AARoads Forum

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 PM

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 PM

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.

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 PM

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.

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 PM

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.

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 PM

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

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 PM

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.

(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 PM

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.

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 PM

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.

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 PM

Quote from: pderocco on April 15, 2025, 08:52:25 PM

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.

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 PM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 15, 2025, 09:14:38 PM

Quote from: pderocco on April 15, 2025, 08:52:25 PM

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.

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 PM

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.

I was under the impression that the 90% match days were over.

Quote from: vdeane on May 17, 2025, 10:21:37 PM

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.

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 PM

Quote from: Rothman on May 17, 2025, 10:09:22 PM

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.

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).

Quote from: vdeane on May 17, 2025, 10:21:37 PM

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.

I feel the opposite. Making something into an interstate usually coincides with it being drained of most of its character.

Quote from: pderocco on May 18, 2025, 06:36:05 PM

Quote from: vdeane on May 17, 2025, 10:21:37 PM

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.

I feel the opposite. Making something into an interstate usually coincides with it being drained of most of its character.

There is a significant portion of the hobby who strive for that very lifeless homogenized Interstate character.  Call it what you want, be it something like Fritzowling or Grid Perfectionism it all really is the same thing. 

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 18, 2025, 06:49:34 PM

Quote from: pderocco on May 18, 2025, 06:36:05 PM

Quote from: vdeane on May 17, 2025, 10:21:37 PM

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.

I feel the opposite. Making something into an interstate usually coincides with it being drained of most of its character.

There is a significant portion of the hobby who strive for that very lifeless homogenized Interstate character.  Call it what you want, be it something like Fritzowling or Grid Perfectionism it all really is the same thing. 

Yep, that's why I'm perfectly happy with I-40 ending in Barstow. I rather like the 58 freeway/expressway. I feel like I'm somewhere instead of nowhere.

Quote from: pderocco on May 18, 2025, 07:19:33 PM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 18, 2025, 06:49:34 PM

Quote from: pderocco on May 18, 2025, 06:36:05 PM

Quote from: vdeane on May 17, 2025, 10:21:37 PM

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.

I feel the opposite. Making something into an interstate usually coincides with it being drained of most of its character.

There is a significant portion of the hobby who strive for that very lifeless homogenized Interstate character.  Call it what you want, be it something like Fritzowling or Grid Perfectionism it all really is the same thing. 

Yep, that's why I'm perfectly happy with I-40 ending in Barstow. I rather like the 58 freeway/expressway. I feel like I'm somewhere instead of nowhere.

Off forum I made it my personal mission to obliterate the assumptive notion that there was some sort of manifest destiny to extend I-40 to Bakersfield.  Doesn't hurt that I come armed with knowledge of the last application the Division of Highways made for chargeable mileage in that corridor was circa 1968.

Fictional.

Making CA 99 an Interstate and extending Interstate 40 west of CA 58 are beating two dead horses. Since neither is going to happen, maybe we should stop discussing it.

Quote from: LilianaUwU on May 18, 2025, 07:32:53 PMFictional.

This was addressed by several of us prior to Reply #16.  Personally, I feel like as though the cancers of grid perfectionism and wanting to make everything an Interstate are both issues in the hobby worth confronting.  This topic got rebuked hard when it was new with actual historic context about why things developed to what they are now.  For some reason it is getting rebuked again after the forum came back online.

I mean, if your perception of the interstate system is this (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9792018,-77.2399161,3a,24.9y,289.56h,87.91t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s5yY0B_waGRCcUGyXw_ixfQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D2.088307219117169%26panoid%3D5yY0B_waGRCcUGyXw_ixfQ%26yaw%3D289.56364269411335!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDUxMy4xIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D), then yeah, upgrading routes probably feels pointless.  Not so much if it's this (https://travelmapping.net/user/system.php?u=vdeane&sys=usai).

I don't think most people screaming for grid perfect Interstates and fictional corridor adds are often out adding miles to Travel Maps.

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 18, 2025, 10:18:20 PMI don't think most people screaming for grid perfect Interstates and fictional corridor adds are often out adding miles to Travel Maps.

I was referring to the spider web covering the nation, the coverage of the system, the ability to get from point to point without leaving the system, etc.  But then, I'm also not assuming grid perfectionism as the underlying motive behind people arguing for interstate extensions, either (although it does drive its far share of fictional proposals).

Have to say I've been disappointed in some numbering of newer Interstates (e.g., NC's I-87).  As official proposals are approved for designation, I do prefer them to fit in the grid.

But no, I'm not going to be ranting about some section of highway that "should" be Interstate such-and-such just to fit the grid.

But that often is the argument when it comes to CA 99.  Almost everyone who brings it up doesn't even understand the basics of the following:

-  What Interstate design standards are.
-  How State Highways in California are legislatively defined.
-  How the application process for non-chargeable Interstate designations work.

Usually the gist of these threads are something absent minded like "CA 99 should be I-9." 

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 18, 2025, 10:46:50 PMBut that often is the argument when it comes to CA 99.  Almost everyone who brings it up doesn't even understand the basics of the following:

-  What Interstate design standards are.
-  How State Highways in California are legislatively defined.
-  How the application process for non-chargeable Interstate designations work.

Usually the gist of these threads are something absent minded like "CA 99 should be I-9." 

To be honest, the whole "chargeable"/"non-chargeable" thing in California seems overly complicated to me given how federal funding has been handled since MAP-21.  You either have Interstate mileage recognized by FHWA  for 90% reimbursement or you don't (and, in my neck of the woods, NYC has shielded Interstates that are ineligible due to the timing and means of their designation many, many moons ago).

Short of it, if California wanted to go through the bother of getting CA 99 designated I-whatever and putting all sorts of money towards it (NY 17/I-86 on steroids), I wouldn't see a problem with it, especially to chase the 90% reimbursement for future maintenance.

But, yeah, just saying it should be I-whatever because it's a line on a map is silly.

Quote from: Rothman on May 18, 2025, 11:27:56 PMBut, yeah, just saying it should be I-whatever because it's a line on a map is silly.

That is silly, yes. However I don't think people are wanting this route to be Interstate just for that (despite the fact that there are a lot of interstates that are have little other reason to have been built, save for that purpose).

They want it to be Interstate because it's
1) a busy road
2) with a lot of truck traffic
3) serving several major cities
and therefore it makes little sense for it to not be upgraded to the highest class of road - both in standards, and in designation.

If those aren't sufficient reasons to legitimately want something to be interstate, I don't know what is!

