With the interchanges between Chowchilla and Merced completed, it seems SR 99 is now a freeway from I-5 at Wheeler Ridge to US 50/I-80 BUS in Sacramento. This marks a sad end of an era for US 99 fans. At the same time, it made me want to ask a question and start a thread to keep tabs on the final years of CA 99. Where do the final upgrades to Interstate standards need to be made/are being made in preparation to turn CA 99 into an Interstate?
There are still some substandard sections that need to be upgraded before it can become an Interstate. And seeing that CA forbids route duplication, what will become of CA 7 and/or CA 9 if the corresponding Interstate number is assigned to the Wheeler Ridge-Sacramento section? I must agree, though, that it would be sad to see another part of old US 99 go.
There is still a ton of US 99 left. In pretty much any town in the valley with a "Golden State Avenue", that's 99, and most towns have it. It's even in some rural areas, and it's even numbered in places. It would be nice to get some "Historic 99" signs up along that stretch like we already have in the San Fernando Valley. May pump some much-needed tourist traffic into the old route in northern Fresno.
There's way too much work to do to get CA 99 up to modern interstate standards anytime soon.
I would hold off on The Final Countdown. CA 99 between Mettler and Sacramento will likely be around for some time to come.
Is there any official commitment to get CA 99 up to interstate standards?
Quote from: 707 on April 04, 2016, 03:56:21 AM
With the interchanges between Chowchilla and Merced completed, it seems SR 99 is now a freeway from I-5 at Wheeler Ridge to US 50/I-80 BUS in Sacramento. This marks a sad end of an era for US 99 fans. At the same time, it made me want to ask a question and start a thread to keep tabs on the final years of CA 99. Where do the final upgrades to Interstate standards need to be made/are being made in preparation to turn CA 99 into an Interstate?
California doesn't care nearly as much as, say, Arizona, Texas, or N.C. about whether a route is an interstate or a state route freeway. And why should they? Interstates don't come with any more maintenance or construction money than any other part of the national highway system. An interstate would mean that if they ever wanted to reroute it they'd have to get permission. And there'd be signs and maps to change.
Yes, CA 7 or CA 9 would have to get their number changed. Not a huge expense, but some, and unpopular with people who live near them.
I'd also be interested in the answer to the poster's question, though, about what specific areas of 99 south of US 50 would need to be upgraded to qualify as an interstate today.
From my understanding, the biggest issue pertains to interchange spacing and vertical clearance. IINM, modern Interstate standards specify a minimum distance of 1 mile between interchanges and a minimum vertical clearance of 14-16 ft depending on the surroundings.
Because of the age of CA-99, there are numerous overpasses that are not up to Interstate standards for vertical clearance and would need to either be replaced or raised. Either way, the cost would be substantial.
Edit: Boy is my grammar horrible right now... :(
Quote from: myosh_tino on April 04, 2016, 05:55:40 PM
From my understanding, the biggest issue pertains to interchange spacing and vertical clearance issues. IINM, modern Interstate standards specify a minimum distance of 1 mile between interchanges and a minimum vertical clearance of 14-16 ft depending on the surroundings.
Because of the age of CA-99, there are numerous overpasses that are not up to Interstate standards for vertical clearance and would need to either be replaced or raised. Either way, the cost to modify or replace all of the substandard overpasses would be substantial.
Thanks!
Quote from: kkt on April 04, 2016, 05:03:46 PM
Quote from: 707 on April 04, 2016, 03:56:21 AM
With the interchanges between Chowchilla and Merced completed, it seems SR 99 is now a freeway from I-5 at Wheeler Ridge to US 50/I-80 BUS in Sacramento. This marks a sad end of an era for US 99 fans. At the same time, it made me want to ask a question and start a thread to keep tabs on the final years of CA 99. Where do the final upgrades to Interstate standards need to be made/are being made in preparation to turn CA 99 into an Interstate?
California doesn't care nearly as much as, say, Arizona, Texas, or N.C. about whether a route is an interstate or a state route freeway. And why should they? Interstates don't come with any more maintenance or construction money than any other part of the national highway system. An interstate would mean that if they ever wanted to reroute it they'd have to get permission. And there'd be signs and maps to change.
Yes, CA 7 or CA 9 would have to get their number changed. Not a huge expense, but some, and unpopular with people who live near them.
I'd also be interested in the answer to the poster's question, though, about what specific areas of 99 south of US 50 would need to be upgraded to qualify as an interstate today.
Frankly, SR 7 is for all intents and purposes, a glorified border crossing. I doubt locals in Imperial County would care if you gave that new highway another number.
SR 9, OTOH, well...let's just not go there. Too many coastal folks all too willing to get in a snit over changing that.
Quote from: myosh_tino on April 04, 2016, 05:55:40 PM
From my understanding, the biggest issue pertains to interchange spacing and vertical clearance. IINM, modern Interstate standards specify a minimum distance of 1 mile between interchanges and a minimum vertical clearance of 14-16 ft depending on the surroundings.
Because of the age of CA-99, there are numerous overpasses that are not up to Interstate standards for vertical clearance and would need to either be replaced or raised. Either way, the cost would be substantial.
Edit: Boy is my grammar horrible right now... :(
Tulare County's portion of 99 is woefully inadequate, most of it having been built in the mid-to-late 1950s and never modified. There is work ongoing to add lanes but ramp configurations and curvatures are almost certainly substandard. In my neck of the woods, Kern County, much upgrade work has been done to the 99 over the last 30 years or so, altering the freeway originally built between 1963 and 1971. I would wager that most of it is at or close to Interstate standard everywhere in the county, with the exception of the city of Delano, another 1950s relic with unusual ramp placements and configurations.
Quote from: BakoCondors on April 04, 2016, 11:02:55 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on April 04, 2016, 05:55:40 PM
From my understanding, the biggest issue pertains to interchange spacing and vertical clearance. IINM, modern Interstate standards specify a minimum distance of 1 mile between interchanges and a minimum vertical clearance of 14-16 ft depending on the surroundings.
Because of the age of CA-99, there are numerous overpasses that are not up to Interstate standards for vertical clearance and would need to either be replaced or raised. Either way, the cost would be substantial.
Edit: Boy is my grammar horrible right now... :(
Tulare County's portion of 99 is woefully inadequate, most of it having been built in the mid-to-late 1950s and never modified. There is work ongoing to add lanes but ramp configurations and curvatures are almost certainly substandard. In my neck of the woods, Kern County, much upgrade work has been done to the 99 over the last 30 years or so, altering the freeway originally built between 1963 and 1971. I would wager that most of it is at or close to Interstate standard everywhere in the county, with the exception of the city of Delano, another 1950s relic with unusual ramp placements and configurations.
Exit 58 even has a relic right-on/right-off ramp in the north bound lanes at Girard Street. The best part is that they are mostly relic right on/right off ramps. Girard Street has a big one in the northbound lanes at exit 58 while there are twin pair of them on Ellington and Fremont. Definitely showing their age on all of them with the ramp design but still neat to see.
Quite honestly, I am just happy that CA 99 is (or will be) a freeway from Sacramento to Wheeler Ridge. I believe SR 99 is now the longest non-tolled, non-interstate freeway in the United States.
Besides Tulare County, there are still some "substandard" freeway sections of CA 99 through Chowchilla and north of Lodi towards Elk Grove in Sacramento County.
I am all for having CA 99 be signed as either I-7 or I-9. Without deviating into "fictitious territory." I would like to see the routing continue up the Business 80 corridor (CA 51) to the junction with I -80. Caltrans and local officials are looking at upgrading this section to modern interstate standards, and I think it is a natural terminous for the route, if it is ever re-designated as either I -7 or I -9.
Quote from: BakoCondors on April 04, 2016, 11:02:55 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on April 04, 2016, 05:55:40 PM
From my understanding, the biggest issue pertains to interchange spacing and vertical clearance. IINM, modern Interstate standards specify a minimum distance of 1 mile between interchanges and a minimum vertical clearance of 14-16 ft depending on the surroundings.
Because of the age of CA-99, there are numerous overpasses that are not up to Interstate standards for vertical clearance and would need to either be replaced or raised. Either way, the cost would be substantial.
Edit: Boy is my grammar horrible right now... :(
Tulare County's portion of 99 is woefully inadequate, most of it having been built in the mid-to-late 1950s and never modified. There is work ongoing to add lanes but ramp configurations and curvatures are almost certainly substandard. In my neck of the woods, Kern County, much upgrade work has been done to the 99 over the last 30 years or so, altering the freeway originally built between 1963 and 1971. I would wager that most of it is at or close to Interstate standard everywhere in the county, with the exception of the city of Delano, another 1950s relic with unusual ramp placements and configurations.
Caltrans has a map and list of all of the deficiencies on CA-99 that prevent it from meeting Interstate Standards.
The major deficiencies are:
- Vertical Clearance (http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist6/planning/inter99impact/)
- Interchange Spacing (http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist6/planning/inter99impact/rw.pdf)
- Shoulder Width (http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist6/planning/inter99impact/shoulders.SM.pdf)
- Median Width (http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist6/planning/inter99impact/median.SM.pdf)
The full list of "Interstate 99 Designation Issues" are here: http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist6/planning/inter99impact/ (http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist6/planning/inter99impact/)
To help with the interchange spacing issues, there is also a map and list of possible interchange closures (http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist6/planning/inter99impact/closures.SM.pdf).
Quote from: Concrete Bob on April 04, 2016, 11:31:23 PM
Quite honestly, I am just happy that CA 99 is (or will be) a freeway from Sacramento to Wheeler Ridge. I believe SR 99 is now the longest non-tolled, non-interstate freeway in the United States.
Besides Tulare County, there are still some "substandard" freeway sections of CA 99 through Chowchilla and north of Lodi towards Elk Grove in Sacramento County.
I am all for having CA 99 be signed as either I-7 or I-9. Without deviating into "fictitious territory." I would like to see the routing continue up the Business 80 corridor (CA 51) to the junction with I -80. Caltrans and local officials are looking at upgrading this section to modern interstate standards, and I think it is a natural terminous for the route, if it is ever re-designated as either I -7 or I -9.
The Interstate proposal, as I understand it, runs as far north as Stockton, with the CA-4 Crosstown Freeway serving as the link to I-5. So the portion between Stockton and Sacramento would not be Interstate and thus would not need to be upgraded to Interstate standards.
Quote from: jeffe on April 05, 2016, 12:23:18 AM
Caltrans has a map and list of all of the deficiencies on CA-99 that prevent it from meeting Interstate Standards.
The major deficiencies are:
- Vertical Clearance (http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist6/planning/inter99impact/)
- Interchange Spacing (http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist6/planning/inter99impact/rw.pdf)
- Shoulder Width (http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist6/planning/inter99impact/shoulders.SM.pdf)
- Median Width (http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist6/planning/inter99impact/median.SM.pdf)
The full list of "Interstate 99 Designation Issues" are here: http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist6/planning/inter99impact/ (http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist6/planning/inter99impact/)
To help with the interchange spacing issues, there is also a map and list of possible interchange closures (http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist6/planning/inter99impact/closures.SM.pdf).
Very helpful!
For the people living along Route 9 in Santa Cruz, I wouldn't worry about having new stationery printed up just yet.
I'm laughing because the first vertical clearance deficiency is the very first one! The 99/I-5 split at Wheeler Ridge.
I'd certainly like to see CA 99 become an interstate in the future if only to open up another round of 3-digit interstates. Partial freeway routes that go through cities along the 99 corridor could be upgraded and re-designated. Existing freeways connecting I-5 and CA 99 like the freeway portion of CA 120 could be renumbered.
Quote from: emory on April 05, 2016, 03:56:17 AM
I'd certainly like to see CA 99 become an interstate in the future if only to open up another round of 3-digit interstates. Partial freeway routes that go through cities along the 99 corridor could be upgraded and re-designated. Existing freeways connecting I-5 and CA 99 like the freeway portion of CA 120 could be renumbered.
That section of 120 should be an I-205 extension IMO
IMHO, if CA 99 does get an Interstate designation, it should go to Sacramento. Stopping it in Stockton wouldn't cut it for me.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 05, 2016, 04:59:11 PM
IMHO, if CA 99 does get an Interstate designation, it should go to Sacramento. Stopping it in Stockton wouldn't cut it for me.
Agreed. Take it all the way to US 50. The northern segment of CA 99 can remain CA 99.
Quote from: emory on April 05, 2016, 05:38:46 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 05, 2016, 04:59:11 PM
IMHO, if CA 99 does get an Interstate designation, it should go to Sacramento. Stopping it in Stockton wouldn't cut it for me.
Agreed. Take it all the way to US 50. The northern segment of CA 99 can remain CA 99.
Or take it a little further up the road to 80 so we can get rid of this Business 80 Loop nonsense. I'd even support a hybrid I-9/CA-9 designation scenario like with the 110, 210, and 15, if that would get rid of hidden 51.
Yes, having the new Interstate connect with I-5 in Stockton via CA-4 does seem strange, but as jrouse noted, it is the official plan:
Quote
Interstate designation, under the current proposal, would apply to the 260 mile segment between the junction of State Route 99 with I-5 south of Bakersfield to I-5 in Stockton using State Route 4 as the connector to I-5. Since there is an I-99 route currently in existence in Pennsylvania, it is anticipated that should designation be granted, the Route 99 designation would become I-7 or I-9 to satisfy Interstate numbering convention.
Source: Route 99 Corridor Enhancement Master Plan, Chapter 3, Page 57 (http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist6/99masterplan/docs/chapter3.pdf) Published in 2005
There is also an updated Business Plan (February 2013) which details the implementation and progress of various projects:
Quote
Priority Category 1–Freeway Conversion
Because all non-freeway sections have been eliminated, this Priority Category is now deemed complete and is only included in this Business Plan update for information purposes.
