There hasn't been any relevant threads about the idea of CA-99 being a potential I-7 or I-9 between Bakersfield and Stockton if not Sacramento
So I may as well make one
You won't find a recent thread because it isn't happening. This topic has been talked about in the hobby and forum ad nauseam.
The basic summary is that the last time Caltrans was interested making CA 99 an Interstate was during the 1980s. At the time the agency was attempting to add several non-chargeable (meaning not Federal fund matched) Interstates. Since then Interstate branding for highway has greatly waned in navigational importance for the average driver. Caltrans presently has no interest in designating any new Interstates even when freeway corridors meet design standards (much of CA 99 does not). If CA 210 isn't getting rebranded as an Interstate that pretty much is enough to indicate the current mindset.
Caltrans owned roadways can't have duplicated numbers given they are legislatively defined. To obtain the numbers 7 or 9 the agency would have to introduce several legislative bills. CA 9 is a locally famous corridor around Santa Cruz and would draw political ire if Caltrans attempted to reassign it. The most straightforward number to obtain is 305 since there is no State Route presently legislatively defined as such. 305 would also tie nicely into the FHWA defined corridor of I-305 along US 50 in Sacramento.
To obtain an Interstate designation the state would also have to put in applications with the FHWA and AASHTO. Assuming they receive approval from both the CTC would have to program funds for signage replacement (an expensive proposition).
Also worth noting that CA 99 hasn't been a continuous freeway between Wheeler Ridge and Sacramento until recently. The newest freeway segment was constructed in southern Merced County in 2016 as a replacement for an expressway grade.
Also worth noting that there is a fair amount of local attachment to the number 99 given it has been around for a century. I would imagine it wouldn't be too hard to spin business owners and random people up enough to form a bit of resistant to a change. Me personally I would throw my hat in with trying to obtain I-99 and give the CA 99 corridor the I-238 treatment. That of course depends if hypothetically CA 99 is ever rebuilt fully to Interstate design standards.
Your best reference what is going on currently with CA 99 is going to be CAhighways:
https://www.cahighways.org/ROUTE099.html
If you want something on the general history of US 99 in California my page has that covered:
https://www.gribblenation.org/p/gribblenation-us-route-99-page.html?m=1
I believe the biggest issue in recent years has been improving/expanding the 99 to three lanes in both directions. For example, a portion near Fresno is being rebuilt, at a cost of $290 million, to rebuild an interchange that had been there for 50 years and was out of date. A similar thing is happening with Caltrans rebuilding parts of the 99 through Tulare, where one of the final two lane portions is being expanded to a third lane. Considering how important the 99 is, I wouldn't be surprised if sooner or later it gets added, even if there isn't much of a push right now for the designation. The more important work is maintenance and improvements.
What will get you about Tulare is most of that freeway was built in 1953-1954. It is literally the oldest limited access segment on CA 99.
The CA 99 designation is likely here to stay between Mettler and Sacramento. If it were ever to become an Interstate, I'd prefer the Interstate 9 designation to the Interstate 7 designation. All in all, I think California has as many Interstate designations as it will ever have (unless they finally convert CA 905 into Interstate 905).
I don't really care if CA-99 ever gets an Interstate designation. However, I do believe CA-99 should be brought fully up to current Interstate standards from the I-5 split at Wheeler Ridge all the way up to Sacramento. It's almost all limited access, but the highway is still a mixed bag of different design standards. Standards vary on shoulder widths and on/off ramp designs.
I don't know what the deal is with all the random trees growing right next to the road way with no guard rails separating the main lanes from the big tree trunks. It's really common from Delano and farther North. Most other states install guard rails or remove all bushes and trees from the ROW. I imagine they must have some grisly accidents on those stretches of CA-99 from time to time. It would be easy for someone to be texting while driving or doing other distracted nonsense and then drift over the shoulder and then head-on into a tree trunk at high speed. A motorist could really be screwed going into a side-skid.
Those are Oleanders. They look particularly nice when the bloom. The issue is more that they are toxic.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 11, 2025, 04:45:23 PMThose are Oleanders. They look particularly nice when the bloom. The issue is more that they are toxic.
I also believe there's some sort of blight impacting them now, which is why they are being removed. They were the preferred median when those roads were first upgraded from expressway, as they did a good job of blocking the view of traffic on the other side and were low maintenance.