Some of the stuff the 'we don't need Interstate shields everywhere' brigade are saying is undermining the argument by poo-pooing any proposal for a new interstate and straw manning why people might want interstate designations and ends up sounding like the argument has fallen off the other side of the horse and become 'we don't need new Interstate shields anywhere'.

Quote from: english si on May 19, 2025, 04:50:17 AM

Quote from: Rothman on May 18, 2025, 11:27:56 PMBut, yeah, just saying it should be I-whatever because it's a line on a map is silly.

That is silly, yes. However I don't think people are wanting this route to be Interstate just for that (despite the fact that there are a lot of interstates that are have little other reason to have been built, save for that purpose).

They want it to be Interstate because it's
1) a busy road
2) with a lot of truck traffic
3) serving several major cities
and therefore it makes little sense for it to not be upgraded to the highest class of road - both in standards, and in designation

Well, somebody didn't understand Max's post or mine on the cons of Interstate designation.

CA 99 functions quite well as is without the designation, so I'm not persuaded by the idea that it should be upgraded just because of its significance or importance.

Honestly, as much as I'm in the "this would be a good corridor for an interstate" camp, I'm mainly arguing here because I find the "we don't need any new interstate shields anywhere ever" crowd to be just as ridiculous as FritzOwl (and also the strawmen arguments that have been brought out).  Are the interstates not supposed to be the most significant/important routes in the country and connect the most significant/important places together to each other and the nation?  I mean, this (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.006097,-118.9513857,3a,15.3y,346.62h,87.4t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1scAreMSZzqk3zMj14SZtt_g!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D2.604465387498365%26panoid%3DcAreMSZzqk3zMj14SZtt_g%26yaw%3D346.61610356773474!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDUxMy4xIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D) view tells the whole story: three lanes of traffic go to the major cities of Bakersfield and Fresno (which would be on the interstate system were they in literally any other state), while two lanes travel through the middle of nowhere, with I-5 itself not even going to San Francisco (3dis are needed for that) and San Jose isn't even accessible by interstate at all coming from the south (looking at street view, it carries a surprisingly large amount of traffic for the desolate area it serves, and I can't help but wonder where the employment base for the necessary traveler services is).

From a systems connectivity POV, it might have been nice if I-5 had been put on CA 99 with spot upgrades on the non-freeway portion (like how interstates were slapped down on pre-existing routes elsewhere) and the new interstate mileage to create I-3 along US 101 way back when, but what's done is done.

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 18, 2025, 10:46:50 PMBut that often is the argument when it comes to CA 99.  Almost everyone who brings it up doesn't even understand the basics of the following:

-  What Interstate design standards are.
-  How State Highways in California are legislatively defined.
-  How the application process for non-chargeable Interstate designations work.

Usually the gist of these threads are something absent minded like "CA 99 should be I-9." 

It is true that interstate standards are subtle enough that most (even here) don't notice the difference and just assume any freeway is ready (hasn't worked that way since the 50s).  As for California's legislative definitions, that honestly strikes me as something that's caused issues for little (if any) benefit, and I don't like the idea that the interstates should have to be bent around to conform to the "lesser" system.  As for numbering, I'm somewhat agnostic on that; while I-9 would have synergy with the existing number, I-7 is also perfectly positioned, and I think I remember mention of renumbering CA 7 being easier than CA 9 (and while duplication is not ideal, having the same number on interstates and state routes and even US routes is done in other states and CA's system making that impossible would seem to me to be one of its problems).  This corridor makes me think that there would be utility in reviving suffixes for long corridors that are still related to the main corridor but aren't ideal as a 3di or another 2di for whatever reason, though I'd still want one route to be the mainline and the other a child route (like how NY does things).  Might be a fun idea to take to Fictional one of these days...

Amusingly it would probably be easier to maintain the legislative definition of Route 99 and add a stipulation to traffic code that it must be signed as I-5E.  We have precedent for that working with CA 194 being signed as I-15E. 

Like most others in here, I am perfectly fine with CA 99 being the 'local' route and I-5 being the signed ('preferred') route for overhead through traffic.

Mike

Quote from: Rothman on May 19, 2025, 06:48:36 AMWell, somebody didn't understand Max's post or mine on the cons of Interstate designation.

Another straw man. I wasn't discussing whether or not it should be made interstate, but whether or not it was silly to want it made interstate.

QuoteCA 99 functions quite well as is without the designation, so I'm not persuaded by the idea that it should be upgraded just because of its significance or importance.

You may not be persuaded, but there's quite clearly pros to upgrading that people can legitimately view as outweighing the cons.

Especially as the ones you list are either things that
1) provide useful safety improvements that, whether the road ends up with blue-shields-or-not, should be looked into to see if they are worth the money anyway (there's an actual legitimate con - cost of getting the road to meet interstate standards)
2) administrative/legislative barriers that just come across as an excuse to not put blue shields up.

Quote from: vdeane on May 19, 2025, 12:52:18 PMHonestly, as much as I'm in the "this would be a good corridor for an interstate" camp, I'm mainly arguing here because I find the "we don't need any new interstate shields anywhere ever" crowd to be just as ridiculous as FritzOwl (and also the strawmen arguments that have been brought out).  Are the interstates not supposed to be the most significant/important routes in the country and connect the most significant/important places together to each other and the nation?  I mean, this (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.006097,-118.9513857,3a,15.3y,346.62h,87.4t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1scAreMSZzqk3zMj14SZtt_g!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D2.604465387498365%26panoid%3DcAreMSZzqk3zMj14SZtt_g%26yaw%3D346.61610356773474!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDUxMy4xIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D) view tells the whole story: three lanes of traffic go to the major cities of Bakersfield and Fresno (which would be on the interstate system were they in literally any other state)

The like button is gone, but literally this.

This isn't a FritzOwl/NCDOT-esque 'interstates everywhere' proposal. The incredulity should be on this route not having already been upgraded to an interstate, not those proposing it should be. This isn't I-777.

Quote from: english si on May 19, 2025, 04:50:17 AM

Quote from: Rothman on May 18, 2025, 11:27:56 PMBut, yeah, just saying it should be I-whatever because it's a line on a map is silly.

That is silly, yes. However I don't think people are wanting this route to be Interstate just for that (despite the fact that there are a lot of interstates that are have little other reason to have been built, save for that purpose).

They want it to be Interstate because it's
1) a busy road
2) with a lot of truck traffic
3) serving several major cities
and therefore it makes little sense for it to not be upgraded to the highest class of road - both in standards, and in designation.

If those aren't sufficient reasons to legitimately want something to be interstate, I don't know what is!