Priority Category 2–Capacity-Increasing Projects
Priority Category 2 consists of projects that will widen Route 99 to a minimum of 6 lanes throughout the corridor. Projects to widen Route 99 to 8 lanes in some urban areas, where feasible, are also included in this category. While the primary goal of these projects is to increase capacity to meet demand, there are safety benefits as well. Eliminating or reducing the incidences of stop-and-go traffic on the route will reduce the number of congestion-related accidents that currently occur.
As a result of projects either under construction or now fully funded all existing at grade intersections will be eliminated within the next two years.
Priority Category 3–Major Operational Improvements
This category consists of projects that will improve existing outdated interchanges and construct auxiliary lanes in urban areas. As with Priority Category 2, these projects also have a safety related benefit.
Priority Category 4–New Interchanges
Priority Category 4 consists of projects that will construct interchanges at new locations on Route 99. The new interchanges are proposed to accommodate growth and development along Route 99.
Summary Status of Priority Categories
Seven projects, a mix of Categories 1, 2, and 3, have been completed. Of these, three additional projects have been completed since the 2009 update of the Route 99 Business Plan. Thirteen more are currently in construction.
Source: Updated Route 99 Corridor Business Plan, February 2013, page iii (http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist6/planning/sr99bus/updated_bp_vol1_feb2013.pdf)
Quote from: jeffe on April 05, 2016, 12:23:18 AM
Caltrans has a map and list of all of the deficiencies on CA-99 that prevent it from meeting Interstate Standards.
The major deficiencies are:
- Vertical Clearance (http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist6/planning/inter99impact/)
- Interchange Spacing (http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist6/planning/inter99impact/rw.pdf)
- Shoulder Width (http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist6/planning/inter99impact/shoulders.SM.pdf)
- Median Width (http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist6/planning/inter99impact/median.SM.pdf)
The full list of "Interstate 99 Designation Issues" are here: http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist6/planning/inter99impact/ (http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist6/planning/inter99impact/)
To help with the interchange spacing issues, there is also a map and list of possible interchange closures (http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist6/planning/inter99impact/closures.SM.pdf).
So if interchange spacing is an issue, is that going to be addressed on the CA-4 portion as well? There's four exits in a 1-1/2 mile stretch in downtown Stockton.
Is there enough traffic between Stockton and Wheeler Ridge on I-5 to justify upgrading CA-99 to Interstate standards?
Quote from: ZLoth on April 06, 2016, 07:55:31 AM
Is there enough traffic between Stockton and Wheeler Ridge on I-5 to justify upgrading CA-99 to Interstate standards?
I would love to see which one gets more traffic or how close they really are. It might be the simple fact that CA 99 is substandard to Interstate grades but I've always found it to be a more difficult drive than I-5. It always feels like there is a lot of distribution center traffic on 99 not to mention agricultural trucking, I actually kind of prefer a quiet drive on 41, 43 or 65 if I'm going to Fresno sometimes just avoid the freeway traffic.
Although I wouldn't mind seeing CA 4 in Stockton becoming an Interstate, I think it should be a spur of the CA 99 Interstate and not a part of the Interstate itself. Either I-x07 or I-x09 would do.
Oh heck, just return US 99 and call it a day! Oregon has large stretches of 99 to add in and so does the Puget Sound area. The rest can be multiplexed onto I-5.
Rick
Quote from: nexus73 on April 06, 2016, 10:53:55 AM
Oh heck, just return US 99 and call it a day! Oregon has large stretches of 99 to add in and so does the Puget Sound area. The rest can be multiplexed onto I-5.
Rick
As much as I agree you have to understand that fussy Caltrans policy made that impossible in the 1960s when they renumbered most of the "simplified" the state highways and truncated a lot of the U.S. Routes. Thing you got to understand is that Caltrans hates multiplexes and duplicate numbers more than a three year old hates eating their veggies. That's how crap like I-238 has happened out here.
Quote from: nexus73 on April 06, 2016, 10:53:55 AM
Oh heck, just return US 99 and call it a day! Oregon has large stretches of 99 to add in and so does the Puget Sound area. The rest can be multiplexed onto I-5.
Rick
I myself have advocated on another thread that U.S. 99 should be reinstated from Wheeler Ridge to Red Bluff, routed over existing S.R. 70 and S.R. 149 through Marysville and Oroville. Then existing S.R. 99 through Yuba City could either be U.S. 99 Business or U.S. 99A (or 99 alt.). This would be well over 300 miles and would give the Fresno and Bakersfield metro areas a "Federal" :pan: :spin: highway. Just my 2 cents.
Why hasn't someone started playing the Europe song yet? It was in a Geico commercial not terribly long ago.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 06, 2016, 03:46:49 PM
Why hasn't someone started playing the Europe song yet? It was in a Geico commercial not terribly long ago.
Damn song keeps repeating itself in my head because of this thread... :banghead:On a serious note, should CA 99 be upgraded to an Interstate, has the question of Interstate 7 versus Interstate 9 ever been decided?
It's always kind of amazed me how California can have these really long important highways with 3-digit numbers, but then the basic numbers like 7 and 9 are dinky little stubs. If CA99 becomes I-7 or I-9 I don't think it'll be a problem replacing the numbers on CA-7 or CA-9.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on April 06, 2016, 03:56:15 PM
It's always kind of amazed me how California can have these really long important highways with 3-digit numbers, but then the basic numbers like 7 and 9 are dinky little stubs. If CA99 becomes I-7 or I-9 I don't think it'll be a problem replacing the numbers on CA-7 or CA-9.
CA 9 is not such a short route. It's a significant secondary route over a mountain pass, even if it's just the coast range.
I think at least some of the state route numbers were assigned by seniority, so if they were established first they got low numbers. That doesn't explain CA 7, obviously.
Quote from: kkt on April 06, 2016, 04:31:12 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on April 06, 2016, 03:56:15 PM
It's always kind of amazed me how California can have these really long important highways with 3-digit numbers, but then the basic numbers like 7 and 9 are dinky little stubs. If CA99 becomes I-7 or I-9 I don't think it'll be a problem replacing the numbers on CA-7 or CA-9.
CA 9 is not such a short route. It's a significant secondary route over a mountain pass, even if it's just the coast range.
I think at least some of the state route numbers were assigned by seniority, so if they were established first they got low numbers. That doesn't explain CA 7, obviously.
The Long Beach Freeway used to be CA-7 before being renumbered to I-710 in 1983.
Quote from: myosh_tino on April 06, 2016, 06:22:41 PM
Quote from: kkt on April 06, 2016, 04:31:12 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on April 06, 2016, 03:56:15 PM
It's always kind of amazed me how California can have these really long important highways with 3-digit numbers, but then the basic numbers like 7 and 9 are dinky little stubs. If CA99 becomes I-7 or I-9 I don't think it'll be a problem replacing the numbers on CA-7 or CA-9.
CA 9 is not such a short route. It's a significant secondary route over a mountain pass, even if it's just the coast range.
I think at least some of the state route numbers were assigned by seniority, so if they were established first they got low numbers. That doesn't explain CA 7, obviously.
The Long Beach Freeway used to be CA-7 before being renumbered to I-710 in 1983.
There are many sources for this online, but basically when California first signed routes in the 1930s they had a vague grid system and alternated between north and south. Therefore, Northern California had north-south running routes of:
1 (same as today plus extensions)
5 (renumbered as 35 due to I-5)
9 (same as today, although truncated)
13 (soon renumbered to 17)
17 (unsure if this was used on part of today's 17 or I-880)
21 (today's I-680)
25 (same as today)
etc., and Southern California had:
3 (today's southern portion of CA-1)
7 (part of today's I-405)
11 (today's 110)
15 (later 7, today's I-710)
19 (same as today)
etc.
even numbered routes ran west-east, same general idea.
As for bringing US-99 back and connecting it to Oregon: how about extending it west from Red Bluff along CA-36, then up CA-3/CA-263/CA-96 back to I-5? Then the "multiplex" along I-5 is only 10 miles or so to the state line. It also frees up 3 for use should US-101 ever need to become Interstate (I'm not advocating that, though).
Quote from: myosh_tino on April 06, 2016, 06:22:41 PM
The Long Beach Freeway used to be CA-7 before being renumbered to I-710 in 1983.
Oh yeah! Derp! I knew that lol :banghead:
Quote from: paulthemapguy on April 06, 2016, 03:56:15 PM
It's always kind of amazed me how California can have these really long important highways with 3-digit numbers, but then the basic numbers like 7 and 9 are dinky little stubs. If CA99 becomes I-7 or I-9 I don't think it'll be a problem replacing the numbers on CA-7 or CA-9.
CA 7 could easily be renumbered as CA 308 without much difficulty. As far as I know, the CA 7 expressway does not have any addresses along it.
If CA 86, CA 78, CA 111, and CA 7 are unified under a single numerical designation such as CA 111, then CA 7 could be reused elsewhere. But there are no official plans to renumber anything in the Imperial Valley, and there is an implied overlap along I-8 that may not make any sense anyway.
A couple months ago, I wrote about SR 99 improvements in another thread. Here is some info that might be useful to this discussion:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=17432.msg2125973#msg2125973
Quote from: andy3175 on February 11, 2016, 01:12:29 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 10, 2016, 07:21:39 PM
Quote from: roadfro on February 10, 2016, 06:45:23 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 10, 2016, 05:44:42 PM
Quote from: ukfan758 on February 10, 2016, 05:36:43 PM
Are there still talks about making highway 99 an interstate (I-9)?
Not sure how things are going, but Caltrans is proceeding with numerous projects to upgrade the 99 between Stockton and South Bakersfield to Interstate standards. Once that's done, they fully intend to make the 99 Interstate 7 or 9 (not yet decided). Last I checked, current projects weren't expected to be complete until at least 2020.
Caltrans has not yet taken steps to convert other state highways to Interstates where they are already a continuation of an Interstate highway (e.g. SR 15, SR 210), where it seems pretty clear the intent is to have the Interstate shields on these extensions. Thus, it doesn't seem likely that Caltrans would be eager to convert a much longer highway like SR 99 to a completely new number like I-9.
Not my words. See this PDF (http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist6/99masterplan/docs/chapter3.pdf) from Caltrans. The proposal was put forth Fresno's Regional Jobs Initiative (RJI) in 2003, which called for the transition from state route to interstate to help promote economic growth. Caltrans seems to have picked up on the idea.
Quote
Interstate designation, under the current proposal, would apply to the 260 mile segment between the junction of State Route 99 with I-5 south of Bakersfield to I-5 in Stockton using State Route 4 as the connector to I-5. Since there is an I-99 route currently in existence in Pennsylvania, it is anticipated that should designation be granted, the Route 99 designation would become I-7 or I-9 to satisfy Interstate numbering convention.
California 99 is undergoing a major transformation currently. One of the key focal points is to expand the freeway to six lanes for its entire length, along with elimination of at-grade intersections (at least for the portion of CA 99 south of Sacramento). Significant strides in this direction can be seen especially near Atwater and Merced, where the roadway has been realigned to allow expansion. Most of the route in Kern County (Bakersfield) is at least six lanes if not eight lanes. Additional improvements are needed to make full Interstate standards, and in addition to shoulder widths, bridge heights also remain a concern. The expansion projects will address bridges as they proceed, but they won't raise all bridge heights to Interstate standards, at least not for several years. CA 99 has multiple construction zones currently, so it is getting a makeover and will be a much better drive very soon ... and once it is consistently six lanes from Bakersfield to Stockton, it may have some advantages over mostly four-lane I-5 between Wheeler Ridge and Stockton. CA 99 around Stockton has seen major changes recently too, even north of CA 4. As for an Interstate designation for CA 99 ... I will believe it when I see it. Caltrans does not prioritize adding Interstates, as evidenced by the continuing state route status for those portions of CA 15, CA 210, and CA 905 that already meet Interstate standards (just as roadfro said). And when the easternmost segment of I-210 was removed from the Orange Freeway (CA 57), the Interstate status was removed along with it. So, we'll just have to wait to see how much improvements are completed along CA 99 and whether someone will make application to request an Interstate designation (either I-7 or I-9 appear most likely, although they could call it the western I-99 and not confuse very many people, ha ha!). At this point, I think CA 99 will remain CA 99 until these major upgrades (as outlined in the corridor business plan at 2012 estimated cost of $6.5 billion - see executive summary of the 2012 update of the 99 corridor business plan at http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist6/planning/sr99bus/updated_bp_vol1_feb2013.pdf) are completed, along with another $1.0 billion of upgrades to bring the corridor to Interstate standards (see page 20 of Economic Impact Analysis of Transportation Improvements and Interstate Designation to Route 99 in the San Joaquin Valley Region at http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist6/planning/docs/sr99econ_benefits_study_final_jul2009_remi.pdf).
Speaking of Interstate standards on California highways, I found this passage from the CA 99 corridor business plan somewhat instructive about how Caltrans standardizes its freeway construction:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist6/planning/sr99bus/updated_bp_vol1_feb2013.pdf (page 38)
Quote3.5 Caltrans Design Standards: Background and Application: The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) continually updates design guidelines for roads through the publication of A Policy on the Geometric Design of Highway and Streets (Green Book). These guidelines are created in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and State transportation agencies. The FHWA has adopted applicable parts of the Green Book as the national standard for roads on the National
Highway System (NHS). NHS roads comprise all the Interstate system and some other primary routes. While not an Interstate, Route 99 is included in the NHS. Although the standards contained in the Green Book also apply to the Interstate system, additional guidance applicable to the design of highways on the Interstate system is included in another AASHTO publication, A Policy on Design Standards — Interstate System, dated January 2005.