Quote from: cahwyguy on April 11, 2025, 05:42:12 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on April 11, 2025, 04:45:23 PMThose are Oleanders. They look particularly nice when the bloom. The issue is more that they are toxic.
I also believe there's some sort of blight impacting them now, which is why they are being removed. They were the preferred median when those roads were first upgraded from expressway, as they did a good job of blocking the view of traffic on the other side and were low maintenance.
Quote from: cahwyguy on April 11, 2025, 05:42:12 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on April 11, 2025, 04:45:23 PMThose are Oleanders. They look particularly nice when the bloom. The issue is more that they are toxic.
I also believe there's some sort of blight impacting them now, which is why they are being removed. They were the preferred median when those roads were first upgraded from expressway, as they did a good job of blocking the view of traffic on the other side and were low maintenance.
I find it kind of shame that they are being pulled. They were just cut down in southern Madera County between Avenues 7 and 12. At least the Palm & Pine got a bit of a clean up out of it.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 11, 2025, 01:22:30 PMThe CA 99 designation is likely here to stay between Mettler and Sacramento. If it were ever to become an Interstate, I'd prefer the Interstate 9 designation to the Interstate 7 designation. All in all, I think California has as many Interstate designations as it will ever have (unless they finally convert CA 905 into Interstate 905).
If this ridiculous idea ever came to fruition, I'd prefer I-7, reserving I-9 for the US-395 corridor in the very distant future.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 11, 2025, 10:36:35 AMAlso worth noting that there is a fair amount of local attachment to the number 99 given it has been around for a century. I would imagine it wouldn't be too hard to spin business owners and random people up enough to form a bit of resistant to a change. Me personally I would throw my hat in with trying to obtain I-99 and give the CA 99 corridor the I-238 treatment. That of course depends if hypothetically CA 99 is ever rebuilt fully to Interstate design standards.
Sure. There's already a precedent for numbering some random road I-99, and precedent for having two unrelated roads with the same 2di number.
Quote from: pderocco on April 11, 2025, 09:04:46 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on April 11, 2025, 10:36:35 AMAlso worth noting that there is a fair amount of local attachment to the number 99 given it has been around for a century. I would imagine it wouldn't be too hard to spin business owners and random people up enough to form a bit of resistant to a change. Me personally I would throw my hat in with trying to obtain I-99 and give the CA 99 corridor the I-238 treatment. That of course depends if hypothetically CA 99 is ever rebuilt fully to Interstate design standards.
Sure. There's already a precedent for numbering some random road I-99, and precedent for having two unrelated roads with the same 2di number.
Indeed. The way I see it if we as a hobby are going to push for this we might as go in for something memorable. Besides, it would the only corridor to carry a US Route, State Route and Interstate of the same number.
California just doesn't seem to care. There's also 905, 210, 15 that the state could pursue, and for whatever reason, is not.
CA 15 at the very least has one very substandard interchange that would need to be replaced. The FHWA and AASHTO did approve that be part of I-15 once it is replaced though.
For those who want I-9 designated over CA 99, the biggest hangup is that CA 9 is a well-known route, and protests would erupt if Caltrans wanted to change it. CA 7 just doesn't seem to be in the same place for too long, having been bounced around here and there, most notably in SoCal, when it was routed along what is now I-710. The current iteration is hardly a blip on the radar, so no one would miss it if it was gone. And for that reason, I-7 has a far better chance of getting signed than I-9 ever will be.
Maybe the interstate designation should be Alt. I-5 cosigned with CA 99? :bigass:
Quote from: TheBox on April 11, 2025, 10:11:14 AMThere hasn't been any relevant threads about the idea of CA-99 being a potential I-7 or I-9 between Bakersfield and Stockton if not Sacramento
So I may as well make one
That's because such discussion rightly belongs in the fictional highways board. So unless we have news of Caltrans actually proposing such a thing, let's not create similar threads again.
With that said, some meaningful discussion about improvements to CA 99 is happening here, so I won't lock/move this thread. But let's stay out of the realm of discussing hypothetical Interstate designations going forward.
Quote from: roadfro on April 11, 2025, 11:32:24 PMQuote from: TheBox on April 11, 2025, 10:11:14 AMThere hasn't been any relevant threads about the idea of CA-99 being a potential I-7 or I-9 between Bakersfield and Stockton if not Sacramento
So I may as well make one
That's because such discussion rightly belongs in the fictional highways board. So unless we have news of Caltrans actually proposing such a thing, let's not create similar threads again.
