only one still hopeful for an I-40 extension to I-5 in the future. ;-)
Caltrans seems to have taken a page from NCDOT's playbook. NC-147 and NC-540 are part of the Triangle Expressway, yet both of those routes were built to interstate standards. It looks like this is the case with the Hinkley Bypass, where "expressway" is merely just a label as opposed to how it's really built.
I would guess it's called an expressway because there are still local landowners adjacent to the highway who have an ingress easement to the highway. This would violate California's own guidelines for expressway status, but there's precedent for this with the SR-86S expressway.
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on May 17, 2017, 09:28:35 AM
I would guess it's called an expressway because there are still local landowners adjacent to the highway who have an ingress easement to the highway. This would violate California's own guidelines for expressway status, but there's precedent for this with the SR-86S expressway.
From the video, it appears that the only access to the expressway lanes are from the few at-grade crossings that remain -- at least along this section. Farther west, in Kern County, there
are several private access points remaining between the west end of the Boron freeway segment (at California City Blvd.) and the Mojave bypass freeway; partially due to that segment being an added 2 lanes to the original CA 58 alignment.
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on May 17, 2017, 09:28:35 AM
I would guess it's called an expressway because there are still local landowners adjacent to the highway who have an ingress easement to the highway. This would violate California's own guidelines for expressway status, but there's precedent for this with the SR-86S expressway.
The new bypass is a full freeway, in the sense that access is limited to the two grade-separated interchanges. Hence, the "END FREEWAY" sign just before the Wagner Rd at-grade intersection. In that sense, it's like the older freeway to the east, leading to I-15. No abuttor's right-of-way. But all the adjacent land is easily accessible via the various side roads off the old 58 and Community Blvd.
So will the old road retain the Barstow-Bakersfield Hwy name, but just lose the number, or will they change the name to Old Highway 58, just like the older alignment across the north side of Barstow?
And the other question is: will they ever build a Lenwood Rd bridge over the tracks? The Lenwood Rd overpass is high enough that it could launch such a bridge, but I wonder if there's enough traffic to warrant the expense. They did spend a bunch of money on a bridge over the other set of tracks along National Trails Hwy a couple years ago, and there's very little traffic on that.
Quote from: pderocco on May 18, 2017, 03:29:51 AM
And the other question is: will they ever build a Lenwood Rd bridge over the tracks? The Lenwood Rd overpass is high enough that it could launch such a bridge, but I wonder if there's enough traffic to warrant the expense. They did spend a bunch of money on a bridge over the other set of tracks along National Trails Hwy a couple years ago, and there's very little traffic on that.
It would likely be the volume of rail traffic as well as road traffic that would warrant construction of an overpass or underpass. The set of tracks along the National Trails Highway is the joint BNSF/UP main line out of L.A. (and the adjoining ports); this features trains approximately every 15 minutes (I used to live a half-block from these tracks in Hesperia -- for a railfan such as myself, that was one of the saving graces of the high desert!). This sort of volume often prompts transportation agencies to construct -- or plan to build -- grade separations at most if not all public road crossings if at all possible. The BNSF line more or less paralleling CA 58 between Barstow and Mojave, while handling quite a bit of traffic, sees a train approximately every 45 minutes to an hour; about 25-30% of the volume going in & out of the L.A. basin. And while there have been significant highway delays at the points where both CA 58 cross the tracks at grade between Kramer Corners & Boron and the US 395 crossing right at Kramer (both of which have been discussed in other threads), it's likely that the overall volume of rail traffic, mixed with the AADT of Lenwood Road, didn't meet the criteria used to determine whether a road/rail separation is warranted.
Quote from: pderocco on May 18, 2017, 03:29:51 AM
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on May 17, 2017, 09:28:35 AM
I would guess it's called an expressway because there are still local landowners adjacent to the highway who have an ingress easement to the highway. This would violate California's own guidelines for expressway status, but there's precedent for this with the SR-86S expressway.
The new bypass is a full freeway, in the sense that access is limited to the two grade-separated interchanges. Hence, the "END FREEWAY" sign just before the Wagner Rd at-grade intersection. In that sense, it's like the older freeway to the east, leading to I-15. No abuttor's right-of-way. But all the adjacent land is easily accessible via the various side roads off the old 58 and Community Blvd.
From what I've been able to gather, the above statement is true. According to the project plans, a "BEGIN FREEWAY" sign is posted just after the Wagner Rd intersection heading east on 58. I suspect the reason why the project was advertised as a 4-lane expressway is simply because of the at-grade intersection at Wagner.