Some of the stuff the 'we don't need Interstate shields everywhere' brigade are saying is undermining the argument by poo-pooing any proposal for a new interstate and straw manning why people might want interstate designations and ends up sounding like the argument has fallen off the other side of the horse and become 'we don't need new Interstate shields anywhere'.

I guess the like button went away but I can still frame good posts like this, even if the "upgrade chances" for CA 99 are slim.

Quote from: formulanone on May 19, 2025, 04:09:07 PM

Quote from: english si on May 19, 2025, 04:50:17 AM

Quote from: Rothman on May 18, 2025, 11:27:56 PMBut, yeah, just saying it should be I-whatever because it's a line on a map is silly.

That is silly, yes. However I don't think people are wanting this route to be Interstate just for that (despite the fact that there are a lot of interstates that are have little other reason to have been built, save for that purpose).

They want it to be Interstate because it's
1) a busy road
2) with a lot of truck traffic
3) serving several major cities
and therefore it makes little sense for it to not be upgraded to the highest class of road - both in standards, and in designation.

If those aren't sufficient reasons to legitimately want something to be interstate, I don't know what is!

Some of the stuff the 'we don't need Interstate shields everywhere' brigade are saying is undermining the argument by poo-pooing any proposal for a new interstate and straw manning why people might want interstate designations and ends up sounding like the argument has fallen off the other side of the horse and become 'we don't need new Interstate shields anywhere'.

I guess the like button went away but I can still frame good posts like this, even if the "upgrade chances" for CA 99 are slim.

Amusingly they probably wouldn't reject an I-5 Business corridor.  The same logic would also work internally at state level like it does with CA 51/I-80 Business.  But being real about it, I don't think many who want CA 99 to be an Interstate would be satisfied with Business Route status.

Quote from: vdeane on May 19, 2025, 12:52:18 PMHonestly, as much as I'm in the "this would be a good corridor for an interstate" camp, I'm mainly arguing here because I find the "we don't need any new interstate shields anywhere ever" crowd to be just as ridiculous as FritzOwl (and also the strawmen arguments that have been brought out).  Are the interstates not supposed to be the most significant/important routes in the country and connect the most significant/important places together to each other and the nation?  I mean, this (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.006097,-118.9513857,3a,15.3y,346.62h,87.4t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1scAreMSZzqk3zMj14SZtt_g!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D2.604465387498365%26panoid%3DcAreMSZzqk3zMj14SZtt_g%26yaw%3D346.61610356773474!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDUxMy4xIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D) view tells the whole story: three lanes of traffic go to the major cities of Bakersfield and Fresno (which would be on the interstate system were they in literally any other state), while two lanes travel through the middle of nowhere, with I-5 itself not even going to San Francisco (3dis are needed for that) and San Jose isn't even accessible by interstate at all coming from the south (looking at street view, it carries a surprisingly large amount of traffic for the desolate area it serves, and I can't help but wonder where the employment base for the necessary traveler services is).

From a systems connectivity POV, it might have been nice if I-5 had been put on CA 99 with spot upgrades on the non-freeway portion (like how interstates were slapped down on pre-existing routes elsewhere) and the new interstate mileage to create I-3 along US 101 way back when, but what's done is done.

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 18, 2025, 10:46:50 PMBut that often is the argument when it comes to CA 99.  Almost everyone who brings it up doesn't even understand the basics of the following:

-  What Interstate design standards are.
-  How State Highways in California are legislatively defined.
-  How the application process for non-chargeable Interstate designations work.

Usually the gist of these threads are something absent minded like "CA 99 should be I-9." 

It is true that interstate standards are subtle enough that most (even here) don't notice the difference and just assume any freeway is ready (hasn't worked that way since the 50s).  As for California's legislative definitions, that honestly strikes me as something that's caused issues for little (if any) benefit, and I don't like the idea that the interstates should have to be bent around to conform to the "lesser" system.  As for numbering, I'm somewhat agnostic on that; while I-9 would have synergy with the existing number, I-7 is also perfectly positioned, and I think I remember mention of renumbering CA 7 being easier than CA 9 (and while duplication is not ideal, having the same number on interstates and state routes and even US routes is done in other states and CA's system making that impossible would seem to me to be one of its problems).  This corridor makes me think that there would be utility in reviving suffixes for long corridors that are still related to the main corridor but aren't ideal as a 3di or another 2di for whatever reason, though I'd still want one route to be the mainline and the other a child route (like how NY does things).  Might be a fun idea to take to Fictional one of these days...

"Interstates" are not a synonym for "all important roads in the United States", nor should they be.  They are highways created under a specific highway program.  In my opinion, highways created under other programs probably shouldn't be called interstates.

San Francisco does have a 2di, I-80.  (Is it a tragedy that I-80's eastern end doesn't reach Manhattan?  No, because through traffic should be trying very hard to avoid Manhattan...)

Nonduplication of route numbers within California saves confusion, and makes simpler formatting of statewide tables of highway information.  I'm not sure why ANY state thinks it's a great idea to have route 90 and state route 90 in the same state.  If a state as big as California can manage without duplicating numbers, probably any other state could too.

In the 1950s-1960s, California badly needed more N-S Central Valley routes.  It was absolutely the right decision to build the new route where it could be built quickly along the west valley, where land was relatively easy to get, and it got through traffic between northern and southern California off of 99.  The incremental improvements to 99 took (are taking) many decades longer, and they needed more capacity ASAP.

California did propose 101 from L.A. to S.F. being an interstate at one point.  I'm not sure exactly why it was turned down, but it wasn't because no one ever asked.

I'm just surprised that 101 between LA-SF hardly ever comes up in these conversations.  There are way more safety issues and areas needing improvement with 101 versus 99.  The segment between Prunedale to Gilroy essentially is an expressway that has been pushed as far as it can without actually being a full freeway.

Quote from: english si on May 19, 2025, 03:22:57 PM

Quote from: Rothman on May 19, 2025, 06:48:36 AMWell, somebody didn't understand Max's post or mine on the cons of Interstate designation.

Another straw man. I wasn't discussing whether or not it should be made interstate, but whether or not it was silly to want it made interstate.

Want away, then.  The rest of the blabber was irrelevant to justifying a mere desire.  You're free to want what you want.

Just as free as I am to point out that despite such desires, maintaining the system will generally be a priority over expansion of it, especially in California.

I suppose we all want one unlikely thing here and there...

I expect all of CA 99 (from Wheeler Ridge to Sacramento) to be fully upgraded to Interstate Standards eventually. What I don't expect is an Interstate designation being applied to the corridor. Simple as that!

If I had to guess I would imagine the last four lane section will be through Chowchilla.  The segment between 152 and the Merced County line has a pretty significant dip in traffic.  The northbound lanes still incorporate a rail underpass built near Chowchilla in 1930.