With that said, some meaningful discussion about improvements to CA 99 is happening here, so I won't lock/move this thread. But let's stay out of the realm of discussing hypothetical Interstate designations going forward.
This was a big item of discussion a couple of decades ago back in the M.T.R. days, but I also agree, it is a dead horse now.
Mike
I'd say move to fictional.
FHWA / Congress view it as not fictional even if California itself is uninterested in pushing for it.
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/Planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hbcfilg.cfm
Quote from: Rothman on April 12, 2025, 10:41:16 AMI'd say move to fictional.
This topic has been discussed in this forum, and everything is just repeated again. Searches just become more tedious with multiple threads repeating themselves.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=29735.0
Best moved to fictional as was done in 2021.
Quote from: english si on April 12, 2025, 10:55:12 AMFHWA / Congress view it as not fictional even if California itself is uninterested in pushing for it.
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/Planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hbcfilg.cfm
Note the date on that document: December 10, 2015. That's almost 10 years ago, so it unclear if the Feds are still interested in pursuing it.
Quote from: cahwyguy on April 12, 2025, 12:31:40 PMNote the date on that document: December 10, 2015. That's almost 10 years ago, so it unclear if the Feds are still interested in pursuing it.
Still marked as a future interstate in November 2021
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/Planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hpcfi.pdf
Quote from: english si on April 12, 2025, 12:47:12 PMQuote from: cahwyguy on April 12, 2025, 12:31:40 PMNote the date on that document: December 10, 2015. That's almost 10 years ago, so it unclear if the Feds are still interested in pursuing it.
Still marked as a future interstate in November 2021
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/Planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hpcfi.pdf
That map is interesting. Looks like I-73 and I-74 got deleted in Ohio and Michigan. Also, corridors 18 and 20 do not line up with the actual interstate designations TxDOT is pursuing, so I guess "Congress made us do it" is a lie with the suffixes. Finally, why are completed corridors (like I-41) still on the map as "future"?
What is the green colored line intended to represent? The map legend only describes what blue means.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 13, 2025, 09:40:07 AMWhat is the green colored line intended to represent? The map legend only describes what blue means.
And what are these numbers that aren't 20 meant to represent? The map legend only describes what 20 in a circle means!
Quote from: cahwyguy on April 12, 2025, 12:31:40 PMQuote from: english si on April 12, 2025, 10:55:12 AMFHWA / Congress view it as not fictional even if California itself is uninterested in pushing for it.
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/Planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hbcfilg.cfm
Note the date on that document: December 10, 2015. That's almost 10 years ago, so it unclear if the Feds are still interested in pursuing it.
(https://i.imgflip.com/3nn0jx.png?a484440)
While I do agree that its chances of designation are exceedingly low (and I'd even argue that an I-40 extension over SR-58 is more likely at this rate, which is DEFINITELY now fictional), it is still written into law, even if the law passed who-knows-how-many years ago.
Maybe we should give up on any more Interstate corridors in California. All at-grade intersections have been eliminated between Interstate 5 and Business 80/US 50. Except for upgrades to modern design standards, nothing more probably needs to be done to the corridor. As for CA 58, maybe an interchange at CA 223, and an eventual upgrade of Stockdale Hwy. to freeway standards will suffice.
A lot more needs to be done with the corridor. There are lots of substandard structures still left. The Chowchilla Underpass comes to mind immediately as well as numerous antiquated exit/entrance ramps.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 13, 2025, 09:40:07 AMWhat is the green colored line intended to represent? The map legend only describes what blue means.
Every future corridor actually has its own color on the map, although some shades are hard to tell apart (such as I-86 and I-99). It even says "colors are added for clarity only".
Without getting into "Fictional Freeways" territory too deeply, I wouldn't mind seeing interstate status routed up the Capital City Freeway up to the "Split" where I-80 splits off CA-51.
Our State and Local authorities are currently in the process of upgrading the corridor as far north as Exposition Boulevard. If the corridor can be upgraded up to the "Split," it would serve as a logical northern terminus of the "future" Interstate.
If I were the "powers that be," I would utilize the "I-7" convention. The existing "CA-7" is a short border spur route and could be renumbered as "CA-308." The current route is an expressway, and appears to be easily upgradable to a freeway, and could become I-308 in the far-off future.