Quote from: pderocco on May 18, 2017, 03:29:51 AM
And the other question is: will they ever build a Lenwood Rd bridge over the tracks? The Lenwood Rd overpass is high enough that it could launch such a bridge, but I wonder if there's enough traffic to warrant the expense.
Not as part of this project. According to the plans, Lenwood will cross the railroad at an at-grade crossing.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 16, 2017, 10:22:40 PM
If the Hinkley Bypass is built to expressway standards what has to be improved to bring it up to Interstate standards? The only thing I saw that could be sub-par is the inner left lane shoulders were a bit narrow.
The left shoulder is 5 feet, the right shoulder is 10 feet. Both are within Interstate-spec.
Quote from: myosh_tino on May 18, 2017, 01:10:04 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 16, 2017, 10:22:40 PM
If the Hinkley Bypass is built to expressway standards what has to be improved to bring it up to Interstate standards? The only thing I saw that could be sub-par is the inner left lane shoulders were a bit narrow.
The left shoulder is 5 feet, the right shoulder is 10 feet. Both are within Interstate-spec.
The 4-lane expressway segments between Hinkley and Kramer are built to the above specification, as is the Mojave bypass segment (completed in 2003). The freeway segment in the Boron area, dating from the late '70's, does feature substandard inner shoulders (as does much of the freeway alignment between Mojave and where the route touches down in the San Joaquin Valley east of Edison). It's likely such qualifying specifications are written into most freeway/expressway plans these days -- not only on this corridor but others in the state.
Given that the Hinkley Bypass recently opened and work on the next section of the Westside Parkway in Bakersfield seems to be underway, I'm suprised that there hasn't been a renewed push by local officials along CA-58 for Caltrans to extend I-40. Given the truck traffic and CA-58's importance in linking the SF bay area with the Southeast while bypassing LA metro, the corridor is practically screaming for an I-40 extension...
Quote from: LM117 on May 18, 2017, 07:59:50 PM
Given that the Hinkley Bypass recently opened and work on the next section of the Westside Parkway in Bakersfield seems to be underway, I'm suprised that there hasn't been a renewed push by local officials along CA-58 for Caltrans to extend I-40. Given the truck traffic and CA-58's importance in linking the SF bay area with the Southeast while bypassing LA metro, the corridor is practically screaming for an I-40 extension...
Any push for an Interstate designation for CA 58 will likely have to be a two-pronged affair: local officials
and the area's Congressional representatives: David Valadao, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, and Paul Cook -- all Republicans (this is the redder section of CA!). If recent Interstate-designation protocol is any indication, the process would involve (a) designating a new high-priority corridor over CA 58 from I-5 to I-15 (b) attaching "future Interstate" designation to the corridor's legal description, and (c) attaching a numerical designation (obviously "I-40") to (b). That would likely be done at the time of yearly appropriations (although stand-alone legislation toward such an issue has occurred in the past). Caltrans will likely not actively pursue this; no more than they've pursued an Interstate designation for CA 99, although (a) and (b) were done for that route back in 2005 -- they have little or no interest in seeing their regional priorities jumbled up by adding an Interstate corridor with a 25-year completion time frame.
That's just step one -- step two is actually getting some funding directed toward projects along the corridor (both new facilities and upgrades of existing ones). Unless special priorities would be in the works, the state & local share would remain at 20% -- and that's proved to be a project-killer (or at least putting it into a virtual coma!) in the past. One of the principal issues regarding largely rural/desert projects such as this is the lack of places from which to derive revenue to offset the local input. It's a version of the old "lead a horse to water" adage -- parties can designate future Interstates if there's enough will & clout to do so -- but actually putting Caterpillars on the ground is another thing altogether! Mind you, I'd like to see this corridor become I-40 as much as anyone (just look at my avatar!) -- but it's going to be an uphill slog in any instance.
Quote from: sparker on May 18, 2017, 08:33:39 PM
Quote from: LM117 on May 18, 2017, 07:59:50 PM
Given that the Hinkley Bypass recently opened and work on the next section of the Westside Parkway in Bakersfield seems to be underway, I'm suprised that there hasn't been a renewed push by local officials along CA-58 for Caltrans to extend I-40. Given the truck traffic and CA-58's importance in linking the SF bay area with the Southeast while bypassing LA metro, the corridor is practically screaming for an I-40 extension...