Caltrans typically adopts the guidelines established by AASHTO, including the Interstate System design standards, and incorporates
them into Caltrans' Highway Design Manual (Black Book). The Black Book then serves as the basis for design standards for all State highways in California, Interstate and non-Interstate.
While new standards are periodically adopted, it does not imply that existing standards or highways are unsafe, nor does it mandate the initiation of highway improvement projects to meet these new standards. It is industry practice to compare existing features to the new standards whenever a highway improvement project is proposed. Specific investigations, accident history, and engineering analysis often indicate that existing non-standard features are performing in a satisfactory manner. These findings are documented in a Design Exception Fact Sheet and retained in the project files. These design exceptions are critical for the defense of tort liability cases filed against the State.
The FHWA has mandated that design exceptions be justified for 13 controlling criteria on State freeways. The authority to approve design exceptions for these 13 criteria has been delegated to Caltrans for non-Interstate freeways; however, FHWA retains approval authority for these 13 criteria on Interstate highways. FHWA's 13 controlling criteria are the following:
Design speed
Shoulder width
Horizontal alignment
Grade
Cross slope
Horizontal clearance
Bridge structural capacity
Lane width
Bridge width
Vertical alignment
Stopping sight distance
Superelevation
Vertical clearance
Meanwhile, over on the I-5 corridor, I believe the focus currently is on high speed rail as a means of moving passengers between Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area. There have been repaving jobs especially in Kern County over the last few years, but I am not aware of any pending capacity improvements on I-5 at least between Wheeler Ridge and Tracy.
And there is always the thought that CA 65 should someday be built to provide an eastern alternative to CA 99, but I can't easily locate the outcome of the last study or studies on feasibility to construct a portion or all of the long missing link.
Quote from: andy3175 on April 08, 2016, 01:13:43 AM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on April 06, 2016, 03:56:15 PM
It's always kind of amazed me how California can have these really long important highways with 3-digit numbers, but then the basic numbers like 7 and 9 are dinky little stubs. If CA99 becomes I-7 or I-9 I don't think it'll be a problem replacing the numbers on CA-7 or CA-9.
CA 7 could easily be renumbered as CA 308 without much difficulty. As far as I know, the CA 7 expressway does not have any addresses along it.
If CA 86, CA 78, CA 111, and CA 7 are unified under a single numerical designation such as CA 111, then CA 7 could be reused elsewhere. But there are no official plans to renumber anything in the Imperial Valley, and there is an implied overlap along I-8 that may not make any sense anyway.
I have thought for years that Route 7 and Route 115 really should be one extended Route 115 as the two roads are not too far apart and are roughly on the same north-south trajectory.
Quote from: andy3175 on April 08, 2016, 01:13:43 AM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on April 06, 2016, 03:56:15 PM
It's always kind of amazed me how California can have these really long important highways with 3-digit numbers, but then the basic numbers like 7 and 9 are dinky little stubs. If CA99 becomes I-7 or I-9 I don't think it'll be a problem replacing the numbers on CA-7 or CA-9.
CA 7 could easily be renumbered as CA 308 without much difficulty. As far as I know, the CA 7 expressway does not have any addresses along it.
If CA 86, CA 78, CA 111, and CA 7 are unified under a single numerical designation such as CA 111, then CA 7 could be reused elsewhere. But there are no official plans to renumber anything in the Imperial Valley, and there is an implied overlap along I-8 that may not make any sense anyway.
Why not realignment CA 99 along 58 (or possibly 138) 247, 62 and then take over the route you described to the border? I'd say renumbered it US 99 and then California will have a Federal route but wouldn't have to worry about Interstate standard redesigns.
Quote from: TheStranger on April 08, 2016, 12:19:29 PM
Quote from: andy3175 on April 08, 2016, 01:13:43 AM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on April 06, 2016, 03:56:15 PM
It's always kind of amazed me how California can have these really long important highways with 3-digit numbers, but then the basic numbers like 7 and 9 are dinky little stubs. If CA99 becomes I-7 or I-9 I don't think it'll be a problem replacing the numbers on CA-7 or CA-9.
CA 7 could easily be renumbered as CA 308 without much difficulty. As far as I know, the CA 7 expressway does not have any addresses along it.
If CA 86, CA 78, CA 111, and CA 7 are unified under a single numerical designation such as CA 111, then CA 7 could be reused elsewhere. But there are no official plans to renumber anything in the Imperial Valley, and there is an implied overlap along I-8 that may not make any sense anyway.
I have thought for years that Route 7 and Route 115 really should be one extended Route 115 as the two roads are not too far apart and are roughly on the same north-south trajectory.
Quote from: andy3175 on April 08, 2016, 01:13:43 AM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on April 06, 2016, 03:56:15 PM
It's always kind of amazed me how California can have these really long important highways with 3-digit numbers, but then the basic numbers like 7 and 9 are dinky little stubs. If CA99 becomes I-7 or I-9 I don't think it'll be a problem replacing the numbers on CA-7 or CA-9.
CA 7 could easily be renumbered as CA 308 without much difficulty. As far as I know, the CA 7 expressway does not have any addresses along it.
If CA 86, CA 78, CA 111, and CA 7 are unified under a single numerical designation such as CA 111, then CA 7 could be reused elsewhere. But there are no official plans to renumber anything in the Imperial Valley, and there is an implied overlap along I-8 that may not make any sense anyway.
I love this idea!
That said, I think that CA-7 would be a better fit, as there's
some chance that you can connect it with CA-99 and thus make it an extension of I-7 (former CA-99).
But even then, CA-7 from Calexico to I-10 would fit the "single digits=longer/major route" convention.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 08, 2016, 01:47:58 PM
Quote from: andy3175 on April 08, 2016, 01:13:43 AM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on April 06, 2016, 03:56:15 PM
It's always kind of amazed me how California can have these really long important highways with 3-digit numbers, but then the basic numbers like 7 and 9 are dinky little stubs. If CA99 becomes I-7 or I-9 I don't think it'll be a problem replacing the numbers on CA-7 or CA-9.
CA 7 could easily be renumbered as CA 308 without much difficulty. As far as I know, the CA 7 expressway does not have any addresses along it.
If CA 86, CA 78, CA 111, and CA 7 are unified under a single numerical designation such as CA 111, then CA 7 could be reused elsewhere. But there are no official plans to renumber anything in the Imperial Valley, and there is an implied overlap along I-8 that may not make any sense anyway.
Why not realignment CA 99 along 58 (or possibly 138) 247, 62 and then take over the route you described to the border? I'd say renumbered it US 99 and then California will have a Federal route but wouldn't have to worry about Interstate standard redesigns.
Of course, this works, too. :sombrero:
Quote from: TheStranger on April 08, 2016, 12:19:29 PM
I have thought for years that Route 7 and Route 115 really should be one extended Route 115 as the two roads are not too far apart and are roughly on the same north-south trajectory.
Based on a conversation I had several years ago, there could be a desire on the part of Caltrans to eliminate portions of SR 115 from the state system (maybe the overlap section with Old US 80?), but I have not seen anything official on it. I'd like to see SR 115 renumbered as well so that the 115 designation could be used at some point in the future as a future Interstate 115 in California, should the need arise.
Quote from: andy3175 on April 08, 2016, 11:37:24 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on April 08, 2016, 12:19:29 PM
I have thought for years that Route 7 and Route 115 really should be one extended Route 115 as the two roads are not too far apart and are roughly on the same north-south trajectory.
Based on a conversation I had several years ago, there could be a desire on the part of Caltrans to eliminate portions of SR 115 from the state system (maybe the overlap section with Old US 80?), but I have not seen anything official on it. I'd like to see SR 115 renumbered as well so that the 115 designation could be used at some point in the future as a future Interstate 115 in California, should the need arise.
I-115 would be perfect fit for a freeway in San Diego (CA 52, I'm looking at you!).
Quote from: Henry on April 11, 2016, 11:12:45 AM
I-115 would be perfect fit for a freeway in San Diego (CA 52, I'm looking at you!).
How about a second San Diego beltway? I.e.,
52+125+54 = I-408
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on April 11, 2016, 01:49:54 PM
Quote from: Henry on April 11, 2016, 11:12:45 AM
I-115 would be perfect fit for a freeway in San Diego (CA 52, I'm looking at you!).
How about a second San Diego beltway? I.e.,
52+125+54 = I-408
I have had this exact idea ^_^ then I put CA-94 as a 3di spur into San Diego (i.e. 52/125/54 is I-208 and 94 is I-308)
Quote from: paulthemapguy on April 11, 2016, 02:01:01 PM
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on April 11, 2016, 01:49:54 PM
Quote from: Henry on April 11, 2016, 11:12:45 AM
I-115 would be perfect fit for a freeway in San Diego (CA 52, I'm looking at you!).
How about a second San Diego beltway? I.e.,
52+125+54 = I-408
I have had this exact idea ^_^ then I put CA-94 as a 3di spur into San Diego (i.e. 52/125/54 is I-208 and 94 is I-308)
Well, as much as I like these ideas, shouldn't we discuss them in Fictional Highways? Like I-7/I-9, they may or may not happen, if ever.
Quote from: Henry on April 12, 2016, 12:09:37 PM
Well, as much as I like these ideas, shouldn't we discuss them in Fictional Highways? Like I-7/I-9, they may or may not happen, if ever.
I just thinking the same thing with regards to the 3DI discussion.
OTOH, the I-7/I-9 discussion is anything but fictional as the conversion of CA-99 to an Interstate is or was in Caltrans' long-range plans given the documents that are floating around out there.
But will it become a reality anytime soon? I think the answer is no. Although I think the conversion of CA 99 into an Interstate should happen sooner than later.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 13, 2016, 03:54:03 PM
But will it become a reality anytime soon? I think the answer is no. Although I think the conversion of CA 99 into an Interstate should happen sooner than later.
The freeway upgrades, such as removal of intersections and expansion to six lanes, is clearly a Caltrans priority for CA 99 and will continue to position CA 99 closer and closer to Interstate standards as various projects are completed. The key to changing CA 99 signs to I-7 or I-9 shields will depend on political willpower, as Caltrans is not particularly interested in changing route classifications (as evidenced by CA 15, CA 210, and CA 905).
CA 15, 210 and 905 should have become Interstates by now. They should have become Interstates when they were completed. Did they do this because they favor state routes to Interstates?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 15, 2016, 05:10:58 PM
CA 15, 210 and 905 should have become Interstates by now. They should have become Interstates when they were completed. Did they do this because they favor state routes to Interstates?
Caltrans doesn't care about interstate status, now that it doesn't come with any money. A bunch of work putting together the application, and if it's granted all that you get is the chance to spend the state's own money changing signs. They have a lot of actual work to do, expansions, repairs, seismic retrofits, they probably feel paper pushing isn't worth the trouble. They sign interstates if they're original, or if interstate money paid for them or a significant retrofit.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 15, 2016, 05:10:58 PM
CA 15, 210 and 905 should have become Interstates by now. They should have become Interstates when they were completed. Did they do this because they favor state routes to Interstates?
They probably just don't care. All the signs would need replacing (except the guide signs on the 5 fwy), with minimal benefit because there is no route duplication anyway.
Quote from: AMLNet49 on April 19, 2016, 01:31:23 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 15, 2016, 05:10:58 PM
CA 15, 210 and 905 should have become Interstates by now. They should have become Interstates when they were completed. Did they do this because they favor state routes to Interstates?
They probably just don't care. All the signs would need replacing (except the guide signs on the 5 fwy), with minimal benefit because there is no route duplication anyway.
IIRC, CA-15 won't be signed as I-15 until the 15/94 interchange is reconfigured to eliminate the left-exits.
Why do I have the feeling that even after that interchange is reconstructed, the CA-15 designation will remain?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 19, 2016, 03:35:18 PM
Why do I have the feeling that even after that interchange is reconstructed, the CA-15 designation will remain?
Um... perhaps because you read my post above? :D
Ignore Ghostie's contentless posts.
Quote from: myosh_tino on April 19, 2016, 01:43:45 PM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on April 19, 2016, 01:31:23 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 15, 2016, 05:10:58 PM
CA 15, 210 and 905 should have become Interstates by now. They should have become Interstates when they were completed. Did they do this because they favor state routes to Interstates?
They probably just don't care. All the signs would need replacing (except the guide signs on the 5 fwy), with minimal benefit because there is no route duplication anyway.
IIRC, CA-15 won't be signed as I-15 until the 15/94 interchange is reconfigured to eliminate the left-exits.
And this was pushed back from a potential start date of 2020 to 2025. It is included in the CA 94 Express Lanes project.
Quote from: Alex on April 19, 2016, 06:34:13 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on April 19, 2016, 01:43:45 PM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on April 19, 2016, 01:31:23 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 15, 2016, 05:10:58 PM
CA 15, 210 and 905 should have become Interstates by now. They should have become Interstates when they were completed. Did they do this because they favor state routes to Interstates?
They probably just don't care. All the signs would need replacing (except the guide signs on the 5 fwy), with minimal benefit because there is no route duplication anyway.
IIRC, CA-15 won't be signed as I-15 until the 15/94 interchange is reconfigured to eliminate the left-exits.
And this was pushed back from a potential start date of 2020 to 2025. It is included in the CA 94 Express Lanes project.