CA-9 already has too much of a historical representation in the Santa Cruz Mountains. In my opinion, it should remain "as is."
Quote from: Concrete Bob on April 13, 2025, 04:55:24 PMWithout getting into "Fictional Freeways" territory too deeply, I wouldn't mind seeing interstate status routed up the Capital City Freeway up to the "Split" where I-80 splits off CA-51.
Our State and Local authorities are currently in the process of upgrading the corridor as far north as Exposition Boulevard. If the corridor can be upgraded up to the "Split," it would serve as a logical northern terminus of the "future" Interstate.
If I were the "powers that be," I would utilize the "I-7" convention. The existing "CA-7" is a short border spur route and could be renumbered as "CA-308." The current route is an expressway, and appears to be easily upgradable to a freeway, and could become I-308 in the far-off future.
CA-9 already has too much of a historical representation in the Santa Cruz Mountains. In my opinion, it should remain "as is."
US 50 west of CA 51 is also FHWA defined I-305. That is pretty much the only logical corridor to tie into I-5 or I-80.
Quote from: freebrickproductions on April 11, 2025, 10:49:35 PMMaybe the interstate designation should be Alt. I-5 cosigned with CA 99? :bigass:
How about Business Route I-5. In a way, that's what it is.
I an far more bullish on CA 58 eventually becoming a westward extension of I-40 than I am with anything regarding CA 99. Also with upgrades to the CA 4 corridor between Stockton, CA and the Bay area.
Mike
CA 4 in the Delta has zero chance of ever being expanded. So much so in fact that there actual momentum towards building CA 239.
Now this is really fictional...
That said, the only incentive to upgrade corridors to Interstate is to up the federal reimbursement rate (NHPP) from 80 to 90 percent. I suspect that's what is going on in NC...
I remember reading on the web around the time period 2000-2001, a detailed and lenghtly CALTRANS study that examimed the improvements and costs needed to convert SR 99 to what was identified in the study as Interstate 9 (I-9). The study suggested I-9 rather than I-7 as a homage to the roadway's history as US 99/SR 99. The proposed extent of I-9 was from the I-5 split north of the Grapevine north to Stockton. It may not ever happen, but it has been seriously considered. If anybody on this blog can still find that study, please post a link.
Quote from: RoadWarrior56 on April 14, 2025, 01:15:54 PMI remember reading on the web around the time period 2000-2001, a detailed and lenghtly CALTRANS study that examimed the improvements and costs needed to convert SR 99 to what was identified in the study as Interstate 9 (I-9). The study suggested I-9 rather than I-7 as a homage to the roadway's history as US 99/SR 99. The proposed extent of I-9 was from the I-5 split north of the Grapevine north to Stockton. It may not ever happen, but it has been seriously considered. If anybody on this blog can still find that study, please post a link.
I'll bet that even though since then they've done the bulk of the actual work (e.g., eliminating at-grade intersections), it would still be much more expensive to finish the job today than to have started the job then.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 13, 2025, 05:14:26 PMQuote from: Concrete Bob on April 13, 2025, 04:55:24 PMWithout getting into "Fictional Freeways" territory too deeply, I wouldn't mind seeing interstate status routed up the Capital City Freeway up to the "Split" where I-80 splits off CA-51.
Our State and Local authorities are currently in the process of upgrading the corridor as far north as Exposition Boulevard. If the corridor can be upgraded up to the "Split," it would serve as a logical northern terminus of the "future" Interstate.
If I were the "powers that be," I would utilize the "I-7" convention. The existing "CA-7" is a short border spur route and could be renumbered as "CA-308." The current route is an expressway, and appears to be easily upgradable to a freeway, and could become I-308 in the far-off future.
CA-9 already has too much of a historical representation in the Santa Cruz Mountains. In my opinion, it should remain "as is."
US 50 west of CA 51 is also FHWA defined I-305. That is pretty much the only logical corridor to tie into I-5 or I-80.
Have I-305 make a turn and head for Wheeler Ridge! {DUCK!}
I've posted this in another thread before: I rather the route go back to US-99 to preserve the number and make it obvious that it's a step above state routes in importance
Would you settle for signing US 99 from Wheeler Ridge to Sacramento, and then CA 99 from Sacramento north?
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on April 15, 2025, 08:25:04 PMWould you settle for signing US 99 from Wheeler Ridge to Sacramento, and then CA 99 from Sacramento north?
AASHTO wouldn't.
Quote from: pderocco on April 15, 2025, 08:52:25 PMQuote from: ClassicHasClass on April 15, 2025, 08:25:04 PMWould you settle for signing US 99 from Wheeler Ridge to Sacramento, and then CA 99 from Sacramento north?
AASHTO wouldn't.
In theory so long as in-state route proposed was over 300 miles they wouldn't have a reason to object.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 15, 2025, 09:14:38 PMQuote from: pderocco on April 15, 2025, 08:52:25 PMQuote from: ClassicHasClass on April 15, 2025, 08:25:04 PMWould you settle for signing US 99 from Wheeler Ridge to Sacramento, and then CA 99 from Sacramento north?
AASHTO wouldn't.
In theory so long as in-state route proposed was over 300 miles they wouldn't have a reason to object.
That would be fine with me. I like US routes too.
If that's so, then California could have kept US-299 by lengthening it to Cedarville, if not the NV border.
Quote from: pderocco on April 15, 2025, 10:34:44 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on April 15, 2025, 09:14:38 PMQuote from: pderocco on April 15, 2025, 08:52:25 PMQuote from: ClassicHasClass on April 15, 2025, 08:25:04 PMWould you settle for signing US 99 from Wheeler Ridge to Sacramento, and then CA 99 from Sacramento north?
AASHTO wouldn't.
In theory so long as in-state route proposed was over 300 miles they wouldn't have a reason to object.
That would be fine with me. I like US routes too.
If that's so, then California could have kept US-299 by lengthening it to Cedarville, if not the NV border.
They wanted to show off their greenies. That was actually emphasized in the late era CHPW volumes.
Changing all the signs would require spending money, and wouldn't be solving any problems. In fact it would create confusion. By all means continue the functional upgrades. But changing the number is a makework project at best. (Wooo! We're drivin' on an Interstate now! said no one ever.)
Quote from: kkt on May 17, 2025, 10:07:57 PMChanging all the signs would require spending money, and wouldn't be solving any problems. In fact it would create confusion. By all means continue the functional upgrades. But changing the number is a makework project at best. (Wooo! We're drivin' on an Interstate now! said no one ever.)
If I were CalTrans, I'd want as much 90% federal reimbursement as I could get a hold of.
Quote from: kkt on May 17, 2025, 10:07:57 PM(Wooo! We're drivin' on an Interstate now! said no one ever.)
I'm sure there are quite a few of us on this forum who actually do feel that way.
Quote from: Rothman on May 17, 2025, 10:09:22 PMQuote from: kkt on May 17, 2025, 10:07:57 PMChanging all the signs would require spending money, and wouldn't be solving any problems. In fact it would create confusion. By all means continue the functional upgrades. But changing the number is a makework project at best. (Wooo! We're drivin' on an Interstate now! said no one ever.)
If I were CalTrans, I'd want as much 90% federal reimbursement as I could get a hold of.
I was under the impression that the 90% match days were over.
Quote from: vdeane on May 17, 2025, 10:21:37 PMQuote from: kkt on May 17, 2025, 10:07:57 PM(Wooo! We're drivin' on an Interstate now! said no one ever.)
I'm sure there are quite a few of us on this forum who actually do feel that way.
And personally I find it quite bizarre that somehow an Interstate designation would actually entice some to drive CA 99. I would think the outlying oddity that the corridor is now would hold almost universal appeal or intrigue.
Then again I guess this tracks with how many people in this hobby can't handle I-238 and I-99 existing. Numeric symmetry and general homogenization of roads were never my bag.
Quote from: kkt on May 17, 2025, 10:33:10 PMQuote from: Rothman on May 17, 2025, 10:09:22 PMQuote from: kkt on May 17, 2025, 10:07:57 PMChanging all the signs would require spending money, and wouldn't be solving any problems. In fact it would create confusion. By all means continue the functional upgrades. But changing the number is a makework project at best. (Wooo! We're drivin' on an Interstate now! said no one ever.)
If I were CalTrans, I'd want as much 90% federal reimbursement as I could get a hold of.
I was under the impression that the 90% match days were over.
Your impression was quite incorrect.
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure-investment-and-jobs-act/fedshare_fact_sheet.cfm
What happened was going back to MAP-21, Interstate specific core federal programs really ceased to exist. So, the 90% is not extra apportionment. Interstate projects now compete with every other federal-aid project out there directly (or at least they have for the last 12 years or so).