Any push for an Interstate designation for CA 58 will likely have to be a two-pronged affair: local officials and the area's Congressional representatives: David Valadao, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, and Paul Cook -- all Republicans (this is the redder section of CA!). If recent Interstate-designation protocol is any indication, the process would involve (a) designating a new high-priority corridor over CA 58 from I-5 to I-15 (b) attaching "future Interstate" designation to the corridor's legal description, and (c) attaching a numerical designation (obviously "I-40") to (b). That would likely be done at the time of yearly appropriations (although stand-alone legislation toward such an issue has occurred in the past). Caltrans will likely not actively pursue this; no more than they've pursued an Interstate designation for CA 99, although (a) and (b) were done for that route back in 2005 -- they have little or no interest in seeing their regional priorities jumbled up by adding an Interstate corridor with a 25-year completion time frame.
The 25-year time frame only applies to future interstates that were approved through the administrative option of sending applications to AASHTO and FHWA. Future interstates that are designated by Congress are almost always exempt from this rule.
One possibility is for Caltrans to continue upgrading CA-58 piecemeal and once the whole corridor is finished, then they could send applications to AASHTO and FHWA that would have CA-58 become part of I-40 if approved. Seeing as CA-58 is a much more important route than it was when I-40's extension was rejected in the 1960's, and that Bakersfield is larger than it was back then, I don't see why AASHTO or FHWA would deny an I-40 extension this time around.
Quote from: LM117 on May 18, 2017, 10:53:48 PM
Quote from: sparker on May 18, 2017, 08:33:39 PM
Quote from: LM117 on May 18, 2017, 07:59:50 PM
Given that the Hinkley Bypass recently opened and work on the next section of the Westside Parkway in Bakersfield seems to be underway, I'm suprised that there hasn't been a renewed push by local officials along CA-58 for Caltrans to extend I-40. Given the truck traffic and CA-58's importance in linking the SF bay area with the Southeast while bypassing LA metro, the corridor is practically screaming for an I-40 extension...
Any push for an Interstate designation for CA 58 will likely have to be a two-pronged affair: local officials and the area's Congressional representatives: David Valadao, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, and Paul Cook -- all Republicans (this is the redder section of CA!). If recent Interstate-designation protocol is any indication, the process would involve (a) designating a new high-priority corridor over CA 58 from I-5 to I-15 (b) attaching "future Interstate" designation to the corridor's legal description, and (c) attaching a numerical designation (obviously "I-40") to (b). That would likely be done at the time of yearly appropriations (although stand-alone legislation toward such an issue has occurred in the past). Caltrans will likely not actively pursue this; no more than they've pursued an Interstate designation for CA 99, although (a) and (b) were done for that route back in 2005 -- they have little or no interest in seeing their regional priorities jumbled up by adding an Interstate corridor with a 25-year completion time frame.
The 25-year time frame only applies to future interstates that were approved through the administrative option of sending applications to AASHTO and FHWA. Future interstates that are designated by Congress are almost always exempt from this rule.
One possibility is for Caltrans to continue upgrading CA-58 piecemeal and once the whole corridor is finished, then they could send applications to AASHTO and FHWA that would have CA-58 become part of I-40 if approved. Seeing as CA-58 is a much more important route than it was when I-40's extension was rejected in the 1960's, and that Bakersfield is larger than it was back then, I don't see why AASHTO or FHWA would deny an I-40 extension this time around.
As I said previously, the trick would be to get Caltrans off their collective asses regarding such an activity. IMO -- given the agency's disinterest in adding Interstate routes, going the congressional route would likely prove more fruitful -- particularly if local politicians at the state level weigh in on the designation/upgrades as well. I know some posters disdain political interference in highway planning activities -- but in this instance, it'll probably be necessary to get an I-40 extension off the ground.
Quote from: sparker on May 18, 2017, 11:56:29 PM
Quote from: LM117 on May 18, 2017, 10:53:48 PM
Quote from: sparker on May 18, 2017, 08:33:39 PM
Quote from: LM117 on May 18, 2017, 07:59:50 PM
Given that the Hinkley Bypass recently opened and work on the next section of the Westside Parkway in Bakersfield seems to be underway, I'm suprised that there hasn't been a renewed push by local officials along CA-58 for Caltrans to extend I-40. Given the truck traffic and CA-58's importance in linking the SF bay area with the Southeast while bypassing LA metro, the corridor is practically screaming for an I-40 extension...
Any push for an Interstate designation for CA 58 will likely have to be a two-pronged affair: local officials and the area's Congressional representatives: David Valadao, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, and Paul Cook -- all Republicans (this is the redder section of CA!). If recent Interstate-designation protocol is any indication, the process would involve (a) designating a new high-priority corridor over CA 58 from I-5 to I-15 (b) attaching "future Interstate" designation to the corridor's legal description, and (c) attaching a numerical designation (obviously "I-40") to (b). That would likely be done at the time of yearly appropriations (although stand-alone legislation toward such an issue has occurred in the past). Caltrans will likely not actively pursue this; no more than they've pursued an Interstate designation for CA 99, although (a) and (b) were done for that route back in 2005 -- they have little or no interest in seeing their regional priorities jumbled up by adding an Interstate corridor with a 25-year completion time frame.