CA 15 is Interstate-standard between I-8 and I-805. At least that portion should be eligible for Interstate status, even if the SR 94 interchange construction project has not yet occurred. A project is underway on SR 15 between I-8 and I-805 to add HOV lanes/bus rapid transit, so there is some construction activity currently. Keep in mind that the left exits are from SR 94, not SR 15. Should the SR 94 express lanes be built, I think the interchange spacing along SR 15 around SR 94, Market St, and Ocean View Blvd will change to some extent, with some current exits being reconfigured to give proper spacing between exits and entrances to the freeway.
Let's get back to discussing CA 99, and give the comments on San Diego's Freeways its own thread.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 20, 2016, 02:55:25 PM
Let's get back to discussing CA 99, and give the comments on San Diego's Freeways its own thread.
Eh? The flow of this thread led to a discussion of converting state routes to Interstate, and the above discussion is relevant to SR 99 someday becoming an Interstate given Caltrans practice with other state route freeways that many have assumed would become Interstate based on their state route numbers. In the Forum, I think you'd find many threads that start with replies that appear directly related to the thread topic but eventually some replies trail down into sub-topics that may appear tangentially related to the thread topic but are still relevant when taken in context of the overall conversation. I don't think I understand your comment.
Quote from: andy3175 on April 21, 2016, 12:05:09 AM
Eh? The flow of this thread led to a discussion of converting state routes to Interstate, and the above discussion is relevant to SR 99 someday becoming an Interstate given Caltrans practice with other state route freeways that many have assumed would become Interstate based on their state route numbers
Except I-99 already exists, and the only logical choices are I-7 and I-9. I can see why I-9 would be the preferred choice, because it would keep part of the existing designation, just one less nine.
Quote from: Henry on April 22, 2016, 01:28:35 PM
Except I-99 already exists, and the only logical choices are I-7 and I-9. I can see why I-9 would be the preferred choice, because it would keep part of the existing designation, just one less nine.
...and I can see why I-7 is the preferred choice because California does not allow route number duplication. CA-7 is short route that doesn't go through any populated areas. CA-9 is one of two routes that connect Santa Clara County to Santa Cruz and goes through the communities of Los Gatos, Saratoga, Boulder Creek, Ben Lomond, Felton and Santa Cruz. Renumbering CA-9 would impact far more people than renumbering CA-7.
Quote from: myosh_tino on April 22, 2016, 03:26:25 PM
Quote from: Henry on April 22, 2016, 01:28:35 PM
Except I-99 already exists, and the only logical choices are I-7 and I-9. I can see why I-9 would be the preferred choice, because it would keep part of the existing designation, just one less nine.
...and I can see why I-7 is the preferred choice because California does not allow route number duplication. CA-7 is short route that doesn't go through any populated areas. CA-9 is one of two routes that connect Santa Clara County to Santa Cruz and goes through the communities of Los Gatos, Saratoga, Boulder Creek, Ben Lomond, Felton and Santa Cruz. Renumbering CA-9 would impact far more people than renumbering CA-7.
And routes dating to the 1934 initial assignment of numbers - which Route 9 is - generally have been retained if they survived the 1964 renumbering (case in point: Route 180). The current Route 7 only dates back to the 1990s.
Quote from: myosh_tino on April 22, 2016, 03:26:25 PM
Renumbering CA-9 would impact far more people than renumbering CA-7.
I don't think this is a criterion that has historically merited consideration. Renumbering CA-7 and CA-11 impacted literally millions of people, yet it was still done. Whereas the proposed renumbering of CA-180 impacted very few people, yet it didn't happen based on, to my understanding, the anticipated cost in 1950 dollars of doing so.
I suspect that if - and that's a big if - 99 gets renumbered to an interstate designation, cost will be the only factor in the choice between 7 and 9.
Now all of CA 99 is a freeway...I wonder the road will become a full-fledged interstate (I-9?). The cities of Fresno (CA's 4th largest) and Bakersfield (9th largest) has a metropolitan freeway to connect with Sacramento (state capital) and L.A. 60 miles south of the I-5/CA 99 junction. The I-7 designation could go for the northern portion of CA 99 from Sacramento Int'l Airport/Arco Arena to south of Red Bluff, also noting Chico and Redding are the region's largest cities north of the 40th latitude in CA.
Quote from: Desert Man on April 23, 2016, 04:13:14 PM
Now all of CA 99 is a freeway...I wonder the road will become a full-fledged interstate (I-9?). The cities of Fresno (CA's 4th largest) and Bakersfield (9th largest) has a metropolitan freeway to connect with Sacramento (state capital) and L.A. 60 miles south of the I-5/CA 99 junction. The I-7 designation could go for the northern portion of CA 99 from Sacramento Int'l Airport/Arco Arena to south of Red Bluff, also noting Chico and Redding are the region's largest cities north of the 40th latitude in CA.
I'm not aware of any plans to further upgrade 99 to full limited access between Red Bluff and Sacramento. Arguably given the traffic near Yuba City, an upgrade could help, but recent traffic upgrades have focused on increasing capacity on 70. And even some of those upgrades have been abandoned due to funding and environmental issues.
The bottom line is that there does not seem to be the funding or political will to make any portion of the northern section of 99 interstate standard.
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on April 23, 2016, 01:59:32 AM
Quote from: myosh_tino on April 22, 2016, 03:26:25 PM
Renumbering CA-9 would impact far more people than renumbering CA-7.
I don't think this is a criterion that has historically merited consideration. Renumbering CA-7 and CA-11 impacted literally millions of people, yet it was still done.
One difference. CA-7 and CA-11 were both freeways so the major cost would have been to Caltrans for new signs. A renumbering of CA-9 would impact businesses and residents living along the highway. It would probably force local businesses that identify themselves as being on "Highway 9" on advertising, letterheads, etc to incur a cost to get all of those materials changed to reflect a new highway number. Likewise, residents living along CA-9 would also need to go through the process of having their address changed. If the costs to these people are "too high", you can bet they will fight any renumbering attempt and will probably get the local state rep involved.
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on April 24, 2016, 12:54:11 PM
Quote from: Desert Man on April 23, 2016, 04:13:14 PM
Now all of CA 99 is a freeway...I wonder the road will become a full-fledged interstate (I-9?). The cities of Fresno (CA's 4th largest) and Bakersfield (9th largest) has a metropolitan freeway to connect with Sacramento (state capital) and L.A. 60 miles south of the I-5/CA 99 junction. The I-7 designation could go for the northern portion of CA 99 from Sacramento Int'l Airport/Arco Arena to south of Red Bluff, also noting Chico and Redding are the region's largest cities north of the 40th latitude in CA.
I'm not aware of any plans to further upgrade 99 to full limited access between Red Bluff and Sacramento. Arguably given the traffic near Yuba City, an upgrade could help, but recent traffic upgrades have focused on increasing capacity on 70. And even some of those upgrades have been abandoned due to funding and environmental issues.
The bottom line is that there does not seem to be the funding or political will to make any portion of the northern section of 99 interstate standard.
The world ends north of I-80 for the most part is how it seems Caltrans sees that section of California.
Rick
Quote from: myosh_tino on April 24, 2016, 02:54:32 PM
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on April 23, 2016, 01:59:32 AM
Quote from: myosh_tino on April 22, 2016, 03:26:25 PM
Renumbering CA-9 would impact far more people than renumbering CA-7.
I don't think this is a criterion that has historically merited consideration. Renumbering CA-7 and CA-11 impacted literally millions of people, yet it was still done.
One difference. CA-7 and CA-11 were both freeways so the major cost would have been to Caltrans for new signs. A renumbering of CA-9 would impact businesses and residents living along the highway. It would probably force local businesses that identify themselves as being on "Highway 9" on advertising, letterheads, etc to incur a cost to get all of those materials changed to reflect a new highway number. Likewise, residents living along CA-9 would also need to go through the process of having their address changed. If the costs to these people are "too high", you can bet they will fight any renumbering attempt and will probably get the local state rep involved.
That's a two-way street. For every constituent along the highway 9 corridor complaining about changing their stationery, etc., there's some Central Valley constituent pining away for interstate status for 99, i.e., every time there's an article about upgrades to a previously-highway stretch of 99, there's the obligatory quote from the local politician about how the Central Valley is one of the largest population centers without an interstate.
I'd also note that there were likely a lot of businesses along the Harbor and Long Beach Freeway corridors that had to change the printed directions to their businesses on promotional materials after the changeover to interstate status. Additionally, think about the tens of thousands who suddenly found themselves inconveniently on "Old Highway 395" I'm San Diego and Riverside counties after that roadway was bypassed by a freeway and then changed to Interstate 15.
I don't think local opposition based on inconvenience will even register with caltrans. I have friends who work for "stakeholders" who've dealt with caltrans over road projects that will negatively impact their businesses. It's a lot of hand-holding and reassurances, but in the end, unless the stakeholder is willing to file suit, caltrans will do what it wants.
Some observations having just driven almost the entirety of the freeway stretch of CA 99...at least from Bakersfield to Sacramento...holy crap it's going to be a long time before an Interstate upgrade happens. There is a ton of sub-standard right-on/right-off ramps all over the place through the entire stretch. The should grades in some sections are still extremely poor and there is a lot of bridges that would need to be removed or at minimum raised to meet Interstate standards. I still stand by with what I have said many times before, Caltrans ought to be looking at a US 99 from Red Bluff to Wheeler Ridge. Basically the way I see things the freeway is for the most part sufficient as it currently stands and just needs general and gradual improvements....so why waste the money conforming to Interstate Standards? If anything 99 could take over the CA 70 alignment through Marysville rather than Yuba City. That way 99 could use the remaining freeway section of 70 north of Marysville and 149 to connect to Red Bluff. I see it much easier to span that freeway gap north of Marysville rather than trying to build one through Yuba City. Again at the end of the day a US designation will lessen design needs and still serve an "Interstate" connection with I-5, I-80, US 50 and possibly even I-40 in the future.
Well they better get cracking on the upgrading, assuming there's enough funding to do so.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 09, 2016, 04:32:02 PM
Well they better get cracking on the upgrading, assuming there's enough funding to do so.
That's the most tenuous thing about California, always so many projects and so little money for them all. It's amazing how a state with more residents than the entire country of Canada and one of the highest income taxes in the U.S. can always be out of money. But with that said all aside there are a lot of California Highways that were over built and have freeway sections completed isolated from other freeways. U.S. 101 is a good example of what decades of upgrades usually yield with roadways in California. It's basically no traffic lights from L.A. to San Francisco but there are a ton of at grade intersections still and it is far from what would be Interstate standard in the freeway portions. It's just interesting that Caltrans is willing to leave a road like 101 as a U.S. Route but it's all in for 99 and 58 getting the Interstate treatment. Does slapping Interstate shields on a route really yield more value than a state route or U.S. Route?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 09, 2016, 05:42:26 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 09, 2016, 04:32:02 PM
Well they better get cracking on the upgrading, assuming there's enough funding to do so.
That's the most tenuous thing about California, always so many projects and so little money for them all. It's amazing how a state with more residents than the entire country of Canada and one of the highest income taxes in the U.S. can always be out of money. But with that said all aside there are a lot of California Highways that were over built and have freeway sections completed isolated from other freeways. U.S. 101 is a good example of what decades of upgrades usually yield with roadways in California. It's basically no traffic lights from L.A. to San Francisco but there are a ton of at grade intersections still and it is far from what would be Interstate standard in the freeway portions. It's just interesting that Caltrans is willing to leave a road like 101 as a U.S. Route but it's all in for 99 and 58 getting the Interstate treatment. Does slapping Interstate shields on a route really yield more value than a state route or U.S. Route?
Are we sure that Caltrans is gung-ho for maing 99 into I-7 and 58 into I-40?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 09, 2016, 05:42:26 PM
It's just interesting that Caltrans is willing to leave a road like 101 as a U.S. Route but it's all in for 99 and 58 getting the Interstate treatment. Does slapping Interstate shields on a route really yield more value than a state route or U.S. Route?
Won't speak about Caltrans' intentions with CA-99 but I don't think Interstate status for CA-58 is a high priority. The priority is to remove the remaining 2-lane highway portions of CA-58 to improve traffic flow and safety. You have to remember, the Hinkley bypass is being built as a 4-lane
expressway, not a freeway.
I see Caltrans being all for making 58 four lanes. But the improvements they have planned would not all meet interstate standard, expressway in some places. I don't think Caltrans cares about interstate status at all. Just some Fresno boosters.
I'll just be happy when that railroad crossing east of Boron is gone and Kramer Junction is bypassed. The rest of the route at least to Bakersfield is more than adequate even with the heavy all-weather truck traffic. As for 99 the one improvement I would like to see is six regular lanes all the way from US 50 in Sacramento to CA 4 in Stockton. Those are two pretty large cities and the four lane configuration is pretty interesting on a high speed replication of a restrictor plate race during rush hour.
Also, someone correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Caltrans seeking pre-approval from the AASHTO to sign CA 58 as I-40 if and when it was even completed to Interstate standards?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 09, 2016, 09:00:16 PM
Also, someone correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Caltrans seeking pre-approval from the AASHTO to sign CA 58 as I-40 if and when it was even completed to Interstate standards?
According to Daniel Faigin's site (http://cahighways.org/itypes.html), Caltrans submitted CA-58 from I-5 to Barstow for inclusion in the Interstate system in 1956 and 1968. Both times, AASHTO denied the application. There is no mention of the route number Caltrans was seeking but many have speculated it would be 40.
Quote from: myosh_tino on May 10, 2016, 03:03:24 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 09, 2016, 09:00:16 PM
Also, someone correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Caltrans seeking pre-approval from the AASHTO to sign CA 58 as I-40 if and when it was even completed to Interstate standards?