Quote from: kkt on May 19, 2025, 06:38:06 PM

Quote from: vdeane on May 19, 2025, 12:52:18 PMHonestly, as much as I'm in the "this would be a good corridor for an interstate" camp, I'm mainly arguing here because I find the "we don't need any new interstate shields anywhere ever" crowd to be just as ridiculous as FritzOwl (and also the strawmen arguments that have been brought out).  Are the interstates not supposed to be the most significant/important routes in the country and connect the most significant/important places together to each other and the nation?  I mean, this (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.006097,-118.9513857,3a,15.3y,346.62h,87.4t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1scAreMSZzqk3zMj14SZtt_g!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D2.604465387498365%26panoid%3DcAreMSZzqk3zMj14SZtt_g%26yaw%3D346.61610356773474!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDUxMy4xIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D) view tells the whole story: three lanes of traffic go to the major cities of Bakersfield and Fresno (which would be on the interstate system were they in literally any other state), while two lanes travel through the middle of nowhere, with I-5 itself not even going to San Francisco (3dis are needed for that) and San Jose isn't even accessible by interstate at all coming from the south (looking at street view, it carries a surprisingly large amount of traffic for the desolate area it serves, and I can't help but wonder where the employment base for the necessary traveler services is).

From a systems connectivity POV, it might have been nice if I-5 had been put on CA 99 with spot upgrades on the non-freeway portion (like how interstates were slapped down on pre-existing routes elsewhere) and the new interstate mileage to create I-3 along US 101 way back when, but what's done is done.

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 18, 2025, 10:46:50 PMBut that often is the argument when it comes to CA 99.  Almost everyone who brings it up doesn't even understand the basics of the following:

-  What Interstate design standards are.
-  How State Highways in California are legislatively defined.
-  How the application process for non-chargeable Interstate designations work.

Usually the gist of these threads are something absent minded like "CA 99 should be I-9." 

It is true that interstate standards are subtle enough that most (even here) don't notice the difference and just assume any freeway is ready (hasn't worked that way since the 50s).  As for California's legislative definitions, that honestly strikes me as something that's caused issues for little (if any) benefit, and I don't like the idea that the interstates should have to be bent around to conform to the "lesser" system.  As for numbering, I'm somewhat agnostic on that; while I-9 would have synergy with the existing number, I-7 is also perfectly positioned, and I think I remember mention of renumbering CA 7 being easier than CA 9 (and while duplication is not ideal, having the same number on interstates and state routes and even US routes is done in other states and CA's system making that impossible would seem to me to be one of its problems).  This corridor makes me think that there would be utility in reviving suffixes for long corridors that are still related to the main corridor but aren't ideal as a 3di or another 2di for whatever reason, though I'd still want one route to be the mainline and the other a child route (like how NY does things).  Might be a fun idea to take to Fictional one of these days...

"Interstates" are not a synonym for "all important roads in the United States", nor should they be.  They are highways created under a specific highway program.  In my opinion, highways created under other programs probably shouldn't be called interstates.

San Francisco does have a 2di, I-80.  (Is it a tragedy that I-80's eastern end doesn't reach Manhattan?  No, because through traffic should be trying very hard to avoid Manhattan...)

Nonduplication of route numbers within California saves confusion, and makes simpler formatting of statewide tables of highway information.  I'm not sure why ANY state thinks it's a great idea to have route 90 and state route 90 in the same state.  If a state as big as California can manage without duplicating numbers, probably any other state could too.

In the 1950s-1960s, California badly needed more N-S Central Valley routes.  It was absolutely the right decision to build the new route where it could be built quickly along the west valley, where land was relatively easy to get, and it got through traffic between northern and southern California off of 99.  The incremental improvements to 99 took (are taking) many decades longer, and they needed more capacity ASAP.

California did propose 101 from L.A. to S.F. being an interstate at one point.  I'm not sure exactly why it was turned down, but it wasn't because no one ever asked.

While non-duplication is certainly preferred, the way CA has done things has also led to nonsensical things like I-238.  And as someone from the east coast, the idea that route numbers and shields would be assigned to denote who maintains a road and not to prioritize navigation is a foreign concept.  Especially so in the idea that the interstate system should be frozen to 1969, given that the interstates aren't just a shield - they're a functional classification of roadway.

Hence why I mentioned I-99 in this thread and others.  All that would he required is the freeway meeting Interstate standards and muscling through a similar request akin I-238 through the FHWA and AASHTO.  AASHTO hasn't pushed back against anything California has wanted since the early 1930s.  Yeah sure, it doesn't make any navigational sense but does adhere to the rules set forth in the California State Highway system.  Besides the chaos and Monkey's Paw-like effect on the road fandom is the outcome we need.  Disorder in highway networks is way more interesting than order.

Of course 305 is available for use for a brand new Legislative Route.  It also ties into the already existing FHWA corridor hidden on US 50 in Sacramento and West Sacramento.

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 19, 2025, 06:44:26 PMI'm just surprised that 101 between LA-SF hardly ever comes up in these conversations.  There are way more safety issues and areas needing improvement with 101 versus 99.  The segment between Prunedale to Gilroy essentially is an expressway that has been pushed as far as it can without actually being a full freeway.

I agree - but I think why CA99 trumps US101 when it comes new N-S Interstate in California, is that US101 needs a lot more work and serves fewer people once out of the LA/SF Metro Areas, and so is more of a forlorn hope.

We have to remember that CA99 is a High Priority Corridor that is designated as a Future Interstate Highway, even if CalTrans have forgotten/don't care. US101 is neither of those things.

Quote from: Rothman on May 19, 2025, 08:00:18 PMI suppose we all want one unlikely thing here and there...

Yes, mine is that you actually, for once in this thread, engage with what's being said rather than arguing with the people you made up in your head.

Quote from: vdeane on May 19, 2025, 09:31:46 PMAnd as someone from the east coast, the idea that route numbers and shields would be assigned to denote who maintains a road and not to prioritize navigation is a foreign concept.

That's not what kkt was saying - that was Interstates were a certain project and that other routes that were done as part of other projects probably shouldn't have that name.