The 25-year time frame only applies to future interstates that were approved through the administrative option of sending applications to AASHTO and FHWA. Future interstates that are designated by Congress are almost always exempt from this rule.
One possibility is for Caltrans to continue upgrading CA-58 piecemeal and once the whole corridor is finished, then they could send applications to AASHTO and FHWA that would have CA-58 become part of I-40 if approved. Seeing as CA-58 is a much more important route than it was when I-40's extension was rejected in the 1960's, and that Bakersfield is larger than it was back then, I don't see why AASHTO or FHWA would deny an I-40 extension this time around.
As I said previously, the trick would be to get Caltrans off their collective asses regarding such an activity. IMO -- given the agency's disinterest in adding Interstate routes, going the congressional route would likely prove more fruitful -- particularly if local politicians at the state level weigh in on the designation/upgrades as well. I know some posters disdain political interference in highway planning activities -- but in this instance, it'll probably be necessary to get an I-40 extension off the ground.
What could work as a stopgap is re-designating CA-58 as CA-40 for the time to provide a buffer for motorists to adjust to and to possibly get the ball rolling and show locals' intentions. Yes, Caltrans still needs to stop snoozing and do something about it, but it's a start.
Quote from: Rover_0 on May 19, 2017, 12:15:25 AM
Quote from: sparker on May 18, 2017, 11:56:29 PM
Quote from: LM117 on May 18, 2017, 10:53:48 PM
Quote from: sparker on May 18, 2017, 08:33:39 PM
Quote from: LM117 on May 18, 2017, 07:59:50 PM
Given that the Hinkley Bypass recently opened and work on the next section of the Westside Parkway in Bakersfield seems to be underway, I'm suprised that there hasn't been a renewed push by local officials along CA-58 for Caltrans to extend I-40. Given the truck traffic and CA-58's importance in linking the SF bay area with the Southeast while bypassing LA metro, the corridor is practically screaming for an I-40 extension...
Any push for an Interstate designation for CA 58 will likely have to be a two-pronged affair: local officials and the area's Congressional representatives: David Valadao, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, and Paul Cook -- all Republicans (this is the redder section of CA!). If recent Interstate-designation protocol is any indication, the process would involve (a) designating a new high-priority corridor over CA 58 from I-5 to I-15 (b) attaching "future Interstate" designation to the corridor's legal description, and (c) attaching a numerical designation (obviously "I-40") to (b). That would likely be done at the time of yearly appropriations (although stand-alone legislation toward such an issue has occurred in the past). Caltrans will likely not actively pursue this; no more than they've pursued an Interstate designation for CA 99, although (a) and (b) were done for that route back in 2005 -- they have little or no interest in seeing their regional priorities jumbled up by adding an Interstate corridor with a 25-year completion time frame.
The 25-year time frame only applies to future interstates that were approved through the administrative option of sending applications to AASHTO and FHWA. Future interstates that are designated by Congress are almost always exempt from this rule.
One possibility is for Caltrans to continue upgrading CA-58 piecemeal and once the whole corridor is finished, then they could send applications to AASHTO and FHWA that would have CA-58 become part of I-40 if approved. Seeing as CA-58 is a much more important route than it was when I-40's extension was rejected in the 1960's, and that Bakersfield is larger than it was back then, I don't see why AASHTO or FHWA would deny an I-40 extension this time around.
As I said previously, the trick would be to get Caltrans off their collective asses regarding such an activity. IMO -- given the agency's disinterest in adding Interstate routes, going the congressional route would likely prove more fruitful -- particularly if local politicians at the state level weigh in on the designation/upgrades as well. I know some posters disdain political interference in highway planning activities -- but in this instance, it'll probably be necessary to get an I-40 extension off the ground.
What could work as a stopgap is re-designating CA-58 as CA-40 for the time to provide a buffer for motorists to adjust to and to possibly get the ball rolling and show locals' intentions. Yes, Caltrans still needs to stop snoozing and do something about it, but it's a start.
Yes, I was about to post that!
There's not really that much left to do.:
Westside Parkway's west end to I-5, parallel to Stockdale Highway, about 5 miles, directional interchange at I-5 and a diamond interchange at Enos Lane (CA 43)
Complete the CA 99 to Westside Parkway segment, already under construction
Left turns at E Bear Mountain Blvd. (CA 223).
Left turns at Bena-Bealville Rd.
Left turns at 55th St.-Hyundai-Kia Blvd.