According to Daniel Faigin's site (http://cahighways.org/itypes.html), Caltrans submitted CA-58 from I-5 to Barstow for inclusion in the Interstate system in 1956 and 1968. Both times, AASHTO denied the application. There is no mention of the route number Caltrans was seeking but many have speculated it would be 40.
It's actually kind of surprising that didn't pass in 1956. US 466 was always a major trucking route but Bakersfield was just a 60,000 resident city back in those days. Things sure look different now that Barstow didn't really grow all that much while Bakersfield grew up to almost 400,000 people.
No one in 1956 could have predicted what would happen to the Interstate System in the years and decades following its passage by President Eisenhower. If they did, I'm sure things would have turned out much differently.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 12, 2016, 04:21:36 PM
No one in 1956 could have predicted what would happen to the Interstate System in the years and decades following its passage by President Eisenhower. If they did, I'm sure things would have turned out much differently.
But you have to consider the saga of I-5 in San Joaquin Valley is a strange one. The route avoids Bakerfield, Visalia and Fresno entirely while CA 99 runs through them. The assumption of the planners was that infrastructure would be built in the empty west valley which really never happened. For what it's worth I personally find I-5 more desirable to get to Sacramento than following the traffic laden CA 99.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 12, 2016, 10:28:44 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 12, 2016, 04:21:36 PM
No one in 1956 could have predicted what would happen to the Interstate System in the years and decades following its passage by President Eisenhower. If they did, I'm sure things would have turned out much differently.
But you have to consider the saga of I-5 in San Joaquin Valley is a strange one. The route avoids Bakerfield, Visalia and Fresno entirely while CA 99 runs through them. The assumption of the planners was that infrastructure would be built in the empty west valley which really never happened. For what it's worth I personally find I-5 more desirable to get to Sacramento than following the traffic laden CA 99.
It was fortuitous that the planners built I-5 on the west side of the valley. It effectively provides an express routing from L.A. to either SF or Sacramento by skipping the majority of the towns along the way. The traffic to the local towns is separated from the LA-SF/Sac traffic so that neither routing is overwhelmed. Imagine if I-5 was routed as a 6-lane freeway through Bakersfield and Fresno. This roadway would hit traffic going through Bakersfiled, Tulare, Fresno, Merced, Modesto, and Stockton. By having two routes, the traffic is split effectively: LA-Sac/SF traffic taking the 5 and traffic from either end to the main cities of the Valley using the 99.
Bakersfield and Fresno have always been reachable via 99 and it has been many years since there was a traffic light between LA and Sac along 99. 99, for a long time, was a very effective expressway - providing a freeway bypass through every city and a routing without signals but with cross-traffic along the rural areas in between. 101 was similar along the coast. Now, it is nearly entirely freeway. And this is largely good enough. Becuase of the effective bypass of I-5, we do not need an interstate grade highway along 99.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 12, 2016, 10:28:44 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 12, 2016, 04:21:36 PM
No one in 1956 could have predicted what would happen to the Interstate System in the years and decades following its passage by President Eisenhower. If they did, I'm sure things would have turned out much differently.
But you have to consider the saga of I-5 in San Joaquin Valley is a strange one. The route avoids Bakerfield, Visalia and Fresno entirely while CA 99 runs through them. The assumption of the planners was that infrastructure would be built in the empty west valley which really never happened. For what it's worth I personally find I-5 more desirable to get to Sacramento than following the traffic laden CA 99.
I think the planners had a good idea what would happen. Some who were opposed to the west valley route for I-5 noted that there were no gas stations, restaurants, or hotels along the west valley. That's the development that the planners said would come, and it has. Clusters at every exit. Boring sameness, yes, but no danger of being out of gas with the nearest station 50 miles away.
The west valley route is a fast alternative to 99 for traffic between Socal and the Bay Area and Sacramento areas. It's shorter as well as higher speed limits and fewer backups. It was also possible to construct it much faster than the alternative of reconstructing 99 into an interstate. Caltrans made the right decision in this case.
Quote from: kkt on May 13, 2016, 06:27:53 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 12, 2016, 10:28:44 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 12, 2016, 04:21:36 PM
No one in 1956 could have predicted what would happen to the Interstate System in the years and decades following its passage by President Eisenhower. If they did, I'm sure things would have turned out much differently.
But you have to consider the saga of I-5 in San Joaquin Valley is a strange one. The route avoids Bakerfield, Visalia and Fresno entirely while CA 99 runs through them. The assumption of the planners was that infrastructure would be built in the empty west valley which really never happened. For what it's worth I personally find I-5 more desirable to get to Sacramento than following the traffic laden CA 99.
I think the planners had a good idea what would happen. Some who were opposed to the west valley route for I-5 noted that there were no gas stations, restaurants, or hotels along the west valley. That's the development that the planners said would come, and it has. Clusters at every exit. Boring sameness, yes, but no danger of being out of gas with the nearest station 50 miles away.
The west valley route is a fast alternative to 99 for traffic between Socal and the Bay Area and Sacramento areas. It's shorter as well as higher speed limits and fewer backups. It was also possible to construct it much faster than the alternative of reconstructing 99 into an interstate. Caltrans made the right decision in this case.
Personally it's my preferred route north and well worth my time usually to head west on 58 or 46 to get to. It's a lot better built with Interstate standards behind it and I almost never run into the cluster of cars that I do on 99. It was probably a tough as hell sell back in those days when it was an empty void. There are some decent travel centers here and there nowadays with the intersection of 198 coming to mind.
Quote from: mrsman on May 13, 2016, 06:02:04 PM
Bakersfield and Fresno have always been reachable via 99 and it has been many years since there was a traffic light between LA and Sac along 99.
It's only been 20 years since the last stoplight (in Livingston) was finally bypassed:
http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM9N2W_Last_Stop_Light_on_99_Livingston_CA
There were several others bypassed in the 1980s too. For comparison, 101's last stoplight between Los Angeles and San Francisco (Santa Barbara) was removed mid-1992.
I was looking at my 1970 map and US 99 had been decommissioned even before I-5 was built. This seems like the strangest decommissioning ever.
Also interesting was how interstates weren't built in straight lines to go by every small town but I-5 was built so far away from 99. There is still little on it.
I-5 was meant as a "shortcut" across the Central Valley in CA, skipping the more populated towns and cities along US (now CA SR) 99, to save time and avoid gridlock when you're through them. The northern Central or Sacramento valley section of I-5 has slightly more population than most of the southern Central or San Joaquin valley. Interestingly, I-5 and the 99 goes across both urban Stockton and Sacramento.
Quote from: texaskdog on June 26, 2016, 01:53:15 PM
Also interesting was how interstates weren't built in straight lines to go by every small town but I-5 was built so far away from 99. There is still little on it.
Utah did the same with I-70 west of Green River.
Quote from: oscar on June 26, 2016, 02:20:05 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on June 26, 2016, 01:53:15 PM
Also interesting was how interstates weren't built in straight lines to go by every small town but I-5 was built so far away from 99. There is still little on it.
Utah did the same with I-70 west of Green River.
Original plans in the 1960s-70s showed I-70 could started between Provo and Payson, imagine towns like Springville and Spanish Fork with two interstates instead of I-15, which was finished in the early 1980s.
Quote from: oscar on June 26, 2016, 02:20:05 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on June 26, 2016, 01:53:15 PM
Also interesting was how interstates weren't built in straight lines to go by every small town but I-5 was built so far away from 99. There is still little on it.
Utah did the same with I-70 west of Green River.
But they didn't decommission anything, especially beforehand.
Actually, the official decommissioning of US 99 took place in 1964, coincident with that years' massive state highway renumbering (and US highway retrenchment!). US 99 shields east and south of Los Angeles were removed by the summer of that year (a "END US 99" shield assembly was posted southbound at the present I-5/I-10 [San Bernardino Freeway] interchange). Between L.A. and Sacramento, US 99 signage remained until fall 1966, when CA 99 shields were posted north of the I-5 divergence near Wheeler Ridge (and "Temporary I-5" signage applied along non-Interstate-standard route segments south of there).
Also, US 99E signage was also removed by the end of 1964; oddly enough, they kept US 99W shields up from Davis to Red Bluff until about 1969, when enough of I-5 along that route was completed to warrant more "Temporary I-5" signage along that route. From Red Bluff to the Oregon state line US 99 shields were retained until most of that section, save the segment in the Sacramento River Canyon that was not fully completed until 1992, was done (about 1976, IIRC). This resulted in, for a time, a rather odd situation in Red Bluff where southbound US 99 traffic could continue south on US 99W or turn east/south on CA 99!
It just seems to me to be the weirdest recommissioning ever. The only reason I could think was to get more people to drive on I-5, but it wasn't finished yet.
Well -- the basic reason for the original US 99 decommissioning, as well as the principal reason behind the 1964 renumbering, was to eliminate concurrencies, including those of different highway classifications. I.E., no I-5 marked concurrent with US 99, no I-15 concurrent with US 91/466, ad nauseum. To the Division of Highways (Caltrans' predecessor), that meant that of the 5 southernmost U.S. Highway entry points from Nevada or Arizona, 4 of them, save US 95, had to go! North from there, the only Interstate/US concurrencies were along I-80/US 40 and I-5/US 99; every other US highway that crossed the state line remained intact and still does.
Most of the truly egregious concurrencies (I-15/US 66/US 91/US 395, I-10/US 60/US 70/US 99) occurred simply due to topography and convenience -- Beaumont Summit & Cajon Pass were the only two practical ways east/northeast out of the L.A. basin. The '64 renumbering was, as the Division stated in their classic publication "California Highways & Public Works" (may it RIP!), a manifestation of their newfound credo of "one road, one number" (wherever possible, of course). But it should be noted that before 1964 there were two numbering system: the legislative route number, and the State Sign Routes, which included signed US and, later, Interstate routes. As an example, US 99 from L.A. to Sacramento was also Legislative Route #4. Ironically, the West Valley section of I-5 from Wheeler Ridge through Sacramento, ending near Woodland, was Legislative Route #238! One of the main reasons for wanting to dispense with the dual legislative/signed systems could be illustrated by the case of I-80 between Sacramento and the Nevada state line; it was, variously, SLR 3, SLR 17, SLR 37, and SLR 38 along that stretch of highway. In this case, the case for renumbering wasn't public service; it was merely to simplify internal paperwork! The one SLR whose number was directly transferred over to the new post-'64 network was 58; it superseded SSR 178 from Santa Margarita to Bakersfield and US 466 from there to I-15 at Barstow (the old SLR 58 also included all of I-40 within California).
Quote from: texaskdog on June 27, 2016, 12:20:41 AM
It just seems to me to be the weirdest recommissioning ever. The only reason I could think was to get more people to drive on I-5, but it wasn't finished yet.
I don't believe Oregon completely decommissioned US-99 until 1972 (when -99, 99E, and -99W became OR-). I'm pretty sure the 5 was completed throughout most of Oregon by then, but I could be wrong.
Granted, you could also just be talking about
just California (judging by the chosen regional board), but you haven't specified otherwise.
Quote from: texaskdog on June 27, 2016, 12:20:41 AM
It just seems to me to be the weirdest recommissioning ever. The only reason I could think was to get more people to drive on I-5, but it wasn't finished yet.
I also wish US-99 had not gone away, but given that a large portion of it was simply replaced by I-5, you can see why California chose to retire the number.
A better question is why the most significant section of US-99 within the Central Valley was downloaded to CA-99. And it seems the answer is mainly due to the state route shields being white-on-green, which Caltrans did various studies on and found it offered improved legibility than black-on-white shields. (At least, under certain conditions). That seems to be the only real reason, as that portion of US-99 would have still meant the current definition of a US highway (minimum 300 miles, or crosses state borders).
Having traveled both US 99 and CA 99 during incidents of "valley fog" (aka "tule fog"), I can personally attest to the fact that the white-on-green state shields are indeed easier to spot than the old black-on-white US shields. Actually, the US shields at the time of the switch (late '66) weren't bright white, but an "eggshell" or pale beige color (likely due to aging or oxidation) -- making them even more difficult to see during foggy periods.
Quote from: Quillz on July 11, 2016, 12:12:21 AM
A better question is why the most significant section of US-99 within the Central Valley was downloaded to CA-99. And it seems the answer is mainly due to the state route shields being white-on-green, which Caltrans did various studies on and found it offered improved legibility than black-on-white shields.
If US-99 hadn't been decommissioned, at Wheeler Ridge, far too many people would have been confused as to which route to take (both are historically important "interstate" routes). Not a problem today, but it would have been for a long time, because a ton of travellers were used to taking US-99 to go between states (before I-5 existed). If US-99 still "physically" existed in all three states, then by all means, they could have kept it, but because only California really kept significant portions, it made more sense to downgrade it to state highway status.
Quote from: sparker on July 11, 2016, 02:05:40 AM
Having traveled both US 99 and CA 99 during incidents of "valley fog" (aka "tule fog"), I can personally attest to the fact that the white-on-green state shields are indeed easier to spot than the old black-on-white US shields. Actually, the US shields at the time of the switch (late '66) weren't bright white, but an "eggshell" or pale beige color (likely due to aging or oxidation) -- making them even more difficult to see during foggy periods.
I wonder if modern black-and-white signage is more viewable from a distance than green-on-white signage, given that the MUTCD mandates black-on-white for virtually all typical signage (and the vast majority of states use it for their highway shields, California being a rare exception). Whatever material is being used today does seem to remain bright and reflective much longer than the old porcelain enamel.