I would say 'straw man', but this is really 'steel man', where you make up a better argument than the one that you are meant to be addressing. Lots of places do this route numbering by who maintains it (it is foreign to me also, and I don't personally like it, not least because of the annoyance at having to deal with nonsense gaps like these (https://travelmapping.net/user/mapview.php?rte=SS11) when making travelmapping systems), but none trap a type of road classification to a specific network-creation project without accepting changes to that network (OK, Italy banned new Autostrade between 1975 and 2001, but they granted exceptions and it was about not wanting that type of road, rather than keeping the network the same).*

And, as we all know, there are no "federal highways" (other than NPS/NFS/BIA/etc) - the states (or tollway companies or counties/cities) maintain them. I guess we should be glad that Caltrans does actually sign Interstates and US routes with those shields, rather than miners shields - even if they will just sign new Interstates with state shields (eg they went to all the effort to upgrade and renumber CA30 to 210 and then signed it as CA210).


*Closest I can think of is Milton Keynes Grid Roads (https://wiki.aaroads.com/wiki/Milton_Keynes_grid_road_system), whereby expansions beyond the original plans aren't included in the network. But 'grid road' is a standard (no frontages, etc), as well as a project. And later schemes like 'V12' Fen Street were done to different standards, even if it and Countess Way (an extension of H7 Chiffron Way) are pseudo-grid roads.

Quote from: english si on May 20, 2025, 07:01:29 AM

Quote from: Rothman on May 19, 2025, 08:00:18 PMI suppose we all want one unlikely thing here and there...

Yes, mine is that you actually, for once in this thread, engage with what's being said rather than arguing with the people you made up in your head.

Given that I can only go by what you write, perhaps you are suffering from a misperception of self.

Quote from: english si on May 20, 2025, 07:01:29 AMI agree - but I think why CA99 trumps US101 when it comes new N-S Interstate in California, is that US101 needs a lot more work and serves fewer people once out of the LA/SF Metro Areas, and so is more of a forlorn hope.

We have to remember that CA99 is a High Priority Corridor that is designated as a Future Interstate Highway, even if CalTrans have forgotten/don't care. US101 is neither of those things.

Also, I imagine this forum has its fair share of people who assume that, since it's already a freeway, that it's just a matter of getting approval from AASHTO and FHWA and then slapping some shields down.

Quote from: english si on May 20, 2025, 07:01:29 AM

QuoteAnd as someone from the east coast, the idea that route numbers and shields would be assigned to denote who maintains a road and not to prioritize navigation is a foreign concept.

That's not what kkt was saying - that was Interstates were a certain project and that other routes that were done as part of other projects probably shouldn't have that name.

I'd say that they're close enough to the same concept that the distinction doesn't matter, especially since, as you mention, "federal routes" aren't a think.  To say "the interstate shield is only for routes designated in and/or funded by the 1955 Interstate Highway Act and the 1969 additions" is not really all that different from "the CA state highway shield is only for routes maintained by CalTrans that aren't a designated US route or interstate".  Regardless, it's a silly way to number routes.  I would say the interstate shields should be for major corridors of national importance that meet interstate standards - to that end, CA 99 is a better fit than thinks like I-980 (which should really just be CA 24).

Quote from: Rothman on May 20, 2025, 07:56:24 AMGiven that I can only go by what you write, perhaps you are suffering from a misperception of self.

Given I wrote "I wasn't discussing whether or not it should be made interstate, but whether or not it was silly to want it made interstate."

and your reply to this was

"Want away, then. <snip> "Just as free as I am to point out that despite such desires, maintaining the system will generally be a priority over expansion of it, especially in California."

then perhaps you struggle at comprehension?

I don't know how I can be clearer. I explicitly said I wasn't discussing whether or not to make it an interstate, but you answer is all about me apparently wanting an interstate.

Quote from: vdeane on May 20, 2025, 12:43:35 PMAlso, I imagine this forum has its fair share of people who assume that, since it's already a freeway, that it's just a matter of getting approval from AASHTO and FHWA and then slapping some shields down.

Oh, certainly, but to dismiss the idea of an interstate on this route on the grounds that some of the people promoting it might not understand interstate standards is as absurd as promoting it for the reason 'iT MakE MaP LoOk gOoD'.

The difference is that there being the former on this forum is more likely than the latter.

Quote from: vdeane on May 20, 2025, 12:43:35 PMI'd say that they're close enough to the same concept that the distinction doesn't matter, especially since, as you mention, "federal routes" aren't a think.  To say "the interstate shield is only for routes designated in and/or funded by the 1955 Interstate Highway Act and the 1969 additions" is not really all that different from "the CA state highway shield is only for routes maintained by CalTrans that aren't a designated US route or interstate".  Regardless, it's a silly way to number routes.  I would say the interstate shields should be for major corridors of national importance that meet interstate standards - to that end, CA 99 is a better fit than thinks like I-980 (which should really just be CA 24).

OK, sure, they aren't too dissimilar. However, "the interstate shield is only for routes designated in and/or funded by the 1955 Interstate Highway Act and the 1969 additions" is even more crazy than the (fairly common) numbering roads by who maintains them, and not something done anywhere.

Oh, you said you don't have it in the North East - do you remember the CHM Vermont Town Routes nonsense - where town/city maintain parts of what would navigationally be state routes, they use different shields to signify that. And Tim wanted the state routes cut at each town/cty that maintained the roads inside its borders even though everyone thought that unhelpful. Anyway - it does exist in the NE, even though the Vermont towns keep the number of the state highways.

Funny I-980 came up.  Part of me wonders if that corridor would have caught New Urbanist ire if it was just part of CA 24?  I tend to think that the Interstate brand brought unwanted attention in that particular case.

Quote from: english si on May 20, 2025, 04:44:42 PM

Quote from: Rothman on May 20, 2025, 07:56:24 AMGiven that I can only go by what you write, perhaps you are suffering from a misperception of self.

Given I wrote "I wasn't discussing whether or not it should be made interstate, but whether or not it was silly to want it made interstate."

and your reply to this was

"Want away, then. <snip> "Just as free as I am to point out that despite such desires, maintaining the system will generally be a priority over expansion of it, especially in California."

then perhaps you struggle at comprehension?

I don't know how I can be clearer. I explicitly said I wasn't discussing whether or not to make it an interstate, but you answer is all about me apparently wanting an interstate.

I think your posts now speak for themselves.

Quote from: vdeane on May 19, 2025, 09:31:46 PMAnd as someone from the east coast, the idea that route numbers and shields would be assigned to denote who maintains a road and not to prioritize navigation is a foreign concept

While it may not be the practice in the east, I don't see why this would be a foreign concept. The state is the one who assigns route numbers and where they go, therefore the state should be the one maintaining that signage, because 1) the state has no guarantee that the counties and cities will actually post the signage 2) even if they can mandate it, there's little guarantee that they'll do it properly (see the hilariously bad job that Woonsocket RI, many cities in VA, etc. do), and 3) it is not fair for the state to be able to make unilateral decisions that could force a city or county to spend a bunch of money they may not have in the budget to update signage.

In general, I find it useful to have route numbers tied to maintenance responsibility. That way I know there's at least some sort of baseline quality standard associated with the shield (counties vary wildly in terms of design standard, but state maintenance is usually somewhat consistent), and if I run into a problem, it's easier to hold the correct agency accountable (it is blindingly obvious who to contact if I have any problems with the 215 beltway here in Las Vegas, whereas it would be confusing if the same maintenance scheme were in place now but the whole thing was posted as an Interstate).

Interestingly it didn't used to be the Division of Highways which signed Sign State Routes.  When that system was commissioned in 1934 the posting of signage was subcontracted to the ACSC and CSAA (much like it had been with US Routes and Auto Trails).  That is why so many early Sign State Routes were signed along roads not owned by Division of Highways but yet in a uniform format.  CA 180 west of Mendota to CA 25 is probably the biggest example of a Sign State Route posted along a locally owned corridor over Panoche Pass. 

Of course the Division of Highways eventually took over signage responsibilities and it began to denote maintenance.  That practice was eventually carried over to modern Caltrans.

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 20, 2025, 07:37:53 PM

Quote from: vdeane on May 19, 2025, 09:31:46 PMAnd as someone from the east coast, the idea that route numbers and shields would be assigned to denote who maintains a road and not to prioritize navigation is a foreign concept

While it may not be the practice in the east, I don't see why this would be a foreign concept. The state is the one who assigns route numbers and where they go, therefore the state should be the one maintaining that signage, because 1) the state has no guarantee that the counties and cities will actually post the signage 2) even if they can mandate it, there's little guarantee that they'll do it properly (see the hilariously bad job that Woonsocket RI, many cities in VA, etc. do), and 3) it is not fair for the state to be able to make unilateral decisions that could force a city or county to spend a bunch of money they may not have in the budget to update signage.

In general, I find it useful to have route numbers tied to maintenance responsibility. That way I know there's at least some sort of baseline quality standard associated with the shield (counties vary wildly in terms of design standard, but state maintenance is usually somewhat consistent), and if I run into a problem, it's easier to hold the correct agency accountable (it is blindingly obvious who to contact if I have any problems with the 215 beltway here in Las Vegas, whereas it would be confusing if the same maintenance scheme were in place now but the whole thing was posted as an Interstate).

Just throw up "State Maintenance Begins" and "State Maintenance Ends" signs up like Massachusetts.  Or, ignore the issue altogether, like in New York.

Quote from: Rothman on May 20, 2025, 08:57:24 PMJust throw up "State Maintenance Begins" and "State Maintenance Ends" signs up like Massachusetts.  Or, ignore the issue altogether, like in New York.

This wouldn't really address the problems my post was addressing, e.g. someone runs over the assembly where Route 27 turns left in Podunksville, and Podunksville doesn't have the budget to replace it so the turn is just unsigned after that. Also, in some states, it isn't immediately clear who would have jurisdiction if not the state.

As someone who drives quite often (locally and long-distance), and who enjoys roads and traffic infrastructure, but who isn't as hardcore a Roadgeek as most of you: simply making a road freeway-like (no stops, multiple lanes each way, ideally no cross-traffic) is by far the most important component in these discussions.

Talk of extending I-40 to Santa Margarita (lol) is desirable to me not because of an Interstate designation, but because it means Stockdale Highway would be a full freeway (no more traffic lights, roundabout, or two-lane section), shortening my trip every time I drive through there.

While the "make CA-99 an Interstate" faction makes similar points about Interstate standards, these seem a lot more marginal if the road is already a freeway.

To the points about an Interstate signifying the "primary road", I don't think California road culture really requires that. Certainly in urban areas, non-Interstates are seen by locals and laymen as no less important. In the Bay Area, 101 and 85 are just as "primary" as I-880 and I-280. Same in LA for 101, 60, 22, etc compared to, say, I-710 or I-105. Can't that extend regionally?

Quote from: english si on May 20, 2025, 04:54:23 PMOK, sure, they aren't too dissimilar. However, "the interstate shield is only for routes designated in and/or funded by the 1955 Interstate Highway Act and the 1969 additions" is even more crazy than the (fairly common) numbering roads by who maintains them, and not something done anywhere.

Take it up with the person who suggested that the interstate shield not be used on non-chargeable mileage then.

Quote from: english si on May 20, 2025, 04:54:23 PMOh, you said you don't have it in the North East - do you remember the CHM Vermont Town Routes nonsense - where town/city maintain parts of what would navigationally be state routes, they use different shields to signify that. And Tim wanted the state routes cut at each town/cty that maintained the roads inside its borders even though everyone thought that unhelpful. Anyway - it does exist in the NE, even though the Vermont towns keep the number of the state highways.

I do remember it, but I don't think of the shield change as denoting the route starting/ending so I didn't even think of it as being related.  I always assumed that was just Tim being anal about something where he didn't know what he was talking about.  Although I wouldn't mind something like that happening with Puerto Rico, assuming it wouldn't lead to similar absurd situations (especially since it would allow it to not be a mono-color were it ever decided to remove the unsigned interstates).  Granted, I grew up around Rochester, where I-590 and NY 590 are both just "590" and locals don't even know there's a difference.  I didn't learn about the interstate system until I started my roadgeek education in middle school (and The Roads That Built America by Dan McNichol waxes poetic about them to such a degree that it may as well be a sacred text of the Church of the Interstate; combine this early influence on my always being freeway-oriented, and it did a lot to shape my psyche).

That said, I feel like I've been seeing less of the circle shield lately than I used to, so I can't help but wonder if VTrans agrees and is phasing it out.

The real example from my neck of the woods is Ontario, which despite the amount of time I've spent in the province, I didn't learn about the 1997 downloading until long after it happened (given that most of my time in the province is family vacations, most of that in the Thousand Islands, it simply never came up), and the numerous gaps and weird route endings around southern Ontario are the best example I can think of for why such signing practices are problematic.

Quote from: FredAkbar on May 20, 2025, 09:12:46 PMTalk of extending I-40 to Santa Margarita (lol) is desirable to me not because of an Interstate designation, but because it means Stockdale Highway would be a full freeway (no more traffic lights, roundabout, or two-lane section), shortening my trip every time I drive through there.

That's already planned for 58, as far as I-5. And it will be many decades before anyone wants an expressway to McKittrick, let alone an Interstate freeway.

It probably will several decades before one could experience seeing fifty cars heading the opposite direction while driving 58 west of McKittrick.

Quote from: pderocco on May 21, 2025, 12:36:14 AM

Quote from: FredAkbar on May 20, 2025, 09:12:46 PMTalk of extending I-40 to Santa Margarita (lol) is desirable to me not because of an Interstate designation, but because it means Stockdale Highway would be a full freeway (no more traffic lights, roundabout, or two-lane section), shortening my trip every time I drive through there.

That's already planned for 58, as far as I-5. And it will be many decades before anyone wants an expressway to McKittrick, let alone an Interstate freeway.

But Simmler is a happening place! Those wild Carrizo parties!

Quote from: ClassicHasClass on May 21, 2025, 01:25:58 PM

Quote from: pderocco on May 21, 2025, 12:36:14 AM

Quote from: FredAkbar on May 20, 2025, 09:12:46 PMTalk of extending I-40 to Santa Margarita (lol) is desirable to me not because of an Interstate designation, but because it means Stockdale Highway would be a full freeway (no more traffic lights, roundabout, or two-lane section), shortening my trip every time I drive through there.

That's already planned for 58, as far as I-5. And it will be many decades before anyone wants an expressway to McKittrick, let alone an Interstate freeway.

But Simmler is a happening place! Those wild Carrizo parties!

Nobody parties like they do in La Panza.

Quote from: vdeane on May 20, 2025, 12:43:35 PM

Quote from: english si on May 20, 2025, 07:01:29 AMI agree - but I think why CA99 trumps US101 when it comes new N-S Interstate in California, is that US101 needs a lot more work and serves fewer people once out of the LA/SF Metro Areas, and so is more of a forlorn hope.

We have to remember that CA99 is a High Priority Corridor that is designated as a Future Interstate Highway, even if CalTrans have forgotten/don't care. US101 is neither of those things.

Also, I imagine this forum has its fair share of people who assume that, since it's already a freeway, that it's just a matter of getting approval from AASHTO and FHWA and then slapping some shields down.

Quote from: english si on May 20, 2025, 07:01:29 AM

QuoteAnd as someone from the east coast, the idea that route numbers and shields would be assigned to denote who maintains a road and not to prioritize navigation is a foreign concept.

That's not what kkt was saying - that was Interstates were a certain project and that other routes that were done as part of other projects probably shouldn't have that name.

I'd say that they're close enough to the same concept that the distinction doesn't matter, especially since, as you mention, "federal routes" aren't a think.  To say "the interstate shield is only for routes designated in and/or funded by the 1955 Interstate Highway Act and the 1969 additions" is not really all that different from "the CA state highway shield is only for routes maintained by CalTrans that aren't a designated US route or interstate".  Regardless, it's a silly way to number routes.  I would say the interstate shields should be for major corridors of national importance that meet interstate standards - to that end, CA 99 is a better fit than thinks like I-980 (which should really just be CA 24).

When I was a young roadgeek and didn't fully understand the idea of interstate standards, I thought that I-980 should have been extended across CA-24 to connect to I-680.  Of course, the Caldecott Tunnels make that an impossibility.  But aside from the tunnels (and the restriction that places on trucking, particularly hazmats), it's every bit as important of a corridor for intraregional traffic as I-680 is.  I don't recall AADT numbers, but it may be the most heavily traveled state route freeway in the Bay Area.

Quote from: pderocco on May 21, 2025, 12:36:14 AM

Quote from: FredAkbar on May 20, 2025, 09:12:46 PMTalk of extending I-40 to Santa Margarita (lol) is desirable to me not because of an Interstate designation, but because it means Stockdale Highway would be a full freeway (no more traffic lights, roundabout, or two-lane section), shortening my trip every time I drive through there.

That's already planned for 58, as far as I-5. And it will be many decades before anyone wants an expressway to McKittrick, let alone an Interstate freeway.

Yeah, as far as I-5 is all I care about personally (and all that makes any sense it seems). People talk about extending I-40 to Bakersfield (which is more akin to the CA-99 discussion since CA-58 is already a freeway the whole way now east of Bakersfield) so I mainly meant to reference the Bakersfield-to-5 corridor.

Quote from: FredAkbar on May 21, 2025, 03:25:50 PM

Quote from: pderocco on May 21, 2025, 12:36:14 AM

Quote from: FredAkbar on May 20, 2025, 09:12:46 PMTalk of extending I-40 to Santa Margarita (lol) is desirable to me not because of an Interstate designation, but because it means Stockdale Highway would be a full freeway (no more traffic lights, roundabout, or two-lane section), shortening my trip every time I drive through there.

That's already planned for 58, as far as I-5. And it will be many decades before anyone wants an expressway to McKittrick, let alone an Interstate freeway.

Yeah, as far as I-5 is all I care about personally (and all that makes any sense it seems). People talk about extending I-40 to Bakersfield (which is more akin to the CA-99 discussion since CA-58 is already a freeway the whole way now east of Bakersfield) so I mainly meant to reference the Bakersfield-to-5 corridor.

Isn't there a 100 m or so break in the freeway on CASR-58?

As far as continuing as a freeway all of the way to Santa Margarita? Forget it! If a freeway were to be built, it should use CASR-46. CalTrans has a sign over on US-101 near Santa Margarita that says in effect "If you can possibly take some other road over to I-5, DON'T TAKE CASR-58!"

The amusing thing is that 58 isn't even that bad east of Santa Margarita.  While not preferable to 166 or 46 I've seen truckers make it just fine on 58.

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 21, 2025, 06:10:38 PMThe amusing thing is that 58 isn't even that bad east of Santa Margarita.  While not preferable to 166 or 46 I've seen truckers make it just fine on 58.

That pass east of California Valley has some really tight turns that are about the limit for what a semi can do.

Quote from: pderocco on May 21, 2025, 06:52:34 PM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 21, 2025, 06:10:38 PMThe amusing thing is that 58 isn't even that bad east of Santa Margarita.  While not preferable to 166 or 46 I've seen truckers make it just fine on 58.

That pass east of California Valley has some really tight turns that are about the limit for what a semi can do.

Much akin to 198 west of Coalinga.  In the case of 198 I'm genuinely surprised how many asphalt and ag trucks making the crossing.  Both 198 and 58 have the same 40 length advisory.

Quote from: michravera on May 21, 2025, 06:00:08 PM

Quote from: FredAkbar on May 21, 2025, 03:25:50 PMYeah, as far as I-5 is all I care about personally (and all that makes any sense it seems). People talk about extending I-40 to Bakersfield (which is more akin to the CA-99 discussion since CA-58 is already a freeway the whole way now east of Bakersfield) so I mainly meant to reference the Bakersfield-to-5 corridor.

Isn't there a 100 m or so break in the freeway on CASR-58?

Yeah, I was wrong to say it's freeway the whole way. It's freeway almost the whole way and expressway (if that is the proper term) in a couple of spots to allow for intersections, notably:
- CA-223 where there is a somewhat dangerous left turn off of WB58
- California City Blvd (probably not used very much)

Quote from: FredAkbar on May 22, 2025, 12:59:07 AM

Quote from: michravera on May 21, 2025, 06:00:08 PM

Quote from: FredAkbar on May 21, 2025, 03:25:50 PMYeah, as far as I-5 is all I care about personally (and all that makes any sense it seems). People talk about extending I-40 to Bakersfield (which is more akin to the CA-99 discussion since CA-58 is already a freeway the whole way now east of Bakersfield) so I mainly meant to reference the Bakersfield-to-5 corridor.

Isn't there a 100 m or so break in the freeway on CASR-58?

Yeah, I was wrong to say it's freeway the whole way. It's freeway almost the whole way and expressway (if that is the proper term) in a couple of spots to allow for intersections, notably:
- CA-223 where there is a somewhat dangerous left turn off of WB58
- California City Blvd (probably not used very much)

The Hinkley Bypass and Kramer Junction Bypass have a couple at-grade intersections with rural dirt roads.

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 22, 2025, 07:24:51 AM

Quote from: FredAkbar on May 22, 2025, 12:59:07 AM

Quote from: michravera on May 21, 2025, 06:00:08 PM

Quote from: FredAkbar on May 21, 2025, 03:25:50 PMYeah, as far as I-5 is all I care about personally (and all that makes any sense it seems). People talk about extending I-40 to Bakersfield (which is more akin to the CA-99 discussion since CA-58 is already a freeway the whole way now east of Bakersfield) so I mainly meant to reference the Bakersfield-to-5 corridor.

Isn't there a 100 m or so break in the freeway on CASR-58?

Yeah, I was wrong to say it's freeway the whole way. It's freeway almost the whole way and expressway (if that is the proper term) in a couple of spots to allow for intersections, notably:
- CA-223 where there is a somewhat dangerous left turn off of WB58
- California City Blvd (probably not used very much)

The Hinkley Bypass and Kramer Junction Bypass have a couple at-grade intersections with rural dirt roads.

California City Blvd, and the Hyundai/Kia proving grounds have paved intersections between Mojave and North Edwards.  Further east, there's an intersection with graded Helendale Rd south and paved Harper Lake Rd north. Those two stretches add up to about 20 miles of expressway. But even Cal City Blvd has very little traffic, despite its imposing name.

Quote from: pderocco on May 22, 2025, 02:11:59 PM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 22, 2025, 07:24:51 AM

Quote from: FredAkbar on May 22, 2025, 12:59:07 AM

Quote from: michravera on May 21, 2025, 06:00:08 PM

Quote from: FredAkbar on May 21, 2025, 03:25:50 PMYeah, as far as I-5 is all I care about personally (and all that makes any sense it seems). People talk about extending I-40 to Bakersfield (which is more akin to the CA-99 discussion since CA-58 is already a freeway the whole way now east of Bakersfield) so I mainly meant to reference the Bakersfield-to-5 corridor.

Isn't there a 100 m or so break in the freeway on CASR-58?

Yeah, I was wrong to say it's freeway the whole way. It's freeway almost the whole way and expressway (if that is the proper term) in a couple of spots to allow for intersections, notably:
- CA-223 where there is a somewhat dangerous left turn off of WB58
- California City Blvd (probably not used very much)

The Hinkley Bypass and Kramer Junction Bypass have a couple at-grade intersections with rural dirt roads.

California City Blvd, and the Hyundai/Kia proving grounds have paved intersections between Mojave and North Edwards.  Further east, there's an intersection with graded Helendale Rd south and paved Harper Lake Rd north. Those two stretches add up to about 20 miles of expressway. But even Cal City Blvd has very little traffic, despite its imposing name.

I find some amusement in that California City and California Valley are both located on 58.  Both were supposed to be the "cities of tomorrow."  I'm not even if there is a gas station in California Valley?  I don't recall one being on Soda Lake Road south of 58.

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 22, 2025, 02:51:39 PM

Quote from: pderocco on May 22, 2025, 02:11:59 PMCalifornia City Blvd, and the Hyundai/Kia proving grounds have paved intersections between Mojave and North Edwards.  Further east, there's an intersection with graded Helendale Rd south and paved Harper Lake Rd north. Those two stretches add up to about 20 miles of expressway. But even Cal City Blvd has very little traffic, despite its imposing name.

I find some amusement in that California City and California Valley are both located on 58.  Both were supposed to be the "cities of tomorrow."  I'm not even if there is a gas station in California Valley?  I don't recall one being on Soda Lake Road south of 58.

Nearest gas is McKittrick.

Rural and desert California has a lot of faded dreams. Lake Tamarisk in Desert Center. Diablo Grande golf resort near Patterson. Pacific Shores in Crescent City. Salton City. Ocotillo Wells. You can find lots of "streets" scratched into the dirt all over the place.

So when Kevin McCarthy (R-Bakersfield) was Speaker of the House, I was waiting around for a highway infrastructure bill, and I was going to suggest that he put I-9 in there. Because that's how it gets done.

Honestly, I don't know how much political support or interest there is in the central valley for an I route (especially if there's no extra funding). But.. maybe I coulda nudged some aide to look into it.

Then McCarthy got deposed and I forgot about that.

(And just for the roadgeek record, I wasn't going to say anything about fantasy I-40. Just new blue signs.)

I think hell will freeze over before any new Interstates (or Interstate extensions) come to the state of California.

Quote from: flowmotion on June 04, 2025, 02:10:42 AMSo when Kevin McCarthy (R-Bakersfield) was Speaker of the House, I was waiting around for a highway infrastructure bill, and I was going to suggest that he put I-9 in there. Because that's how it gets done.

Honestly, I don't know how much political support or interest there is in the central valley for an I route (especially if there's no extra funding). But.. maybe I coulda nudged some aide to look into it.

Then McCarthy got deposed and I forgot about that.

(And just for the roadgeek record, I wasn't going to say anything about fantasy I-40. Just new blue signs.)

If you're looking for a Central Valley perspective I doubt many locals would prefer anything but a highway numbered as "99."  I would imagine trying to sell putting an Interstate designation on CA 99 as a benefit for non-locals would not be the way to sell the idea. 

I did get some amusement that Kevin McCarthy wasn't invited to the Centennial Corridor dedication but Bill Thomas was. 

https://www.gribblenation.org/2024/02/the-centennial-corridor-and-west-side.html?m=1