2-lane section east of Boron
Left turns at 20 Mule Team Rd.
RR crossing east of Boron
Left turns at dirt road unlabeled in Google Maps
Left turns at Helendale Rd.
Left turns in the several miles west of Barstow
Nowhere near all the left turns need freeway access, if there was a frontage road.
All this talk about a westward extension of I-40... I don't know...
Given Caltrans' recent history about seeking Interstate designations (see routes 15, 210 and 905), I don't think an I-40 designation for CA-58 is in the cards. Given the remoteness of the Mojave desert does it make sense, financially, to upgrade the two expressway-grade segments (Mojave to Edwards and east of Kramer to Hinkley) to a full freeway? Here's what needs to be done IMO...
Mojave to Edwards
* Interchange at Hyundai-Kia Blvd plus a frontage road connecting to some sort of power generation plant to the east.
* Interchange at California City Blvd
east of Kramer to Hinkley
* Interchange at Harper Lake Road because it provides access to the Abengoa-Mojave Solar Project site
* Interchange at Wagner Road at the west end of the Hinkley Bypass to provide "desert" access
east of Bakersfield
* Interchange with CA-223
* Grade-separation of the Bena Rd/Bealville Rd intersection with CA-58 either with a full interchange or just an overpass because Bena Rd connects with CA-223.
Quote from: myosh_tino on May 19, 2017, 03:04:36 PM
All this talk about a westward extension of I-40... I don't know...
Given Caltrans' recent history about seeking Interstate designations (see routes 15, 210 and 905), I don't think an I-40 designation for CA-58 is in the cards. Given the remoteness of the Mojave desert does it make sense, financially, to upgrade the two expressway-grade segments (Mojave to Edwards and east of Kramer to Hinkley) to a full freeway? Here's what needs to be done IMO...
Mojave to Edwards
* Interchange at Hyundai-Kia Blvd plus a frontage road connecting to some sort of power generation plant to the east.
* Interchange at California City Blvd
east of Kramer to Hinkley
* Interchange at Harper Lake Road because it provides access to the Abengoa-Mojave Solar Project site
* Interchange at Wagner Road at the west end of the Hinkley Bypass to provide "desert" access
east of Bakersfield
* Interchange with CA-223
* Grade-separation of the Bena Rd/Bealville Rd intersection with CA-58 either with a full interchange or just an overpass because Bena Rd connects with CA-223.
Personally, I think the corridor will eventually be upgraded to Interstate standards and receive the I-40 designation -- but not in the near (I'm thinking of 20 years) term. What'll happen will, as suggested in previous posts, likely be a piecemeal approach - a piece here, a piece there, etc. The first parts to be done will, in all likelihood, be getting the Westside Parkway done all the way from CA 99 to I-5; this section has local benefit (the "SIU" concept) to Bakersfield & environs, so there will likely be some local pressure to complete it. Next up will be to construct at least an expressway along the remaining 2-lane sections between Boron and Hinkley, including an interchange with US 395 at Kramer. Replacing those sections with at minimum a divided expressway will probably be deemed to provide the most benefit (including safety) in the short term -- and that will complete the 4-lane divided facility all the way from Bakersfield to I-15. But once that's done, unless there's external action, such as a tacked-on legal definition of this corridor as I-40, further upgrades of the expressway portions to Interstate standards might well proceed at a snail's pace -- maybe a 58/223 separation/interchange one STIP term, a widening of the route through the narrows west of Mojave the next, and so forth -- at that rate, it'd take 30+ years to complete the corridor via the usual Caltrans scheduling. It, in all likelihood, would require a constant application of pressure -- including political wheedling, whining, and just plain coercion -- to expedite this corridor's elevation to a through Interstate 40 facility within the foreseeable future.
One question, why was CA 58 rerouted off of its original freeway routing by I-15 in Barstow?
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on May 19, 2017, 09:10:43 PM
One question, why was CA 58 rerouted off of its original freeway routing by I-15 in Barstow?
Why is the sky pink?
Quote from: NE2 on May 19, 2017, 09:23:37 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on May 19, 2017, 09:10:43 PM
One question, why was CA 58 rerouted off of its original freeway routing by I-15 in Barstow?
Why is the sky pink?
St Nick's baking cookies, or so I hear.
Quote from: sparker on May 19, 2017, 04:20:39 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on May 19, 2017, 03:04:36 PM
All this talk about a westward extension of I-40... I don't know...
Given Caltrans' recent history about seeking Interstate designations (see routes 15, 210 and 905), I don't think an I-40 designation for CA-58 is in the cards. Given the remoteness of the Mojave desert does it make sense, financially, to upgrade the two expressway-grade segments (Mojave to Edwards and east of Kramer to Hinkley) to a full freeway? Here's what needs to be done IMO...