I would say that that is indeed the case -- the newly-installed US 101 shields on the reconstructed section of the Bayshore Freeway between Mountain View and Redwood City are the brightest-white Caltrans US shields I've seen since the last porcelain series in the '50's -- and these are definitely fully reflective. I remember seeing the first bright-white porcelain US 6 and US 99 shields along the first section of the Golden State freeway to be opened in 1957 near my hometown of Glendale -- complete with button copy on the numbers. They were replaced with off-white reflective shields about five years later when I-5 shields were added to the mix.
Quote from: jakeroot on July 11, 2016, 02:16:52 AM
If US-99 hadn't been decommissioned, at Wheeler Ridge, far too many people would have been confused as to which route to take (both are historically important "interstate" routes). Not a problem today, but it would have been for a long time, because a ton of travellers were used to taking US-99 to go between states (before I-5 existed). If US-99 still "physically" existed in all three states, then by all means, they could have kept it, but because only California really kept significant portions, it made more sense to downgrade it to state highway status.
Having said that, while another former long-distance US route US 91 does go through multiple states as comparison, it is pretty much a route entirely closely parallel with I-15 in its remnant state, where 99 at least was and is still a major corridor for the 400 mile portion that I-5 didn't replace in California.
Quote from: TheStranger on July 11, 2016, 12:01:54 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 11, 2016, 02:16:52 AM
If US-99 hadn't been decommissioned, at Wheeler Ridge, far too many people would have been confused as to which route to take (both are historically important "interstate" routes). Not a problem today, but it would have been for a long time, because a ton of travellers were used to taking US-99 to go between states (before I-5 existed). If US-99 still "physically" existed in all three states, then by all means, they could have kept it, but because only California really kept significant portions, it made more sense to downgrade it to state highway status.
Having said that, while another former long-distance US route US 91 does go through multiple states as comparison, it is pretty much a route entirely closely parallel with I-15 in its remnant state, where 99 at least was and is still a major corridor for the 400 mile portion that I-5 didn't replace in California.
It's a major corridor, but what's the point of an intrastate US route?
Quote from: jakeroot on July 11, 2016, 12:47:58 PM
It's a major corridor, but what's the point of an intrastate US route?
California doesn't have secondary state routes so 99 is pretty much on the same level as say a Route 39 or a Route 2, in terms of designation. I get that to some degree this doesn't matter (no route duplication to begin with) but at the US highway level, there's a better sense of how important the route is.
Or to put it another way:
If US 46 and US 130 can remain in the US route system despite being short, intrastate routings, 99 surely is of more significance than either!
Only a 7-week necro: not too bad! First issue: vdeane's comments in the CA 210 thread about 99: comparing the two corridors is like apples & oranges -- different forces and factors are at work in either case. 99 is a designated future Interstate corridor, CA 210 is not. The conversion of 99 has some persistent (mostly in & around Fresno) backers, while 210 as a through facility at least signed with that number is locally considered to be a "done deal", regardless of how it sticks in the craw of posters here (myself included). Besides, 210's a 3di functioning as just another cog in the L.A. metro freeway system; any development along its routing has pretty much already happened -- it's not perceived that any significant economic gain is attached to Interstate signage along that freeway. 99, on the other hand, is thought of as a major inter-regional (if only intrastate) corridor with, according to stats, more truck traffic than any other non-Interstate corridor in the nation, as well as an alternate (with only a few more aggregate miles) to I-5. Proposals for Interstate status for this route date back to the mid-'80's -- soon after the time that I-5 was fully completed from L.A. to Sacramento (disclosure: I formulated a series of surveys for one of the groups exploring such status back in 1987). Local political pressure eventually resulted in the 2005 establishment of HPC 54, with future Interstate status attached.
Caltrans has long considered quests for Interstate status to be, in a nutshell, a pain in the ass to them. As I've stated in other posts, internally it's considered to be both an unwanted draw on their time & resources, plus a disruption to their planning efforts and priorities. 99 IS being upgraded, but decidedly in a piecemeal fashion. What, IMHO, is likely to happen is that eventually enough of these upgrades will be completed to get the actual Interstate-grade portion of the CA 99 corridor up above, say, the 80% level. At that time, the local political machines will start churning, and one or more Congresspersons from the region will be drafted to carry the actual designation legislation to the next available point, be it a multi-year omnibus bill or simply a yearly appropriation. Then we'll see an I-7 or I-9 being touted locally like I-22 was back in '04 in AL and MS; details will be worked out with FHWA regarding signage, and the process will be underway. Whether this happens circa 2020, 2025, 2030 or beyond is purely speculative as of now.
In any case, don't ever count out a Fresnan with an agenda (my ex is one of their number!); they can be relentless in their pursuits!
Re the last 99 stoplight at Livingston: I remember that the Foster Farms restaurant was situated right on Livingston Ave. as close to the stoplight as was possible; I dined there a few times (one guess what their specialty was!) before the freeway was finished in late '96. The Livingston Ave. diamond interchange utilized the restaurant site; it apparently was downsized and moved about a block away. The fried chicken was, as would be expected, first-rate (reminded me of the old "broasted" chicken my folks used to occasionally bring home back in the '50's & '60's). And as a reply to Max's comments -- I always take 99 rather than 5 whenever possible for the following reasons: (1) Bravo Farms in Traver -- fantastic & unique cheese selection, (2) bierocks in Fresno (sort of an Armenian-origin "wrap", similar in texture to a chimichanga, but with a uniquely spiced meat filling -- yum!), and (3) if I'm still hungry, 6 In-n-Outs along the road as opposed to 2 on I-5.
But you have to consider the saga of I-5 in San Joaquin Valley is a strange one. The route avoids Bakerfield, Visalia and Fresno entirely while CA 99 runs through them. The assumption of the planners was that infrastructure would be built in the empty west valley which really never happened. For what it's worth I personally find I-5 more desirable to get to Sacramento than following the traffic laden CA 99.
California state route 99 doesn't run through the center of Visalia, California state route 198 does, California state route 99 is on Visalia's western most city limit line, but Goshen, CA is out of Visalia's city limit line to the WNW of the center of Visalia, CA. :poke: :pan:
Scott C. Presnal
Morro Bay, CA
Rather than quote everything Sparker wrote I'll just touch on the food commentary directed at me:
Ever try Harris Ranch out on I-5 and CA 198? That's actually some pretty good steak and/or burgers for something so far flung out in the middle of an otherwise empty valley. I always kind of liked to check out the Diablos since you can see them directly west of I-5 as to you might be regretting diverting your attention with the Sierras on 99...if you can even see them that is. I don't know, it's kind of nice to zone out on I-5 and let the miles roll away. Also I've noticed that the elevation often is high enough on I-5 to get above the Tule Fog line.
Uh no, not exactly, I have been raised there in Visalia for a long time to come I am familiar with the city of Visalia, kind of proud to have many high school classmates from the city too. I traded the heat of the San Joaquin Valley for the rain and fog and cooler temperatures as a meteorologist (since 1984), for the Central California coast for the 6 months in which Morro Bay, gets more rain than Fresno, Bakersfield or Visalia too. I haven't been to Harris Ranch, I enjoy In and Out Burgers as the best!
Scott C. Presnal
Morro Bay, CA
Personally, I'm not a big fan of making every last stretch of highway an interstate. I see nothing wrong with having state highways and US highways built up to interstate standards but not actually signed as such. That's how I feel about CA-99. It's a historic number within the state, and, as mentioned, it having an interstate shield really doesn't mean much anymore. So why not just leave well enough alone and keep it as CA-99 while still doing the necessary upgrades?
Quote from: Quillz on July 11, 2016, 10:16:43 PM
Personally, I'm not a big fan of making every last stretch of highway an interstate. I see nothing wrong with having state highways and US highways built up to interstate standards but not actually signed as such. That's how I feel about CA-99. It's a historic number within the state, and, as mentioned, it having an interstate shield really doesn't mean much anymore. So why not just leave well enough alone and keep it as CA-99 while still doing the necessary upgrades?
Better question was why did everyone push to eliminate US 99 way back in the day when there is actually enough existing segments to merit a highway based off it's own accord? I can't help but think this whole I-7/9 stuff would be quieted down quite a bit more had at least the section from Red Bluff to Wheeler Ridge stayed US Highway. Someone pointed out already that it would have been well over the 300 mile Intrastate AASHTO rule...but hell it could have included some alignments in Oregon if someone wanted to just okay the multiplex or find a newer and more creative way of getting it to Oregon. Non-Interstate freeways seem to work just fine for US 31 out in Michigan, US 70 around Las Cruces, US 101 in California and US 60 in eastern Phoenix amid many other examples.
But then again I tend to be of the camp that believes US Routes are a still a cut above state routes in nears of highway equity. California for what it's worth hasn't really subscribed that that theory in about a half century.
Quote from: ACSCmapcollector on July 11, 2016, 07:06:39 PM
The assumption of the planners was that infrastructure would be built in the empty west valley which really never happened.
Are you sure that's what they thought? I think the planners' reasoning was:
West valley route built on new ROW could be built faster than upgrades done while 99 remained in service
West valley route shorter between LA/San Diego and SF Bay Area than via 99
Ultimately California would need parallel freeway routes
West valley route may not attract the large development that the east valley has, but it will eventually have roadside services -- gas, fast food, hotels -- so that you need not fear being stranded 50 miles from anything.
A route less subject to tule fog is good
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 11, 2016, 10:24:41 PM
Quote from: Quillz on July 11, 2016, 10:16:43 PM
Personally, I'm not a big fan of making every last stretch of highway an interstate. I see nothing wrong with having state highways and US highways built up to interstate standards but not actually signed as such. That's how I feel about CA-99. It's a historic number within the state, and, as mentioned, it having an interstate shield really doesn't mean much anymore. So why not just leave well enough alone and keep it as CA-99 while still doing the necessary upgrades?
Better question was why did everyone push to eliminate US 99 way back in the day when there is actually enough existing segments to merit a highway based off it's own accord? I can't help but think this whole I-7/9 stuff would be quieted down quite a bit more had at least the section from Red Bluff to Wheeler Ridge stayed US Highway. Someone pointed out already that it would have been well over the 300 mile Intrastate AASHTO rule...but hell it could have included some alignments in Oregon if someone wanted to just okay the multiplex or find a newer and more creative way of getting it to Oregon. Non-Interstate freeways seem to work just fine for US 31 out in Michigan, US 70 around Las Cruces, US 101 in California and US 60 in eastern Phoenix amid many other examples.
But then again I tend to be of the camp that believes US Routes are a still a cut above state routes in nears of highway equity. California for what it's worth hasn't really subscribed that that theory in about a half century.
I agree, but I also think some of the issue is that early on, US highways had no real design standards.
I think in a perfect world, US highways would have to meet some minimal design standards (I'm aware that today, this is the case, but I'm talking about the early days here). I think if, say, US-99 had to maintain a higher design standard than California State Route #, then Caltrans might have been less averse to killing off most of the US highways within the state.
I myself have been trying to find a middle ground for fictional purposes.
Quote from: Quillz on July 12, 2016, 12:11:02 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 11, 2016, 10:24:41 PM
Quote from: Quillz on July 11, 2016, 10:16:43 PM
Personally, I'm not a big fan of making every last stretch of highway an interstate. I see nothing wrong with having state highways and US highways built up to interstate standards but not actually signed as such. That's how I feel about CA-99. It's a historic number within the state, and, as mentioned, it having an interstate shield really doesn't mean much anymore. So why not just leave well enough alone and keep it as CA-99 while still doing the necessary upgrades?
Better question was why did everyone push to eliminate US 99 way back in the day when there is actually enough existing segments to merit a highway based off it's own accord? I can't help but think this whole I-7/9 stuff would be quieted down quite a bit more had at least the section from Red Bluff to Wheeler Ridge stayed US Highway. Someone pointed out already that it would have been well over the 300 mile Intrastate AASHTO rule...but hell it could have included some alignments in Oregon if someone wanted to just okay the multiplex or find a newer and more creative way of getting it to Oregon. Non-Interstate freeways seem to work just fine for US 31 out in Michigan, US 70 around Las Cruces, US 101 in California and US 60 in eastern Phoenix amid many other examples.
But then again I tend to be of the camp that believes US Routes are a still a cut above state routes in nears of highway equity. California for what it's worth hasn't really subscribed that that theory in about a half century.
I agree, but I also think some of the issue is that early on, US highways had no real design standards.
I think in a perfect world, US highways would have to meet some minimal design standards (I'm aware that today, this is the case, but I'm talking about the early days here). I think if, say, US-99 had to maintain a higher design standard than California State Route #, then Caltrans might have been less averse to killing off most of the US highways within the state.
I myself have been trying to find a middle ground for fictional purposes.
Basically the design back in those early days was just having a somewhat straight roadway between major civic points. :-D For what it was worth those were still a hell of an upgrade over the Auto Trails which were largely aligned in ways that went where someone sponsored them to do so. I couldn't even fathom how awful it must have been to try to traverse some of those early western US Highways when they were gravel...or worse dirt roads out in the desert. Even the Ridge Route was still a scary as all proposition back in those days...people were just happy to have a road. But then again we're talking 1960s/1970s when California slashed their US Highways. Basically I think it was more of a sign of the times with all those new fancy pants Interstates opening up in the boonies...who would need a US Highway? :rolleyes: For what it's worth it seems as time has dragged on that the need for a quality secondary national highway system has become more and more of a need with population increases around the country.