Mojave to Edwards
* Interchange at Hyundai-Kia Blvd plus a frontage road connecting to some sort of power generation plant to the east.
* Interchange at California City Blvd
east of Kramer to Hinkley
* Interchange at Harper Lake Road because it provides access to the Abengoa-Mojave Solar Project site
* Interchange at Wagner Road at the west end of the Hinkley Bypass to provide "desert" access
east of Bakersfield
* Interchange with CA-223
* Grade-separation of the Bena Rd/Bealville Rd intersection with CA-58 either with a full interchange or just an overpass because Bena Rd connects with CA-223.
Personally, I think the corridor will eventually be upgraded to Interstate standards and receive the I-40 designation -- but not in the near (I'm thinking of 20 years) term. What'll happen will, as suggested in previous posts, likely be a piecemeal approach - a piece here, a piece there, etc. The first parts to be done will, in all likelihood, be getting the Westside Parkway done all the way from CA 99 to I-5; this section has local benefit (the "SIU" concept) to Bakersfield & environs, so there will likely be some local pressure to complete it. Next up will be to construct at least an expressway along the remaining 2-lane sections between Boron and Hinkley, including an interchange with US 395 at Kramer. Replacing those sections with at minimum a divided expressway will probably be deemed to provide the most benefit (including safety) in the short term -- and that will complete the 4-lane divided facility all the way from Bakersfield to I-15. But once that's done, unless there's external action, such as a tacked-on legal definition of this corridor as I-40, further upgrades of the expressway portions to Interstate standards might well proceed at a snail's pace -- maybe a 58/223 separation/interchange one STIP term, a widening of the route through the narrows west of Mojave the next, and so forth -- at that rate, it'd take 30+ years to complete the corridor via the usual Caltrans scheduling. It, in all likelihood, would require a constant application of pressure -- including political wheedling, whining, and just plain coercion -- to expedite this corridor's elevation to a through Interstate 40 facility within the foreseeable future.
I agree with the sentiments above. In CA, the best model for high traffic rural roads is US 101 along the central coast. A non-stop 4-lane divided expressway with occasional cross traffic. No traffic signals or stop lights. Grade separate any significant RR crossings. Have interchanges where needed. Provide shoulders where needed, but there is no need to go for the full expense of a freeway in rural areas. Run it all the way from I-5 to I-15 and many people will be happy.
Quote from: mrsman on May 21, 2017, 12:50:37 PM
In CA, the best model for high traffic rural roads is US 101 along the central coast. A non-stop 4-lane divided expressway with occasional cross traffic. No traffic signals or stop lights. Grade separate any significant RR crossings. Have interchanges where needed. Provide shoulders where needed, but there is no need to go for the full expense of a freeway in rural areas. Run it all the way from I-5 to I-15 and many people will be happy.
A continuous signal-free divided expressway would likely satisfy traveler (commercial and other) needs for the CA 58 corridor; if a semi can average 55-60 over the entire Barstow-to-I-5 route, there will be little complaint from that quarter. But as with the CA 99 "future Interstate" concept, there almost certainly will be rumblings from regional political entities to go even further, particularly when there's that continuous corridor that "only" requires partial upgrading. Therein lies the paradox -- once a basically functional corridor is in place, the fact is that it's there as a virtual "magnet" for politically-motivated interest that can be framed as "we've gone this far; why not finish the job once and for all!". Once plans have been cemented and contracts let for the remaining non-expressway/freeway portions of CA 58, don't be surprised to see activity in the legislative arena regarding future Interstate designation; localized politicos won't hesitate to take advantage of the opportunity to instigate that "big project" that they can tout to their constituents and colleagues. And the ever-expandable high priority corridor designation idiom allows them to do so without having to endure derision over "earmarks" -- although some would consider that just repackaged pork!
If one is going to put a ton of trucks and Vegas-bound traffic on a route, I'd say freeway all the way. This is not going to be a lower volume route like a good part of US 395 in the High Desert is.
Rick
Quote from: nexus73 on May 21, 2017, 07:15:05 PM
If one is going to put a ton of trucks and Vegas-bound traffic on a route, I'd say freeway all the way. This is not going to be a lower volume route like a good part of US 395 in the High Desert is.
Rick
There's no mistaking the CA 58 corridor for "low volume" -- anyone who's experienced the backups at the Kramer Corner signal (jct. US 395) or the RR crossing a couple of miles west can attest to the high traffic level. My point was that once those particular issues are eliminated (as they would be with the corresponding elimination of the remaining 2-lane portions), any further upgrades may not be deemed necessary from a strictly functional standpoint. Elevating CA 58 to Interstate status will likely be the result of politically-initiated activity rather than an assessment of need (not that such activity wouldn't be welcomed by the various towns strung out along the corridor). However, the characteristics of the mountainous section of freeway across the Tehachapi range would likely require that speed limits, even with qualifying roadway modifications, remain at the 60-65mph level -- no different than the actual speeds of the current facility. Enhancing the full corridor to Interstate-grade freeway would at best yield marginal increases in efficiency. The demand for Interstate status will almost certainly come from external actors rather than facility users.
Quote from: mrsman on May 21, 2017, 12:50:37 PM
I agree with the sentiments above. In CA, the best model for high traffic rural roads is US 101 along the central coast. A non-stop 4-lane divided expressway with occasional cross traffic. No traffic signals or stop lights. Grade separate any significant RR crossings. Have interchanges where needed. Provide shoulders where needed, but there is no need to go for the full expense of a freeway in rural areas. Run it all the way from I-5 to I-15 and many people will be happy.
It's true that would make a lot of people happy, and it probably is what will happen given current levels of funding.
It makes me wonder, though, what people think interstate should be. CA 58 here gets a considerable amount of interstate truck and car traffic, more than proposed I-11, more than I-25 in N.M. north of Santa Fe. It easily justifies being 4 lanes divided due to traffic and safety, and would be even safer without left turns and grade crossings. It's a logical continuation in the same direction.
Quote from: sparkerMy point was that once those particular issues are eliminated (as they would be with the corresponding elimination of the remaining 2-lane portions), any further upgrades may not be deemed necessary from a strictly functional standpoint. Elevating CA 58 to Interstate status will likely be the result of politically-initiated activity rather than an assessment of need (not that such activity wouldn't be welcomed by the various towns strung out along the corridor). However, the characteristics of the mountainous section of freeway across the Tehachapi range would likely require that speed limits, even with qualifying roadway modifications, remain at the 60-65mph level -- no different than the actual speeds of the current facility. Enhancing the full corridor to Interstate-grade freeway would at best yield marginal increases in efficiency. The demand for Interstate status will almost certainly come from external actors rather than facility users.
There is certainly a political motivation for upgrading CA-58 to Interstate standards and signing it as I-40 all the way to I-5. Business interests in the San Joaquin Valley (and Bakersfield in particular) would like I-40 to start/end at I-5. It would make I-40 the state's 3rd east-west Interstate that runs (almost) coast to coast, connecting with both I-5 and I-95. The change on the map would bring more attention to the Central Valley region. Right now the interior valley might as well be fly-over territory.
From the perspective of safety there's no reason why CA-58 between Bakersfield and Barstow shouldn't be 100% Interstate quality. A tremendous amount of heavy truck traffic uses that route. Whether or not the route is eventually signed as I-40, it certainly needs to be fully limited access at some point. Kramer Junction is the most serious issue that has to be addressed. From that point it should be relatively easy to upgrade the highway to Interstate quality between Barstow and Mojave. The upgrade between Mojave and Bakersfield is a pain due to both road geometry issues and dozens of dirt road driveways connecting to it at grade. That trash either has to be eliminated or the road given some kind of variance, just like I-40 with its at grade crossings in the Texas Panhandle and all the dirt road driveways built along I-10 in West Texas. I would be all for eliminating the driveways if at all possible. It's dangerous to use some dirt access road to enter or exit a very busy highway packed with speeding semi trucks.
I don't think they'll give a waver for the driveways, and I don't think they should. While CA 58 goes through rural areas, they are not some completely empty desert. If it's just ranch roads used by trucks, a dirt frontage road should be ample.
why didn't 40 go to 5 in the first place?
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 22, 2017, 06:28:07 PM
why didn't 40 go to 5 in the first place?
California did propose it...
Quote from: kkt on May 22, 2017, 06:07:05 PM
I don't think they'll give a waver for the driveways, and I don't think they should. While CA 58 goes through rural areas, they are not some completely empty desert. If it's just ranch roads used by trucks, a dirt frontage road should be ample.
Most of the grade-access roads intersecting CA 58 are between the west end of the Mojave bypass and the Monolith RR overcrossing east of Tehachapi; all are railroad maintenance access points for the parallel UP/BNSF joint line. As there is ample dirt shoulder for RR vehicle pull-off at these intersection points outside the paved shoulder of the main traffic lanes, these would likely be given a waiver, as they don't require any break in the median, are protected by locked gates (presumably the RR employees have the keys) and probably don't get used all that often -- no chance of farm equipment coming on or off the freeway lanes here! Since railroads tend to run dedicated work trains for any maintenance work, these turnoffs are likely for spot inspections; this particular line, shared by the two major Western U.S. railroads, features several trains per hour -- enough to make inspections via "hi-rail" trucks equipped with flanged wheels problematic; here, access from the outside is probably considered necessary and is accommodated by Caltrans with gate access from CA 58. The only other gate access is west of Woodfords and provides a road up the hill to a radar installation; as this is in a section of 58 without any parallel surface roads, it would likely also qualify for a waiver.