While I'm certainly not advocating turning every availble freeway or expressway into an Interstate (is that an owl I hear hooting?); some corridors are more appropriate for this status than others. If any corridor has the traffic levels -- particularly of the commercial variety -- to warrant Interstate status, it's the CA 99 corridor. And yes, the support for this Interstate upgrade is largely political in nature -- but that has been the case for every Interstate addition since 1973! Expecting the process by which such matters are addressed to strictly follow a bottom-up methodology -- where decisions for enhanced status are based upon a more heuristic and exhaustive approach that demands overwhelming robustness of data before any changes are made -- is, simply due to the fact that these are public roads within the public arena, unrealistic. Decisions like determining status upgrades aren't made in a vacuum (as much as some would like it so); as long as constituents are affected -- or even perceived to be affected -- by such things as the status delineation of a piece of roadway, politics, for better or worse, will be involved! If nostalgia for a return to US highway status for the CA 99 corridor was pervasive among the population arrayed along the route, the regional political figures would have sniffed that out and likely would have pressed for action along those lines.
But the reality is that such seniments, from either area residents or their various political and/or civic leaders, don't seem to exist to any visible degree. The plain fact is that since 2005 there is a federally established definition of this route as a future Interstate route, and its degree of completion and/or compliance to the appropriate criteria for such status is heads & above most other "future" corridors, including those within states more actively pursuing Interstate aspirations (looking at you, NC!). And whether we as ad hoc critics characterize the backers of Interstate status for not only the CA 99 corridor but other potential routes in the national arena as being deluded, misinformed, or even guilty of hucksterism, they certainly don't -- and it's their opinion that actually counts! Remember, it was politically-motivated action that kept some ill-conceived segments -- mostly in urban areas -- of the Interstate network from a fruition that would have done more damage than good. Also remember that one of the primary rationales underpinning the original Interstate concept was as a farm-to-market network -- and if any corridor characteristics squarely fit that definition, CA 99 does -- in spades!
Finally -- aside from the intrinsic inconveniences endemic to any route number change or a knee-jerk aversion to the relatively minimal $$ outlays for signage change -- I've yet to hear a convincing argument for NOT performing an Interstate upgrade to this (or a number of other) corridor(s); i.e. -- no one has cited any negative effects stemming from deploying Interstate shields on an appropriate-grade facility (except for the governing agency getting nasty letters/emails from the Sierra Club). In this case, I look at it this way -- if there are local forces that want this route to be an Interstate, and can get their shit together enough to make it happen, let 'em have it. If they don't, so be it -- it'll remain CA 99. Even if the sight of a red, white, and blue shield is simply a variation on the placebo effect, it'll won't hurt much of anything (thankfully, the Interstate exit/mileage numbers will line up correctly due to the same southern terminus). That being said, I can think of one potential benefit -- if indeed Interstate status is eventually granted -- with the requisite 25-year window for facility compliance -- it might accelerate the process of "cleaning up" the substandard segments (Tulare, Chowchilla, and Atwater come to mind) that haven't seen upgrades since their deployment in the '50's -- and which are, safety-wise, problematic in "tule fog" situations. As one who uses 99 several times a year, these are issues I'd like to see addressed -- and if the means to do so involve I-status, that's quite OK.
Quote from: sparker on July 12, 2016, 04:46:36 AM
That being said, I can think of one potential benefit -- if indeed Interstate status is eventually granted -- with the requisite 25-year window for facility compliance -- it might accelerate the process of "cleaning up" the substandard segments (Tulare, Chowchilla, and Atwater come to mind) that haven't seen upgrades since their deployment in the '50's -- and which are, safety-wise, problematic in "tule fog" situations. As one who uses 99 several times a year, these are issues I'd like to see addressed -- and if the means to do so involve I-status, that's quite OK.
Before the West Side Freeway was ever proposed along the Route 33 side of the valley...US 99 between Wheeler Ridge and Sacramento was the initial proposed I-5 routing (though this only lasted for a year or two on paper). Crazy to think then that system upgrades along that route that were suggested in the mid-1950s are only happening...in 2016.
The negative effect of an interstate designation on 99 would probably be increased truck traffic. The local area would like that, but 99 can't handle it the way it is. Some interstate-related upgrades might help with that respect - mainly those awful 90-degree turn "interchanges" they put in - but I think a lot of widening would be necessary. 99 from LA to Sac is only additional 3 miles roughly, so it wouldn't take much to push people over there.
You also have the business changes: every bit of directions that a business has published will need to be changed. This is really tough with the internet, because there are pages that businesses don't control, and those things will just sit out there, with the wrong directions, for a very long time. I'm not saying that's a huge issue, but it's a concern in number and name changes.
I would think that we're done with intrastates. Even the most ridiculous one of all - I-99 - isn't going to be one for much longer. An I-7 or I-9 would have no where else to go, and would be doomed for its life as an intrastate.
An interstate on 99 would also have no benefit to the system as a whole, beyond serving the largest city not currently served by an interestate. The routing is already handled by I-5, and 99 is not a short-cut, like I-12 is, so it's just not justified.
More playing devil's advocate here than anything. I don't really care either way, though I would guess my roadgeek side would lean me more toward seeing it a new interstate.
A thought though: are designations less important in a world so reliant on GPS? The concept of, say, remembering to follow Interstate 70 has disappeared for most people. They just do what the little robotic voice tells them to do, and don't even look at it on a map.
coatimundi - I agree with you, and that's one reason I tend not to frequent these forums. I like to focus on fact: what is the designation, what has been submitted, what is the history, what are the published proposals. Changing one type of sign to another may be significant to the folks here, but it is really meaningless to those who drive -- who as you note, probably just follow the GPS voice. Further, any of those changes are real significant dollars not just to the state for changing the signs, but for the hundreds of businesses along the road who have to change published directions and references. In these days of constrained road funding dollars, we have to put what limited funds we have into where they do the most good -- infrastructure repair and maintenance, key route completions, key upgrades that improve safety, key upgrades justified by service needs.
Do you want to fight something useful? Fight the numerous naming resolutions that open up families to identity theft and social engineering attacks (have you ever read them -- full birthdates and family info -- which I don't put on my pages), only to put up a sign that most people ignore. Better to remember the person by living the way they would have lived, setting up scholarships, helping another person. Those are the signs we should be talking about. To me, it is one of the most important thing my site does -- preserves those stories.
As we're talking route 99, here's an example. Here are some names memorialized on the route. Do you know who they are? Jose Rivera. James J. Schumacher, Jr.. Steven Lindblom. Stephan Gene Gray. Daniel Lee Archuleta. Gerald N. Harris. Donald Mark Lichliter.
Daniel
It seems as if folks in California can navigate on a "freeway" no matter the designation. Why spend the money to change the signs? Are upgrades neccessary for travel? What is the accident rate?
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on July 12, 2016, 03:06:39 PM
It seems as if folks in California can navigate on a "freeway" no matter the designation. Why spend the money to change the signs? Are upgrades neccessary for travel? What is the accident rate?
There is some safety improvements on 99 that could be had in regards to Tule Fog. Wasn't it back in 2012 when all those hundreds of cars piled into each other one morning? The VMS signage is incredibly poor for bad weather conditions....and at least in my own observations is largely ignored due to the inane things that get posted on them on the average day. You could look at something like using adverse weather advisory signage in place of VMS like ADOT does in dust storm prone regions. That and maybe add some room to the shoulders between Bakersfield and Fresno since they are either narrow, soft or a combination of the two in a lot of locations. Basically nothing too nuts that would require a full Interstate conversion.
Quote from: coatimundi on July 12, 2016, 01:52:57 PM
The negative effect of an interstate designation on 99 would probably be increased truck traffic. The local area would like that, but 99 can't handle it the way it is. Some interstate-related upgrades might help with that respect - mainly those awful 90-degree turn "interchanges" they put in - but I think a lot of widening would be necessary. 99 from LA to Sac is only additional 3 miles roughly, so it wouldn't take much to push people over there.
You also have the business changes: every bit of directions that a business has published will need to be changed. This is really tough with the internet, because there are pages that businesses don't control, and those things will just sit out there, with the wrong directions, for a very long time. I'm not saying that's a huge issue, but it's a concern in number and name changes.
I would think that we're done with intrastates. Even the most ridiculous one of all - I-99 - isn't going to be one for much longer. An I-7 or I-9 would have no where else to go, and would be doomed for its life as an intrastate.
An interstate on 99 would also have no benefit to the system as a whole, beyond serving the largest city not currently served by an interestate. The routing is already handled by I-5, and 99 is not a short-cut, like I-12 is, so it's just not justified.
More playing devil's advocate here than anything. I don't really care either way, though I would guess my roadgeek side would lean me more toward seeing it a new interstate.
A thought though: are designations less important in a world so reliant on GPS? The concept of, say, remembering to follow Interstate 70 has disappeared for most people. They just do what the little robotic voice tells them to do, and don't even look at it on a map.
I agree with the last part, and also why I'm of the opinion that concurrencies are fine (which Caltrans would disagree with).
I, too, don't think we should have any more intrastate interstates. More reason to just upgrade CA-99 and leave the number be.
Quote from: TheStranger on July 12, 2016, 12:27:36 PM
Quote from: sparker on July 12, 2016, 04:46:36 AM
That being said, I can think of one potential benefit -- if indeed Interstate status is eventually granted -- with the requisite 25-year window for facility compliance -- it might accelerate the process of "cleaning up" the substandard segments (Tulare, Chowchilla, and Atwater come to mind) that haven't seen upgrades since their deployment in the '50's -- and which are, safety-wise, problematic in "tule fog" situations. As one who uses 99 several times a year, these are issues I'd like to see addressed -- and if the means to do so involve I-status, that's quite OK.
Before the West Side Freeway was ever proposed along the Route 33 side of the valley...US 99 between Wheeler Ridge and Sacramento was the initial proposed I-5 routing (though this only lasted for a year or two on paper). Crazy to think then that system upgrades along that route that were suggested in the mid-1950s are only happening...in 2016.
The completion of I-5 certainly made upgrades to 99 a lot less urgent.
I-42 sez a big Hello! I certainly realize that some posters don't care much for intrastate trunk Interstates, but as long as the current methodology for designating Interstates remains as is, it's going to happen -- repeatedly. Nothing has ever been written into the U.S. Code restricting trunk Interstate numbers to multi-state facilities only, and it's likely nothing ever will. My thoughts -- if it serves long-distance traffic -- and at 250+ miles in its Stockton-terminus iteration and about 300 miles if extended to Sacramento, this potential Interstate corridor is at least 30 miles longer than the newly-completed I-22 (it just so happens that the latter route extends across two geographically smaller states), I'm fine with it as an Interstate route. Frankly, I don't understand the near-obsession some have with NOT establishing new Interstate routes -- unless it's part of a larger criticism of the whole Interstate concept as laid out back in '56! The system's not perfect -- nothing ever done in the public arena is -- but, IMO, it is neither aggregately obsolete nor intrinsically harmful (yeah, I know some opponents of the concept of mobility will vehemently disagree!).
It's interesting to me that a perusal of Adam's rendition of the '44 proposal for a 48.3K Interstate network indicates that several of the routes not included in the final '57-'58 iteration have been the ones added to the system at a later time. It may be that this larger system -- or one of similar size adjusted for more recent demographic trends -- is the logical, or even organic, natural size for a national limited-access network -- and we're getting there one route or even one SIU at a time! The original 41K network as laid out by '58 was certainly a compromise plan, dispersed so that every one of the then 48 states got at least a small slice of the pie. The very fact that an expansion bill was passed ten years later attests to the ongoing impetus for system additions. However, the "block-grant" changes of '73 cast the entire Interstate-augmentation process into the political arena -- essentially transferring any facility planning origins from the national to the state/local level. The result has been the deployment of localized, often intrastate, I-routes that nevertheless meet FHWA criteria.
I certainly don't make these rules; I just analyze the results (and detritus!). As far as an Interstate designation attracting truck traffic, that ship sailed decades ago even with mere CA 99 signage -- as Jerry Seinfeld might say, "COULD there be any more trucks on this damn highway?" Serving one of the most concentrated agricultural regions in the country, as well as several metro areas, each with hundreds of thousands population, has made the constant and consistent presence of trucks on this corridor a given.
No, I know that there's significant truck traffic on CA 99 as of today. However, I believe that most of that is localized truck traffic. Serving, say, the Sunmaid factory and bringing its tiny-boxed, brunette-faced results to the rest of the world. What's missing is the coastal truck traffic; going from the Port of LA/Long Beach out to northern CA, Oregon and Washington.
I-5 remains a viable thoroughfare simply because it's an interstate. Its construction standards allow a 70 mph limit. Meanwhile, 99's lackluster designs and haphazard interchanges make it unattractive to both truckers and GPS units, who claim longer timeframes along its routing. Meanwhile, I would much rather get a hotel in Bakersfield, Visalia, Merced or Turlock as opposed to Lost Hills, Kettlemen, or Los Banos. Having to spend even 8 hours in those latter towns would be reason enough to migrate over to 99, provided Google Maps offered it as an alternative. But, of course, I know better, and I would take 99 anyway.
Most people don't though, and see I-5 as the only, unattractive option. Bringing 99 into the interstate fold means bringing the GPS users on as well. I can't imagine Fresno McFreely wants to see Ms. Lexus of Glendale driving 65 in the left lane for 8 miles, as she now does on I-5, but that's what will kill the 99 even more.
I-42 brings up the point of I-37: an intrastate introduced with the second wave of the system map. I-37 provided access to important military-industrial facilities in that overgrown embarrassment to the Gulf (and that's saying a lot, seeing as that includes Port Arthur and Biloxi). I-42 at least provides access to a number of industrial towns and a Marine Corps base. I-9 would provide access to nectarine and almond farms.
I also have the belief that Californians, typically being more progressive than most of the rest of the country, do not wholeheartedly believe that an interstate designation provides inherent and automatic economic development. It's certainly possible that some city council in Chowchilla would advocate for the designation, but would that actually bring said benefit to Chowchilla? I sincerely doubt it. And I think that most of the rest of the state recognizes this.
All well & good -- but the rest of the state really doesn't have a dog in this particular race. Unless they're of the specific ideological bent that generically opposes highway upgrade projects, even progressives are decidedly incurious about highway-related matters in areas of the state that they don't frequent on a regular basis. I certainly wouldn't expect a coder from Mountain View to give much of a rat's ass about the issues faced by a courier driver with a Fresno-Visalia route. Inversely, I also wouldn't expect a pharmacist from Kingsburg to care about the condition of the 101/880 interchange here in San Jose (which causes me to howl in despair/dismay several times a week -- because I'm here!). California's a big and far-flung state -- and despite its relatively progressive bent, hardly, in the aggregate, a communitarian paradise, where the problems of one are considered the problems of all. We forum contributors are a unique bunch -- we care about such things. But, for better or worse, our opinion doesn't really matter either. As I've said previously, it'll be the local activists out in the trenches who, if they're committed to seeing an I-7 or I-9 on the 99 corridor, will at some point force the issue by hook or crook until they either get what they want or expend all their available resources. These aren't the type of matters that come up for a public referendum -- so the chances are good that the squeaky wheel will eventually prevail, given the collective shrug of the shoulders of pretty much everyone else (we posters being the exception that proves the rule!).
I'd say I don't care about the 101/880 interchange, but then again, you don't care about the 101/405 interchange :-)
What will force the issue, if you really need the condition of 99 upgraded, is a multi-county-coalition of the transportation agencies along the corridor. They are the agencies that make funding requests to the CTC, and they are the agencies that would likely do a coordinated sales tax increase along the corridor to provide local funding to augment the cost.
No matter what activitists or roadgeeks think or want, it is money that pays for environmental studies and gets highways built. It is the CTC putting the project on the TCRP or STIP or SHOPP agendas, and allocating the funds to the phases of construction. With statewide highway funds going down, and funds being increasingly allocated to other transportation avenues (rail, bike lanes, etc.), nothing will be done without transportation agency backing and funds.
I do care about the 405/101 interchange; it's just that i cared about it a bit more when I lived in the LA area. As a Glendale kid, I remember driving out 101 just after it opened back in '59 to visit cousins in Canoga Park, and seeing the 405 interchange, marked with white-on-black signs (they were black, so you can't call them BGS's -- maybe BBS's :colorful:) -- also seeing the LH entrances from 405 to 101 and thinking that they were going to be problematic down the line once 405, then a stub, was connected to the rest of the system! (I do have something of both photographic and idetic memories, although I'll be damned if I have ever been able to recall where I put something 10 seconds after laying it down!).
Frankly, I think, collectivly, we've wrung about all we can out of the CA 99/Interstate upgrade subject. Everyone has their POV re the efficacy of such an endeavor, including whether such an action is warranted at all. For those of us who think the possibility still looms, we cite different factors as contributory or even causal for the change to occur -- Dan F., institutional cooperation, CTC interest, plus measures to wring some more tax $$ from the locals for federal matching; myself, local political persistence, the presence of both Federal legislation and the state's CA 99 master improvement plan, and the fact that upgrades to Interstate criteria are progressing (albeit sometimes at a snail's pace).
Chances are it's all of the above, plus factors (overall political climate, competing projects elsewhere in the broader transportation arena, the roller-coaster that is today's prevailing funding source) beyond the control of the immediate players in the arena. I think it'll eventually be done, although maybe not in my own lifetime. I certainly don't plan to hold my breath.
This'll likely be my final pontification on the subject -- unless someone posts something so F'ing outrageous that steam starts pouring from my ears :eyebrow:: then, as the Terminator said, ahll be bock!
And, sparker, the final wrench in the mess: the High Speed Rail proposal, which for many miles goes along 99. Setting aside the political aspects and any merits/demerits of HSR, the presence of rail in that corridor will be significant for both passenger and freight movement, will require reconstruction and rerouting of portions, and may either spur completion to upgraded status or the continued benign neglect.
Back for a quick in & out: 99 has intimately coexisted with "low-speed rail" (I'm sure UP would appreciate that description!) since its inception -- and the HSR line, the last I heard, would be parallel to 99 north of Fresno, but between a few hundred yards and a mile or so to the east until it splits near Chowchilla. Nevertheless, there is proximity; 99 will likely serve as the major access thoroughfare for HSR construction activity. That may prompt some upgrades in the Chowchilla area -- probably centered around 99/HSR grade separation -- but frankly I don't see HSR prompting widespread upgrading to the route as a whole. The Sacramento HSR leg, which does generally parallel 99, will be the last to be constructed -- if at all!
IMO, I would have preferred keeping it as US 99. The signange had already existed and it was long enough to meet AASHTO's requirements for an intrastate US highway. I would say only to the north of Wheeler Ridge all the way to Canada. There will be relatively few multiplexes.
I think that the singnage at Wheeler Ridge would direct traffic appropriately. US 99 to Bakersfield and Fresno is a more local route, even though you could take it all the way to Canada. I-5 to SF and Sac, which is the long distance bypass routing.
Quote from: mrsman on July 17, 2016, 10:04:28 AM
I think that the singnage at Wheeler Ridge would direct traffic appropriately. US 99 to Bakersfield and Fresno is a more local route, even though you could take it all the way to Canada. I-5 to SF and Sac, which is the long distance bypass routing.
It would now, but perhaps not back in the day. Downgrading US-99 to a state highway lessened confusion for traffic heading north, who may not have fully understood which route went north (US-99 or I-5), even with ample signage.
Having conversed with Caltrans planners & engineers back in the '80's when doing a survey about 99 upgrades, it seems like the more senior of these -- who had been around during the phases of I-5 construction north to at least Stockton (1963-72) -- had every intention of ensuring that I-5 would be perceived as the "through route" north & south through the Valley; they seemed actually relieved that the original pre-'58 plan that marched I-5 right up US 99 had been dropped. This allowed them, for the time being, to approach the 99 facility as if it were a regional server rather than a main artery (despite the fact that it remained that until I-5 was completed) -- upgrading it a piece at a time -- with district priorities, various local political pressures, and the availability of funding (it remained a FAP route, so it at least got some federal aid) determining the location and scope of those upgrades. "Demoting" US 99 to a state-signed route dovetailed right into those plans; the fact that the late-1966 signage change occurred some six years prior to the completion of I-5 as far north as Stockton didn't deter them in the least (one engineer actually stated that if drivers insisted on a US route connecting north to south, they always had 101!). Because much of the 99 freeway had been planned & constructed prior to the establishment of Interstate criteria, Caltrans/Division of Highways realized that an Interstate alignment along that route would not only require the deployment of new segments, but also the rehabilitation of the many substandard sections, requiring demolishing more than a few structures as well as the acquisition of additional property along those sections. Besides, moving I-5 to the West Valley route meant that the existing plans for converting 99 to a freeway could remain as they were -- with narrower shoulders and bridges, the famous oleander-bush median barriers, retaining older narrow RR underpasses as part of the upgrades, and so forth -- all money-saving measures. Much of that concept can still be seen on CA 99 between Delano and Tulare, although some safety-related upgrades have been since installed: thrie-beam barriers flanking the oleander bushes, chip-seal extension of the inside median up to those barriers, and the widening of the outside breakdown lane (except on some older bridges) -- as well as the posting of under-16' overheads with the actual clearance. It could be said that the term "leisurely" could describe Caltrans' historic approach to 99 upgrading.
The answer I was looking for, thanks!
Quote from: jakeroot on June 27, 2016, 02:02:05 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on June 27, 2016, 12:20:41 AM
It just seems to me to be the weirdest recommissioning ever. The only reason I could think was to get more people to drive on I-5, but it wasn't finished yet.
I don't believe Oregon completely decommissioned US-99 until 1972 (when -99, 99E, and -99W became OR-). I'm pretty sure the 5 was completed throughout most of Oregon by then, but I could be wrong.
Granted, you could also just be talking about just California (judging by the chosen regional board), but you haven't specified otherwise.
Oregon was indeed the last state to decommission U.S. 99, U.S. 99E and U.S. 99W, all in 1972. And Interstate 5 was indeed a complete border to border freeway as far back as 1966. (Oregon's Interstate 5 actually had the distinction of being the very first "border to border" Interstate highway completed, though a few sections would have been considered sub standard by todays standards.)
Personally, I would like to see U.S. 99 recommissioned from Wheeler Ridge to Portland as follows: Follow the existing S.R. 99 from Wheeler Ridge to Red Bluff except following S.R. 70 and S.R. 149 through Marysville and Oroville. (The segment of S.R. 99 through Yuba City I would post as U.S. 99A or Alternate.) From Red Bluff to Ashland, possibly excepting S.R. 273 and S.R. 263 and perhaps the "Historic" U.S. 99 segment through the Weed, Mt. Shasta, Dunsmuir area, could be silently multiplexed with I-5. In Oregon, U.S. 99 would primarily follow Oregon 99 from I-5 exit 11 at Ashland to Junction City then follow Oregon 99W from Junction City through Corvallis and McMinnville ending at the junction with I-5 at exit 294. Oregon 99E would not warrant being recommissioned as it follows I-5 closely enough not to justify a separate U.S. highway routing. U.S. 99 would NOT be recommissioned in any part of Washington state for the same reason.
It would be awesome to see US 99 make a comeback, but it seems Caltrans has it's heart set on making the 99 an Interstate. Hopefully then Fresno will stop complaining.
Quote from: Exit58 on July 19, 2016, 04:07:07 PM
It would be awesome to see US 99 make a comeback, but it seems Caltrans has it's heart set on making the 99 an Interstate. Hopefully then Fresno will stop complaining.
Is it really Caltrans? I was under the impression they are interesting in upgrading the 99 for traffic optimization/safety, but have no particular interest in any renumbering. Seems any such pressure is external.
Either way, CA-99 is still quite a ways off from even being qualifiable for an interstate conversion. And given any lack of interest in any potential extension of I-40 and I-210, I realistically don't think CA-99 will probably get resigned, either. And I'm fine with that, "99" is an old and historic number as far as California highways go, it should stick around.
I completely agree with keeping the 99 number around, but Caltrans did publish a plan that included bring SR-99 to Interstate standards and be included in the system as either I-7 or I-9 (I-9 would be a nice nod to it's grandparent, US 99, like US 80 and I-8).
Why don't you get your reps on board and then get them to have Caltrans petition AASHTO.
Let's ask this question: You have a route that already has a working and well known number. You face declining gas tax revenue, increased need for infrastructure repair and maintainance, plus increased funding for transit, bikeways, and other improvements. Should you spend your money -- and the money of numerous cities that would have to re-sign -- and numerous businesses that might need to redo advertising -- just to change a number because it makes a system make better sense to someone.
That, in a nutshell, is why you are likely to see the number remain as it is.
Pretty much every CA poster, plus a good helping of others, has already kicked the shit out of the CA-99/US 99/I-whatever subject/controversy in this thread, plus at last count 5 pages of the "CA 99-The Final Countdown" thread. I don't think there's been a POV that hasn't been elucidated, nor a rationale that hasn't been dissected at length. I'm certainly not suggesting that this subject go away or be ignored, just that posters try to not simply reiterate what's already been stated -- if not beaten to death! To that end, I humbly suggest that roadfro merge the threads -- if only to locate all the previous comments & references in one, easy-to-scroll-through format. Might save a lot of re-hashing!
Good idea. With all the new threads lately, I forgot the CA 99 thread existed. Topics merged. –Roadfro
I would like to advocate that the freeway section of CA 120, and CA 99 south from there to its southern terminus, be renumbered to I-205 and be decked and elevated for its entirety...
:sombrero:
Now THAT belongs in Fictional! The whole concept of folks taking HSR next to 99, looking over and seeing a double-deck freeway next to them in the middle of nowhere (sorry, Livingston and Ceres!) is at once totally ironic and patently ludicrous! But I guess if you're going to upgrade a road, might as well go all the way from the get-go! :spin:
Just two more bits on 99, since this was semi-alluded to. There were supposedly "powerful land interests" who opposed highway expansion until relatively recently.
(One thing odd about CA is the occasional journalistic reference to "powerful land interests", which cannot be named.)
There were rumors that the reason that the last section of 99 to be completed as a full freeway -- Chowchilla to Merced -- was subject to years of delay by the unwillingness of the local almond farmers' cooperative to give up any of the land adjacent to the original expressway, which "hugged" the adjoining UP tracks closely. Apparently they fought eminent domain proceedings tooth & nail for at least two decades before an agreement was cobbled together that exchanged land for the deployment of an access/frontage road that would allow their equipment to move freely between groves.
My late former father-in-law was an attorney for several large Valley agribusinesses -- in that area they tend to get their way more often than not!
Regarding US 99 - My website, which has a tour of US 99 from Downtown Los Angeles to Bakersfield, is getting longer. Originally, the tour was only to go from Newhall Pass to Bakersfield. Later, it was extended to DTLA (well, close to it). Now, I'm extending it north. Right now, it terminates at 7th Standard Road, having ended at the Kern River before. I plan to extend the tour to at least Delano, with the possibility of Fresno (or maybe past the "Pine and the Palm"), but we shall see. I know the alignments, I just don't have the photos as yet for the bulk of the "stops" on the tour. I may take a trip up that way in the not-too-distant future, depending on temperatures. Motorcycle leathers aren't exactly the coolest to wear when it is 95F.
http://socalregion.com/highways/us_99/ (http://socalregion.com/highways/us_99/)
How would 104º feel in leathers? That was today's high in the Big Bad Bakopatch.
Seroiusly though, love your site.
It would be sweaty and uncomfortable. I've ridden in my leathers in that heat before... not good.