Quote from: kkt on May 22, 2017, 07:29:28 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 22, 2017, 06:28:07 PM
why didn't 40 go to 5 in the first place?
California did propose it...
None of the original plans, including the 48.3K system considered to be the most comprehensive of the original network options, showed an extension of what was to become I-40 west of Barstow along then-US 466. Whether access to northern California from the "southern tier" wasn't considered vital -- or the California congressional delegation didn't have the clout it (ostensibly) does today due to sheer population (most of the growth of which was well after the first iterations of the Interstate system were laid out in the late '30's) could constitute reasons for this oversight. The first Interstate corridor along this route was proposed for the first comprehensive batch of Interstate additions in 1968; about 4500 miles of new Interstate routes were included nationwide, including this one. However, the system was cut back to 1500 miles by the time the legislation hit the House floor -- largely because of the Tet offensive in Vietnam that winter, which brought about a substantial increase in the Pentagon's budget to respond to the action (which had to come from reductions elsewhere; the Interstate-addition bill bore much of the brunt of that). Barstow-Bakersfield was one of the corridors that didn't make the final cut; what was left was primarily predicated on nationwide distribution, and California had already received the I-15 extension to San Diego, along with the I-105 Century Freeway in greater L.A.
That is interesting history about what could have been in terms of additional Interstate miles, like I-40.
It may take some really hard political arm twisting to make this happen, but once the Westside Parkway is completed and (assuming) is extended to I-5 then two important chunks of CA-58 could be legitimately signed as I-40. One segment would start at I-5 run through Bakersfield and then end at the intersection of CA-223 about 16 miles East of Bakersfield. The other segment would be CA-58 from Barstow to the CA-14 intersection North of Mojave. The "gap" of CA-58 running through Warren and Tehachapi could be considered Future I-40 until brought up to Interstate standards. In other states this signing would happen pretty quickly. But we all know how Caltrans likes to drag its feet on highways that should carry Interstate shields (like CA-210, CA-905). Hence the need for political arm twisting, maybe until that rotator cuff is shredded!
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 22, 2017, 10:25:26 PM
That is interesting history about what could have been in terms of additional Interstate miles, like I-40.
It may take some really hard political arm twisting to make this happen, but once the Westside Parkway is completed and (assuming) is extended to I-5 then two important chunks of CA-58 could be legitimately signed as I-40. One segment would start at I-5 and through Bakersfield and then end at the intersection of CA-223 about 16 miles East of Bakersfield. The other segment would be CA-58 from Barstow to the CA-14 intersection North of Mojave. The "gap" of CA-58 running through Warren and Tehachapi could be considered Future I-40 until brought up to Interstate standards. In other states this signing would happen pretty quickly. But we all know how Caltrans likes to drag its feet on highways that should carry Interstate shields (like CA-210, CA-905). Hence the need for political arm twisting, maybe until that rotator cuff is shredded!
If current signing standards are applied, there are several CA 58 sections (beside the Westside Parkway) that could get I-40 signage if legislatively designated. From east to west, these are:
(1) I-15 to the "End Freeway" sign west of Hinkley (once the Lenwood interchange is
done).
(2) The beginning of the freeway section east of Boron west to California City Blvd.
(3) The Mojave bypass between both Business 58 interchanges.
(4) From east of Monolith to the CA 202 interchange around Tehachapi.
(5) From just west of CA 223 all the way to CA 99.
The "narrows" section between Mojave and Monolith will require a pavement realignment in order to provide an inner shoulder; there's already a K-rail median. Much the same applies for the freeway portion from CA 202 to the Caliente/Bealville intersection: shoulder work, both inside & outside, would be necessary to achieve minimal Interstate standards. That being said, that section is not that much different than I-80 from Colfax to Gold Run; waivers were granted to
that facility, so some deviation from standard may be tolerated.
It certainly would be in the best interest of the legislators through which this corridor runs -- and their constituents -- to seek Interstate designation sooner than later -- to get the ball rolling a bit faster than it currently is. But given the proclivities of politicos to ignore those interests for the sake of ideology or party line (both parties being guilty of such), it's difficult to see this happening anytime soon! :no: