AARoads Forum

Regional Boards => Pacific Southwest => Topic started by: Max Rockatansky on November 10, 2018, 11:18:01 PM

Title: CA 99
Post by: Max Rockatansky on November 10, 2018, 11:18:01 PM
Finally decided to start doing a photo series on the CA 99 freeway since I was driving over the entire alignment from I-5 north to CA 180 in good lighting.  I'm hoping to have a second part to the series complete in early December all the way to US 50/CA 51:

https://flic.kr/s/aHsmmJGnRy

I'll have a blog series worked on the CA 99 at some point probably in the next ten days between I-5 and CA 180.  Luckily I've already done most of the major US 99 historical alignments for Bakersfield and Fresno already that have been on Surewhynotnow for a long time:

https://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2017/12/california-state-route-204-former-us-99.html

https://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2017/09/hunting-for-forgotten-history-old-us-99.html
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: mgk920 on November 11, 2018, 11:23:25 AM
Finally decided to start doing a photo series on the CA 99 freeway since I was driving over the entire alignment from I-5 north to CA 180 in good lighting.  I'm hoping to have a second part to the series complete in early December all the way to US 50/CA 51:

https://flic.kr/s/aHsmmJGnRy

I'll have a blog series worked on the CA 99 at some point probably in the next ten days between I-5 and CA 180.  Luckily I've already done most of the major US 99 historical alignments for Bakersfield and Fresno already that have been on Surewhynotnow for a long time:

https://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2017/12/california-state-route-204-former-us-99.html

https://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2017/09/hunting-for-forgotten-history-old-us-99.html

Interesting.

I can't even fathom what modern-day CA 99 would be like today had the decision not been made to build I-5 on a routing that completely bypasses that corridor via the heavily rural west edge of the southern Central Valley.  Four and five lanes each way the whole way?  *STILL* not completed as a full freeway?  Etc?

Does the next part of the photolog include images of that under-construction rail line?

Mike
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: Max Rockatansky on November 11, 2018, 12:07:09 PM
Finally decided to start doing a photo series on the CA 99 freeway since I was driving over the entire alignment from I-5 north to CA 180 in good lighting.  I'm hoping to have a second part to the series complete in early December all the way to US 50/CA 51:

https://flic.kr/s/aHsmmJGnRy

I'll have a blog series worked on the CA 99 at some point probably in the next ten days between I-5 and CA 180.  Luckily I've already done most of the major US 99 historical alignments for Bakersfield and Fresno already that have been on Surewhynotnow for a long time:

https://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2017/12/california-state-route-204-former-us-99.html

https://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2017/09/hunting-for-forgotten-history-old-us-99.html

Interesting.

I can't even fathom what modern-day CA 99 would be like today had the decision not been made to build I-5 on a routing that completely bypasses that corridor via the heavily rural west edge of the southern Central Valley.  Four and five lanes each way the whole way?  *STILL* not completed as a full freeway?  Etc?

Does the next part of the photolog include images of that under-construction rail line?

Mike

Yes, most of the construction is between CA 180 and CA 145.  I drove by it today on the way to Avenue 7 in the early morning, the the High Speed Rail Bridge over the San Joaquin River is coming along pretty well.  Grading is taking place on the former CA 99 Freeway alignment.

The present CA 99 alignment from I-5 north to US 50/CA 51 is a full four to eight lane freeway.  Whatís interesting is given it isnít an Interstate there is plenty of oddities like right-on/right-off Ramps, plant growth in the median, and soft shoulders.   
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: nexus73 on November 11, 2018, 06:37:37 PM
Today the 4-lane freeway segments are too crowded in the daytime.  Caltrans is working on 6-laning the 4-lane portions. 

Rick
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: sparker on November 11, 2018, 11:33:38 PM
Finally decided to start doing a photo series on the CA 99 freeway since I was driving over the entire alignment from I-5 north to CA 180 in good lighting.  I'm hoping to have a second part to the series complete in early December all the way to US 50/CA 51:

https://flic.kr/s/aHsmmJGnRy

I'll have a blog series worked on the CA 99 at some point probably in the next ten days between I-5 and CA 180.  Luckily I've already done most of the major US 99 historical alignments for Bakersfield and Fresno already that have been on Surewhynotnow for a long time:

https://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2017/12/california-state-route-204-former-us-99.html

https://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2017/09/hunting-for-forgotten-history-old-us-99.html

Interesting.

I can't even fathom what modern-day CA 99 would be like today had the decision not been made to build I-5 on a routing that completely bypasses that corridor via the heavily rural west edge of the southern Central Valley.  Four and five lanes each way the whole way?  *STILL* not completed as a full freeway?  Etc?

Does the next part of the photolog include images of that under-construction rail line?

Mike

Yes, most of the construction is between CA 180 and CA 145.  I drove by it today on the way to Avenue 7 in the early morning, the the High Speed Rail Bridge over the San Joaquin River is coming along pretty well.  Grading is taking place on the former CA 99 Freeway alignment.

The present CA 99 alignment from I-5 north to US 50/CA 51 is a full four to eight lane freeway.  Whatís interesting is given it isnít an Interstate there is plenty of oddities like right-on/right-off Ramps, plant growth in the median, and soft shoulders.   

Plenty of plant growth on CA Interstate routes:  more oleanders on I-10 out in San Bernardino and Riverside counties (at least west of Indio) and I-5 north of Sacramento -- they do a reasonable job of reducing ongoing headlight glare.  Not too many fully right-angle RIRO's left; most have been reconfigured into a shallow folded-diamond (albeit with very slow exit speeds); most if not all of the ones in San Joaquin County have been eliminated by the freeway expansion between Manteca and Stockton.  The soft shoulders remain between Delano and CA 198; most of the inside ones have been replaced (gradually) by macadam and/or chip-seal mix. 

What is unusual is that the "master plan" for CA 99, gradually being implemented by the various construction projects undertaken over the past couple of decades and continuing today, actually exceeds minimal Interstate standards; but the funding has largely been directed to areas experiencing population and commercial growth -- and most of that has been north of CA 198; the Delano-CA 198 segment, except for "spot" projects to eliminate obvious substandard issues (such as the LH exit to the Tulare business route), has been placed on the back burner, so to speak.  Not surprising, as agricultural products tend to move northward to distribution and processing plants in the area north of Fresno, with particular concentration in the "triangle" between Modesto, the Bay Area, and Sacramento.  When it comes to accommodating commercial traffic, that corridor section has been the "squeaky wheel" that has drawn the most attention; add to that the emergence of the CA 99 corridor from Turlock to Sacramento as a locale of housing spreading east from the Bay Area.  Probably the only thing that will expedite upgrades in Tulare County would be a concerted effort to implement the "master plan" over that segment of the highway rather than continuing the approach of dealing primarily with the more heavily-traveled (and trucked!) segments of the corridor.     
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: Max Rockatansky on November 19, 2018, 11:21:56 PM
Finished my blog post on the CA 99 freeway from I-5 at Wheeler Ridge the first 133 miles northbound to CA 180 in Fresno.  This one took far longer to put together than I thought given the copious amounts of route article links that I put in from previous entries.  The second part of this series definitely will cover the new High Speed Rail Corridor north of CA 180 but I'm not sure if I'll get all the way to Sacramento until a part three:

https://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2018/11/california-state-route-99old-us-route.html
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: The Ghostbuster on November 20, 2018, 02:22:16 PM
Maybe portions of the old alignment could have Historic US 99 signs erected. That seems more likely to me than the CA 99 corridor between Mettler and Sacramento becoming an Interstate Highway.
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: Max Rockatansky on November 20, 2018, 02:41:53 PM
Maybe portions of the old alignment could have Historic US 99 signs erected. That seems more likely to me than the CA 99 corridor between Mettler and Sacramento becoming an Interstate Highway.

My personal opinion is 6 lanes minimum between Wheeler Ridge and Sacramento is the way to go. If that somehow accomplishes Interstate standards great...if not the improvements will be welcome. Sparker has a lot more information on the long term future of 99, it seems at some point the corridor is destined for Interstate status. 

Regarding US 99 there are segments that could be signed as historic routes but much of the alignment was built over by the current freeway.  Bakersfield has essentially intact historical alignments and believe Sacramento does as well. Fresno has butchered up Broadway too much to make a Historic alignment outside of Golden State Boulevard not very viable. 
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: sparker on November 20, 2018, 06:16:29 PM
Maybe portions of the old alignment could have Historic US 99 signs erected. That seems more likely to me than the CA 99 corridor between Mettler and Sacramento becoming an Interstate Highway.

My personal opinion is 6 lanes minimum between Wheeler Ridge and Sacramento is the way to go. If that somehow accomplishes Interstate standards great...if not the improvements will be welcome. Sparker has a lot more information on the long term future of 99, it seems at some point the corridor is destined for Interstate status. 

Regarding US 99 there are segments that could be signed as historic routes but much of the alignment was built over by the current freeway.  Bakersfield has essentially intact historical alignments and believe Sacramento does as well. Fresno has butchered up Broadway too much to make a Historic alignment outside of Golden State Boulevard not very viable. 

The current Caltrans "master plan" for CA 99 calls for a minimum 6 lanes overall, with some 8-lane segments around Bakersfield, Fresno, and in the Modesto-Stockton area.  And Max is correct; many of the original US 99 alignments in the smaller towns were directly overlaid with freeway from the '50's on; however the larger towns:  Bakersfield, Delano, Tulare, the stretch from Kingsburg north into central Fresno, parts of Fresno itself, Madera, Merced/Atwater, Turlock, Modesto, Stockton, Lodi, and Galt all have viable segments of the original road that could lend themselves to historical signage -- besides functioning as virtual business loops in the process.  In Fresno, the part through downtown has, as Max avers, been chopped into segments; north of downtown and through the traffic circle near Roebling Park there is still a functioning "old highway" that could be utilized -- signing downtown would require a system of "bridging trailblazers" to get interested folks from one actual existing segment to the next. 

A historical route through Sacramento would be fun inasmuch as there are several alignments to select depending upon timeframe.  Personally, I'd stick with the first -- straight up Stockton Blvd. to Alhambra, then north to "L" Street, and west to the northeast corner of the state capitol grounds at 15th Street. 

I had an idea that I posited some time ago -- if and when CA 99 becomes Interstate 7 or, more likely, 9, the whole thing from Wheeler Ridge to Sacramento could be co-signed with the usual rectangular beige signs as "Historic US 99" -- but the difference would be that the historic route would depart the freeway through the larger towns with viable original alignment to serve as a business loop through each.  IMO, the (arguably) 2nd most important westward-migration route in the country -- and often the last leg of such a journey -- deserves at least as much.   
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: oscar on November 20, 2018, 07:49:38 PM
however the larger towns:  Bakersfield, Delano, Tulare, the stretch from Kingsburg north into central Fresno, parts of Fresno itself, Madera, Merced/Atwater, Turlock, Modesto, Stockton, Lodi, and Galt all have viable segments of the original road that could lend themselves to historical signage -- besides functioning as virtual business loops in the process.

Many of those communities already have signed CA 99 business loops. However, some of them are poorly signed. The communities might have more enthusiasm for erecting and maintaining Historic US 99 signs, than maintaining CA 99 Business signs.
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: Bobby5280 on November 20, 2018, 07:59:11 PM
The situation with CA-99 and the historic, decommissioned US-99 segments reminds me of how historic US-66 lives on in some cities and towns and is completely gone elsewhere. In the case of CA-99 and historic US-99 it's all up to Caltrans and a few locales in California.

As for the CA-99 freeway, it's surprising the road still does not fully meet modern Interstate standards despite the traffic load between the split with I-5 up to Sacramento. Shoulder design is sub-par in many places. Many on/off ramps have very dated (and arguably dangerous) geometry. The main lane pavement is terrible in many segments.

Some sporadic segments have been modernized with new concrete super-slab, proper shoulders and ramp geometry. It almost looks like the upgrades are being done in random whack-a-mole fashion. It doesn't look like any sort of comprehensive plan is being followed at all. The progress sure doesn't resemble other major highway overhauls, such as the expansion (and almost complete re-build) of I-35 between Austin and Dallas. That upgrade started over 10 years ago and is still in progress (major work going on in Temple). The I-35 upgrade has taken a long time and caused lots of its own aggravation. But at least motorists in Texas can see there is some sense of direction on where the upgrades will start and finish.

If they can get a fully organized effort going at upgrading all the sub-standard parts of CA-99 to modern Interstate quality that would be great. Seeking an actual Interstate designation is another matter. I'm not against it at all. But if I was able to choose I would have a hard time choosing between an I-7 or I-9 designation.

I-7 would actually be the more logical designation, given the CA-99 freeway's close, parallel proximity to I-5. Where else could an I-7 route be designated without violating the Interstate grid rules? An I-9 designation on CA-99 would effectively use up both I-7 and I-9 at once. The primary reasons to use the I-9 designation on the CA-99 route are frankly pretty sentimental. It keeps the 9-theme going on that corridor.

Another distinct possibility for I-9 (or I-7) would be a complete Eastern & Northern bypass of the greater Los Angeles and San Diego region. A number of different highways sort of function in that regard now. It starts with CA-111 in El Centro moving North to Brawley and then the CA-86 corridor up to I-10 in Indio. Then there's CA-62 going from I-10 up to Yucca Valley, then CA-247 & CA-18 up over to Victorville, Palmdale & Lancaster. CA-138 runs West from Lancaster and meets I-5 by Quail Lake. The only problem with this route being marked as I-7: it's physically East of the CA-99 corridor.
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: sparker on November 21, 2018, 12:56:09 AM
however the larger towns:  Bakersfield, Delano, Tulare, the stretch from Kingsburg north into central Fresno, parts of Fresno itself, Madera, Merced/Atwater, Turlock, Modesto, Stockton, Lodi, and Galt all have viable segments of the original road that could lend themselves to historical signage -- besides functioning as virtual business loops in the process.

Many of those communities already have signed CA 99 business loops. However, some of them are poorly signed. The communities might have more enthusiasm for erecting and maintaining Historic US 99 signs, than maintaining CA 99 Business signs.

My thoughts exactly.  Establishing a "continuum" of Historic US 99" from Wheeler Ridge to at least Sacramento  -- actually cosigning with the usual rectangular signage below or alongside the Interstate shield between the in-town segments -- would likely be well-received in those Valley communities bypassed post-1957 by the Interstate.  They'll likely appreciate a "twofer":  the Interstate some feel they deserve plus a tip of the hat to their past glories.  All that's needed then are a few "Big Orange" juice stands complete with orange-shaped facilities!

If they can get a fully organized effort going at upgrading all the sub-standard parts of CA-99 to modern Interstate quality that would be great. Seeking an actual Interstate designation is another matter. I'm not against it at all. But if I was able to choose I would have a hard time choosing between an I-7 or I-9 designation.

I-7 would actually be the more logical designation, given the CA-99 freeway's close, parallel proximity to I-5. Where else could an I-7 route be designated without violating the Interstate grid rules? An I-9 designation on CA-99 would effectively use up both I-7 and I-9 at once. The primary reasons to use the I-9 designation on the CA-99 route are frankly pretty sentimental. It keeps the 9-theme going on that corridor.

Another distinct possibility for I-9 (or I-7) would be a complete Eastern & Northern bypass of the greater Los Angeles and San Diego region. A number of different highways sort of function in that regard now. It starts with CA-111 in El Centro moving North to Brawley and then the CA-86 corridor up to I-10 in Indio. Then there's CA-62 going from I-10 up to Yucca Valley, then CA-247 & CA-18 up over to Victorville, Palmdale & Lancaster. CA-138 runs West from Lancaster and meets I-5 by Quail Lake. The only problem with this route being marked as I-7: it's physically East of the CA-99 corridor.

IMO either I-7 or I-9 would work fine for CA 99.  As stated above, the sentimental choice would call for the retention of the "9" integer for history's sake.  But "7" would be much easier on Caltrans; I hardly think that renumbering the short border-serving CA 7 would disturb much of anything, whereas present CA 9 still has some semblance of local history in these parts.  Not to get too Fritzy here, but whichever designation remains -- I-7 or I-9 -- could conceivably be used down the line for the US 97 corridor in far northern CA and into OR and possibly WA.  When I lived out in Hesperia nearly a decade ago, I imagined much the L.A. bypass corridor Bobby is contemplating -- but I used the designation of I-18 for that, since the Lucerne Valley-I-5 segment would partially subsume/parallel existing CA 18.  For that bypass, either an odd-numbered designation would have a substantial E-W segment or an even-numbered designation would have a long N-S segment down by the Salton Sea.  No clear choice here; I chose what I thought would be halfway appropriate for the location.     
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: Henry on November 21, 2018, 10:13:53 AM
I've read all about the sentiments of keeping a 9 in place with a new I-9 designation, but if it were up to me, I'd stick with I-7, because of the same reasons stated above, plus there wouldn't be too much uproar over having to renumber CA 7 when compared to a similar situation involving CA 9. Failing those, I'd happily settle for Historic US 99; hopefully OR and WA can get on board with whatever surviving sections they have in their respective jurisdictions.
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: Max Rockatansky on November 21, 2018, 11:59:44 AM
Iíve said it in many threads but I also favor I-7 over I-9.  CA 9 holds way more significance than the third iteration of CA 7 does, Iíd probably rank it as one of the best Bay Highways.  Leaving I-9 unused opens the possibility for to be placed elsewhere sometime in the future. 
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: nexus73 on November 21, 2018, 06:03:19 PM
I-5E for 99 and I-5W for I-5 is not an idea I have seen appear but given how I-35 had a pair of E's and W's along with I-69's fracturing in Texas, it might be a better idea than using up another number. 

Now if it was up to me, US 99 would be revived.

Rick
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: Max Rockatansky on November 21, 2018, 06:25:03 PM
I-5E for 99 and I-5W for I-5 is not an idea I have seen appear but given how I-35 had a pair of E's and W's along with I-69's fracturing in Texas, it might be a better idea than using up another number. 

Now if it was up to me, US 99 would be revived.

Rick

Iím in agreement, personally I think US 99 had merit as a designation even if it was just in California.  Strangely the I-5W/E concept was originally pushed early in the Interstate planning phases.  There was a ton of discussion on it in the CA 132 thread. 
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: Max Rockatansky on November 22, 2018, 05:32:39 PM
Updated my photos north from CA 180 to CA 145 through the High Speed Rail corridor under construction.  I stopped at Avenue 7 to check out the new grade:

https://flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/sets/72157697579756430

Iím working on updating my blog post, itís up to Avenue 7 as a write this. 
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: Bickendan on November 22, 2018, 09:36:57 PM
I-5E for 99 and I-5W for I-5 is not an idea I have seen appear but given how I-35 had a pair of E's and W's along with I-69's fracturing in Texas, it might be a better idea than using up another number. 

Now if it was up to me, US 99 would be revived.

Rick

Iím in agreement, personally I think US 99 had merit as a designation even if it was just in California.  Strangely the I-5W/E concept was originally pushed early in the Interstate planning phases.  There was a ton of discussion on it in the CA 132 thread. 
And if CA 65 were ever built, that could be I-5E, with 99 being I-5C... :meh:
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: Max Rockatansky on November 22, 2018, 10:49:29 PM
I-5E for 99 and I-5W for I-5 is not an idea I have seen appear but given how I-35 had a pair of E's and W's along with I-69's fracturing in Texas, it might be a better idea than using up another number. 

Now if it was up to me, US 99 would be revived.

Rick

Iím in agreement, personally I think US 99 had merit as a designation even if it was just in California.  Strangely the I-5W/E concept was originally pushed early in the Interstate planning phases.  There was a ton of discussion on it in the CA 132 thread. 
And if CA 65 were ever built, that could be I-5E, with 99 being I-5C... :meh:

Given that there is such a push for that High Speed Rail I don't foresee that being a problem for Caltrans any time in the near future.

That said speaking of the High Speed Rail...  I just updated my blog post on the CA 99 freeway to include CA 180 north to CA 145 in Madera.  I had a look at all the High Speed Rail corridor construction currently under way at the San Joaquin River.  The San Joaquin River Viaduct is coming along pretty well but there is substantial grading and bridge work that needs to be done over the river and the Madera County side.  I'll definitely be finishing this series as a two-parter with the second part covering CA 99 north from CA 145 to US 50/CA 51 in Sacramento:

https://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2018/11/california-state-route-99old-us-route.html

Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: Max Rockatansky on November 23, 2018, 11:58:17 PM
Here are some of the photos I took of the High Speed Rail corridor off CA 99 in Fresno and north of the San Joaquin River.

The sign notifying travelers on CA 99 northbound past the CA 180 interchange that they are on the High Speed Rail Corridor:

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4877/45092743405_3385456093_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2bGG6Bc)IMG_3630 (https://flic.kr/p/2bGG6Bc) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr

The recently relocated CA 99 freeway from Clinton Avenue to North Golden State Boulevard.  The grade on the right is the former freeway and future HSR grade:

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4844/44188339040_345e0f9748_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2ajLMGu)IMG_3639 (https://flic.kr/p/2ajLMGu) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4840/45092732365_aeca4dd8ad_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2bGG3jR)IMG_3644 (https://flic.kr/p/2bGG3jR) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4867/31065181537_c153a4420f_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Pk8bbe)IMG_3645 (https://flic.kr/p/Pk8bbe) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4841/44188334020_428d818732_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2ajLLcW)IMG_3647 (https://flic.kr/p/2ajLLcW) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr

The approach to the San Joaquin River on CA 99 northbound and the San Joaquin River Viaduct under construction on the right:

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4847/44188322400_1e0adea757_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2ajLGKA)IMG_3661 (https://flic.kr/p/2ajLGKA) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4813/44188317690_685a6d0262_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2ajLFmo)IMG_3662 (https://flic.kr/p/2ajLFmo) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4912/44188314180_ce0407fba3_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2ajLEiS)IMG_3664 (https://flic.kr/p/2ajLEiS) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4813/32133355688_8ec0330f21_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/QXvR8W)IMG_3666 (https://flic.kr/p/QXvR8W) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4863/32133353688_a733c28d27_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/QXvQxs)IMG_3668 (https://flic.kr/p/QXvQxs) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4852/44188306250_73d3e617ef_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2ajLBX9)IMG_3669 (https://flic.kr/p/2ajLBX9) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr

The San Joaquin River Viaduct grade looking southbound from Avenue 7:

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4862/44188300520_5a5a1c49cc_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2ajLAfm)IMG_3674 (https://flic.kr/p/2ajLAfm) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4904/31065149627_d7cd9f5172_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Pk81G4)IMG_3675 (https://flic.kr/p/Pk81G4) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4809/45280060594_b18e24d5a1_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2bZf9tU)IMG_3678 (https://flic.kr/p/2bZf9tU) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4906/45092671775_70b3ce003d_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2bGFJjc)IMG_3679 (https://flic.kr/p/2bGFJjc) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr

A segment of the San Joaquin River Viaduct under construction on the north side of Avenue 7:

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4902/46004071191_3353421875_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2d6dTBe)IMG_3677 (https://flic.kr/p/2d6dTBe) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr


Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: Occidental Tourist on November 24, 2018, 12:37:14 PM
Thanks for the photos!
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: compdude787 on November 24, 2018, 01:43:25 PM
Wait a sec. How can the high speed rail be funded by the 2009 stimulus (ARRA) if that was supposed to be only for "shovel ready" projects? I mean, this is occurring nine years after the passage of that stimulus.
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: bing101 on November 24, 2018, 04:58:19 PM
Wait a sec. How can the high speed rail be funded by the 2009 stimulus (ARRA) if that was supposed to be only for "shovel ready" projects? I mean, this is occurring nine years after the passage of that stimulus.


Political debates over the High Speed Rail routing was taking place at the time. 
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: Bobby5280 on November 24, 2018, 07:08:23 PM
I'm surprised they have anything tangible built for the high speed rail line at this point. The good thing is now that there's actual structures going up on an established route they'll have to work at finishing it.
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: Max Rockatansky on November 24, 2018, 10:20:33 PM
I'm surprised they have anything tangible built for the high speed rail line at this point. The good thing is now that there's actual structures going up on an established route they'll have to work at finishing it.

I believe the Fresno River Viaduct is essentially complete, the San Joaquin River Viaduct has been under construction I believe since 2015?  A whole set of lanes along 99 were shifted through the course of the year.  There is also another viaduct going over near the 99/41 junction.  Whether the project goes anywhere ultimately I don't know, but it sure has been interesting to see ambitious structures like these pop up in Fresno of all cities.
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: Bobby5280 on November 25, 2018, 11:27:38 AM
In Google Earth bits of pieces of where the high speed rail corridor is planned are clearly visible from Madera down to Corcoran. A decent amount of clearing has taken place.
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: Max Rockatansky on November 25, 2018, 11:58:47 AM
In Google Earth bits of pieces of where the high speed rail corridor is planned are clearly visible from Madera down to Corcoran. A decent amount of clearing has taken place.

Not only that but a large amount of it south of Fresno is on already along existing rail right-of-way.  I drive over a portion of the excavations on Adams, South, and Manning Avenues on a regular basis.  Even the irrigation canals are being upgraded or shifted to accommodate the HSR. 
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: sparker on December 04, 2018, 02:47:49 AM
In Google Earth bits of pieces of where the high speed rail corridor is planned are clearly visible from Madera down to Corcoran. A decent amount of clearing has taken place.

Not only that but a large amount of it south of Fresno is on already along existing rail right-of-way.  I drive over a portion of the excavations on Adams, South, and Manning Avenues on a regular basis.  Even the irrigation canals are being upgraded or shifted to accommodate the HSR. 

It's interesting that the HSR route south of Fresno essentially follows the existing BNSF/Amtrak line via Hanford and Corcoran (combined population about 78K) rather than farther east serving Visalia and Tulare (combined population about 183K) if the goal is ridership.  I guess land's cheaper west of CA 99 than to the east.
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: Max Rockatansky on December 04, 2018, 08:05:09 AM
In Google Earth bits of pieces of where the high speed rail corridor is planned are clearly visible from Madera down to Corcoran. A decent amount of clearing has taken place.

Not only that but a large amount of it south of Fresno is on already along existing rail right-of-way.  I drive over a portion of the excavations on Adams, South, and Manning Avenues on a regular basis.  Even the irrigation canals are being upgraded or shifted to accommodate the HSR. 

It's interesting that the HSR route south of Fresno essentially follows the existing BNSF/Amtrak line via Hanford and Corcoran (combined population about 78K) rather than farther east serving Visalia and Tulare (combined population about 183K) if the goal is ridership.  I guess land's cheaper west of CA 99 than to the east.

I guess roughly 10 miles was close enough for planners regarding Visalia?  Apparently Hanford is up in arms about it and doesnít want the HSR coming to them. The primary argument is that the station is east of downtown along the 43 corridor which supposedly would sap at tourism and use of the current Amtrak line.  But that said, I would assume using the 43 corridor to Bakersfield would be way cheaper than the much more built up 99 corridor through places line Tulare and Delano. 
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: sparker on December 04, 2018, 12:10:07 PM
^^^^^^^^^
I was thinking more about a new-terrain alignment somewhat east of 99 (a combined Tulare/Visalia depot could be located somewhere on Mooney Blvd./CA 63 between the cities).  It could stay a bit east of the actual 99 corridor rather than actually follow the highway and/or the parallel UP tracks closely, but still have a station stop adjacent to Delano; something like that would still allow high-speed acceleration and distance between station stops:  Bakersfield, Delano, Visalia/Tulare, and Fresno would address the four population centers in the southern part of the valley; if Hanford is opposed to being included in the mix, then any potential riders from there (and from Corcoran for that matter) could utilize the Visalia/Tulare station.  But then looking at things with clear eyes and a reasonable level of analysis doesn't seem to be a hallmark of the HSR planning process; it seems that the project in general was rushed into its current form to satisfy political aims and ambitions more than provision of a cohesive system intended to serve as many state residents as feasible. 
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: Bobby5280 on December 04, 2018, 01:40:07 PM
At least they're not twisting, turning and bending the HSR route in the fashion of new super highways. And that's only because they can't. If you want modern, high speed rail it requires the rail path have extremely gradual turns and run on straight paths as much as possible. Without that the trains can't go fast. Even with state of the art car tilting systems the rail paths can't bend much at all. The requirements get more extreme if the train is expected to hit speeds comparable to the best HSR networks. At-grade crossings are a big no no. For really fast speeds to be possible you have to limit the number of stations.

So, yeah, some towns are going to be left out of the party. But that's math and physics for you.
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: sparker on December 04, 2018, 06:25:35 PM
^^^^^^^
Quite correct; for a system with anticipated speeds around 200mph, placing stations at less than 50-60 mile intervals would be counterproductive to system efficiency and overall speed maintenance.  Right now there's planned straight runs between Mojave and Bakersfield and Bakersfield and Corcoran/Hanford (apparently the station will be along CA 43 a bit south of CA 198), and again up to Fresno (sort of at the minimum interim distance).  Avoiding lower-radius curvature in the Valley hasn't been considered a problem (and eminent domain is taking care of that issue, for better or worse).  It'll be interesting to see how Caltrans plans to tunnel under the Tehachapis, a quite seismically active area (e.g. the 1952 earthquake that took out the SP main line plus quite a bit of US 466!), since it'll involve several changes of overall elevation (Bakersfield is a bit under 1K elevation, while Mojave is at about 3.4K, with the intervening Tehachapi Valley sitting at about 3.9K.  Since they're planning a series of shorter tunnels rather than go the Swiss route and build one "ginormous" 30-40 mile bore, there will be quite a bit of curvature required, which will likely curtail speed somewhat through that section (I'd guess 160-175mph would be the maximum speed through those hills, with the average somewhat lower).  With the number of station stops (Lancaster/Palmdale, Santa Clarita) south of there, it'll be difficult for HSR to maintain high speed south of Bakersfield. 
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: mgk920 on December 04, 2018, 09:35:26 PM
As I have often mentioned in other threads and in other forvms, a true European/Chinese style high-speed rail line (350 km/h/220 MPH track speed) requires a 7000 meter/4 mile minimum horizontal curve radius.  I always bring that point up when such things are being glowingly discussed by others for construction elsewhere - it's a humbling thought for routing in highly developed suburban areas.  Also, such lines MUST be designed and built so that trains can run 'express' (full speed non-stop) the entire way between the lines' major terminal stations, otherwise they would not be time competitive with airlines between those points.

With that in mind, intermediate stops can be included if these stations are built so that their platforms are on sidings that branch off of the mainline tracks, this so that express trains can blow through them at full speed while either any people who are standing on the platforms are not endangered or they can overtake local/regional trains that are making their station stops.

Mike
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: Max Rockatansky on December 05, 2018, 12:45:44 AM
There probably was an opportunity to align the HSR between 99 and 65.  That may have eliminated a station near Hanford but you could get one probably located center mass between Visalia, Tulare, and Hanford.  There is some workable terrain on the eastern leg of Bakersfield which wouldn't dip into the Sierra Foothills that could be workable for a high speed line.

Anyways, someone correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the HSR initially supposed to follow the I-5 corridor south of CA 152? 
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: Bobby5280 on December 05, 2018, 02:09:22 PM
Quote from: mgk920
With that in mind, intermediate stops can be included if these stations are built so that their platforms are on sidings that branch off of the mainline tracks, this so that express trains can blow through them at full speed while either any people who are standing on the platforms are not endangered or they can overtake local/regional trains that are making their station stops.

That's a common feature for the Shinkansen, aka the "bullet train." We were stationed in Iwakuni, Japan when I was a kid. My friends and I sometimes rode our bicycles off the Marine Corps base to the historical park featuring Kintai Bridge, we'd hike up the mountain to see Iwakuni Castle and down the back side of the mountain to go watch the bullet train stop at the Shin-Iwakuni station or blow through it at high speed. I was nuts about trains then, so seeing what was then the world's fastest train was really amazing.

The funny thing is Japan has very little in the way of flat land. It's mostly mountains next to the ocean. The areas where people live are very densely populated. But they managed to build the Shinkansen network anyway with lots of tunnels and tracks built mostly on elevated structures. Hell, even a bunch of their superhighways are elevated and feature lots and lots of mountain tunnels. The Sanyo Expressway didn't even exist when we lived in Iwakuni, but now there's a toll road exit there close to the bullet train station.

Regarding high speed rail stations, many of the train platforms have to be built on elevated structures just like the tracks themselves. It's can't be all at grade like many American train and commuter rail stations. Not only are curve radius requirements for turns pretty extreme. Grade change limits are just as demanding.
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: sparker on December 05, 2018, 03:59:02 PM
There probably was an opportunity to align the HSR between 99 and 65.  That may have eliminated a station near Hanford but you could get one probably located center mass between Visalia, Tulare, and Hanford.  There is some workable terrain on the eastern leg of Bakersfield which wouldn't dip into the Sierra Foothills that could be workable for a high speed line.

Anyways, someone correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the HSR initially supposed to follow the I-5 corridor south of CA 152? 

A ridge of foothills descends into eastern Bakersfield around the Alfred Harrell Highway, north of CA 178; it's likely that in order to actually serve Bakersfield, a station would have to be located somewhere in the northeast suburbs if a HSR route east of CA 99 would have been selected.  As it is, there's a sizeable enough distance between the Bakersfield and Hanford stations to allow trains to come close to or reach maximum speed; the sparse population between those points allowing this long stationless stretch may have actually been a factor in determining the route.  And yes, the first iteration of HSR -- which featured a tunnel on a grade from near Grapevine up to south of Gorman (rising some 2700 feet) was to generally follow I-5 and was envisioned, like the road it would have traced, as a "bullet" straight-line route to the Bay Area.  That plan outlined several options to get over to the coast, one of which would have generally followed the never-built "direct" CA 180 alignment over to Hollister, then north through San Jose into S.F. (IIRC, there were alternates along CA 152 and I-580).   The almost perpetual seismic activity in the Hollister area doomed that option early on, while political blowback from the more populated Valley areas ended up moving the rail corridor eastward to follow a combination of the current Amtrak San Joaquin line and CA 99. 
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: mgk920 on December 06, 2018, 11:01:28 AM
Quote from: mgk920
With that in mind, intermediate stops can be included if these stations are built so that their platforms are on sidings that branch off of the mainline tracks, this so that express trains can blow through them at full speed while either any people who are standing on the platforms are not endangered or they can overtake local/regional trains that are making their station stops.

That's a common feature for the Shinkansen, aka the "bullet train." We were stationed in Iwakuni, Japan when I was a kid. My friends and I sometimes rode our bicycles off the Marine Corps base to the historical park featuring Kintai Bridge, we'd hike up the mountain to see Iwakuni Castle and down the back side of the mountain to go watch the bullet train stop at the Shin-Iwakuni station or blow through it at high speed. I was nuts about trains then, so seeing what was then the world's fastest train was really amazing.

The funny thing is Japan has very little in the way of flat land. It's mostly mountains next to the ocean. The areas where people live are very densely populated. But they managed to build the Shinkansen network anyway with lots of tunnels and tracks built mostly on elevated structures. Hell, even a bunch of their superhighways are elevated and feature lots and lots of mountain tunnels. The Sanyo Expressway didn't even exist when we lived in Iwakuni, but now there's a toll road exit there close to the bullet train station.

Regarding high speed rail stations, many of the train platforms have to be built on elevated structures just like the tracks themselves. It's can't be all at grade like many American train and commuter rail stations. Not only are curve radius requirements for turns pretty extreme. Grade change limits are just as demanding.

From what I've seen of European true HSR lines, both in still images and cab video, vertical curves and grades are not as restrictive on them as they are for conventional freight railroads.  ISTR that the French TGV allows up to 4% grades, while few mainline freight railroads go over 2.2% in mountains (the ruling grades on the BNSF and UP southwestern approaches to Cajon Pass are 3%).  HSR trainsets are far shorter and lighter than are freight trains and much better able to handle the 'slack action' that is inherent in places with abrupt grade changes.

Mike
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: mgk920 on December 06, 2018, 11:10:23 AM
There probably was an opportunity to align the HSR between 99 and 65.  That may have eliminated a station near Hanford but you could get one probably located center mass between Visalia, Tulare, and Hanford.  There is some workable terrain on the eastern leg of Bakersfield which wouldn't dip into the Sierra Foothills that could be workable for a high speed line.

Anyways, someone correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the HSR initially supposed to follow the I-5 corridor south of CA 152? 

A ridge of foothills descends into eastern Bakersfield around the Alfred Harrell Highway, north of CA 178; it's likely that in order to actually serve Bakersfield, a station would have to be located somewhere in the northeast suburbs if a HSR route east of CA 99 would have been selected.  As it is, there's a sizeable enough distance between the Bakersfield and Hanford stations to allow trains to come close to or reach maximum speed; the sparse population between those points allowing this long stationless stretch may have actually been a factor in determining the route.  And yes, the first iteration of HSR -- which featured a tunnel on a grade from near Grapevine up to south of Gorman (rising some 2700 feet) was to generally follow I-5 and was envisioned, like the road it would have traced, as a "bullet" straight-line route to the Bay Area.  That plan outlined several options to get over to the coast, one of which would have generally followed the never-built "direct" CA 180 alignment over to Hollister, then north through San Jose into S.F. (IIRC, there were alternates along CA 152 and I-580).   The almost perpetual seismic activity in the Hollister area doomed that option early on, while political blowback from the more populated Valley areas ended up moving the rail corridor eastward to follow a combination of the current Amtrak San Joaquin line and CA 99.

Between Bakersfield and Los Angeles, the HSR line is planned to roughly follow CA 58 and the BNSF via Tehachapi Pass and the on via Cajon Pass and San Bernardino, correct?

Mike
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: Max Rockatansky on December 06, 2018, 11:11:21 AM
There probably was an opportunity to align the HSR between 99 and 65.  That may have eliminated a station near Hanford but you could get one probably located center mass between Visalia, Tulare, and Hanford.  There is some workable terrain on the eastern leg of Bakersfield which wouldn't dip into the Sierra Foothills that could be workable for a high speed line.

Anyways, someone correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the HSR initially supposed to follow the I-5 corridor south of CA 152? 

A ridge of foothills descends into eastern Bakersfield around the Alfred Harrell Highway, north of CA 178; it's likely that in order to actually serve Bakersfield, a station would have to be located somewhere in the northeast suburbs if a HSR route east of CA 99 would have been selected.  As it is, there's a sizeable enough distance between the Bakersfield and Hanford stations to allow trains to come close to or reach maximum speed; the sparse population between those points allowing this long stationless stretch may have actually been a factor in determining the route.  And yes, the first iteration of HSR -- which featured a tunnel on a grade from near Grapevine up to south of Gorman (rising some 2700 feet) was to generally follow I-5 and was envisioned, like the road it would have traced, as a "bullet" straight-line route to the Bay Area.  That plan outlined several options to get over to the coast, one of which would have generally followed the never-built "direct" CA 180 alignment over to Hollister, then north through San Jose into S.F. (IIRC, there were alternates along CA 152 and I-580).   The almost perpetual seismic activity in the Hollister area doomed that option early on, while political blowback from the more populated Valley areas ended up moving the rail corridor eastward to follow a combination of the current Amtrak San Joaquin line and CA 99.

Between Bakersfield and Los Angeles, the HSR line is planned to roughly follow CA 48 and the BNSF via Tehachapi Pass, Cajon Pass and San Bernardino, correct?

Mike

I think you meant CA 58 but yes Tehachapi Pass and down the CA 14 corridor. 
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: mgk920 on December 06, 2018, 02:25:58 PM
Between Bakersfield and Los Angeles, the HSR line is planned to roughly follow CA 48 and the BNSF via Tehachapi Pass, Cajon Pass and San Bernardino, correct?

Mike

I think you meant CA 58 but yes Tehachapi Pass and down the CA 14 corridor.

Yea, I corrected that shortly after I first posted it.

 :-P

So it is planned to go in via Palmdale and Lancaster and not Cajon Pass.  I remember seeing articles with lines being drawn through San Bernardino a few years ago and was thinking that that was a bit out of the way for such a route.

Thanx!

Mike
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: The Ghostbuster on December 06, 2018, 04:58:53 PM
Does anyone think the proposed "High-Speed Rail" in California will ever be completed in its entirety? I have very strong doubts. Personally, I'd rather take a High-Speed Bus than a High-Speed Train.
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: Max Rockatansky on December 06, 2018, 06:03:03 PM
Does anyone think the proposed "High-Speed Rail" in California will ever be completed in its entirety? I have very strong doubts. Personally, I'd rather take a High-Speed Bus than a High-Speed Train.

It has immense challenges in front of it to keep itís funding alive.  There has been almost constant efforts to kill the project since day one.  The urban areas want the HSR but the rural areas of the state donít. If there are increasing project price overrjdes and delays it certainly wonít help the cause of finishing the HSR.  As it stands now there isnít enough of the line built or even under construction to ensure it will survive. 
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: sparker on December 06, 2018, 07:07:16 PM
^^^^^^^^
Essentially the HSR will follow the historic SP San Joaquin Division line from the San Fernando Valley in metro L.A. to Bakersfield, but with even more tunnel mileage than the original rail line (which had nearly 20 tunnels at one time, but some have been expanded to open cuts over the years) in order to maintain minimal curvature (about a 6000-yard radius, IIRC) and gradient.  And, unlike the original 1876-built line, no full loops!
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: Max Rockatansky on December 06, 2018, 07:54:01 PM
^^^^^^^^
Essentially the HSR will follow the historic SP San Joaquin Division line from the San Fernando Valley in metro L.A. to Bakersfield, but with even more tunnel mileage than the original rail line (which had nearly 20 tunnels at one time, but some have been expanded to open cuts over the years) in order to maintain minimal curvature (about a 6000-yard radius, IIRC) and gradient.  And, unlike the original 1876-built line, no full loops!

And thatís the thing that probably will have the most weight in whether the project survives is those tunnels.  Even Tehachapi Pass with all that room is going to require extensive tunneling.  Itís hard to see something like that ever getting done with how apathetic the state and local population has been towards large scale public works projects post 1970.  If anything a scaled back version of this plan could have been done much more affordable between San Francisco and Los Angeles using the general path of the Star Line and US 101.  Granted that would have under cut the Central Valley but Iíd suspect that is where the least use of the line would be anyways. 
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: sparker on December 07, 2018, 04:41:38 PM
^^^^^^^
As I've previously suggested, instituting conventional but dedicated rail service between L.A. and S.F., a la the old Californian overnight service that existed on the coast line between 1979 and 1984 as part of the "Amtrak California" service group, would be helpful if only to establish a ridership baseline.  Maybe even a 2nd similar inland service based on an extension of the current San Joaquin concept deployed over the existing Tehachapi line (if UP and BNSF would even consider such) might be even more appropriate in that regard.  But as it is the whole HSR concept is built on speculation, conjecture, and even politics.  And I've said it before and bet I'll have to say it again -- HSR ridership won't be a shift from automobiles, it'll come from the airlines that connect the two regions, and be comprised of (1) the "white-knucklers" who would rather not fly in the first place, and (2) those folks, possibly "romantics", who would rather spend the extra few hours taking the train in order to see what scenery they can in the process.  The vast majority of destination-oriented folks will stay on the planes, as it's an established service corridor between multiple airports in each region, which offers a modicum of convenience to the traveler.  The current HSR "curriculum" just seems like a lot of cash spent for what is functionally a "pilot program", which unfortunately has a high probability of futility.   
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: The Ghostbuster on December 07, 2018, 04:43:11 PM
I agree with you 100% sparker.
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: GaryA on December 07, 2018, 04:56:49 PM
^^^^^^^
As I've previously suggested, instituting conventional but dedicated rail service between L.A. and S.F., a la the old Californian overnight service that existed on the coast line between 1979 and 1984 as part of the "Amtrak California" service group, would be helpful if only to establish a ridership baseline.

There is daily service on the Coast Starlight line between LA and San Jose/Oakland, following the coastal route (and with the usual issues of running Amtrak over other lines' tracks).  It takes 10-11 hours for each trip (with stops in Salinas, Paso Robles, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Oxnard, Simi Valley, Van Nuys, and Burbank).  Not sure what the ridership level is, though.
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: Max Rockatansky on December 07, 2018, 05:22:56 PM
Apparently ridership on the entirety of the Coast Starlight was 450,000 approximately Back 2015.  Granted that includes the full length of the rail service from Seattle to Los Angeles.  Understandably Speed is the issue with the number of stops on the Coast Starlight but the ridership certainly suggest a huge demand for rail service. 

Conversely the ridership out of the Santa Fe Rail Depot by itself is close to 400,000 annually. If conventional service over Tehachapi Pass was allowed regularly my thought is that it would be viable as-is in terms of travel.  Rail travel on Amtrak from Fresno to Bakersfield is fairly healthy but itís pretty much limited by the freight only line up Tehachapi Pass. 

Incidentally back on the subject of CA 99 Iíll be doing my photos from US 50/CA 51 south to CA 145 Sunday if weather permits.  I wanted to do the photos from 145 north to US 50 but it just so happens Iíll be heading home from Sacramento, either way it will be the full CA 99 Freeway.  Already wrote my listed of Signed County Route junctions so I donít get burned by missing one this go around. 
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: Bobby5280 on December 07, 2018, 09:45:27 PM
I think there is a luxury play possible with the HSR service.

Long ago when I lived in Japan the Shinkansen and riding on it was quite a status symbol. Japan has an extensive passenger rail network. It blows away what we have here in the United States by leaps and bounds, even after privatization of the JNR (Japanese National Railways) network and closure of a decent number of unprofitable rural lines. The high speed Shinkansen network is the most visible to people outside Japan. There are close to 20 other slower speed passenger rail networks, now run by private JR Group companies. A bunch of these train systems run on different railway gauges. This doesn't even get into the subway, monorail and trolley car systems found in many of the larger cities. BTW the rail networks in Europe are somewhat similar, with the high speed rail systems carrying the best levels of luxury and douchey status.

Anyway, the "slow" inter-city trains in Japan are less expensive to ride than the Bullet Train. But they have a lot more stops on their routes and the trains are not nearly as nice. They're not dirty like a NYC Subway from the early 1970's, but they don't evoke images of luxury either. We often rode those trains on trips from Iwakuni up to Hiroshima. I'm guessing if California's high speed rail authority plays their cards right they could attract various yuppies, some higher income environmentalist feeling types and perhaps even some celebrities.

Wasn't there supposed to be some kind of 300mph Maglev route built between Los Angeles and Las Vegas? I guess nothing ever became of that idea. But I certainly could see a 200mph regular HSR route doing steady business between the two metros.

By the way, I think the new bullet trains in Japan are really strange looking. I miss the original, iconic bullet trains even though they're functionally obsolete compared to the new ones.
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: sparker on December 09, 2018, 03:28:04 AM
^^^^^^^
As I've previously suggested, instituting conventional but dedicated rail service between L.A. and S.F., a la the old Californian overnight service that existed on the coast line between 1979 and 1984 as part of the "Amtrak California" service group, would be helpful if only to establish a ridership baseline.

There is daily service on the Coast Starlight line between LA and San Jose/Oakland, following the coastal route (and with the usual issues of running Amtrak over other lines' tracks).  It takes 10-11 hours for each trip (with stops in Salinas, Paso Robles, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Oxnard, Simi Valley, Van Nuys, and Burbank).  Not sure what the ridership level is, though.
Apparently ridership on the entirety of the Coast Starlight was 450,000 approximately Back 2015.  Granted that includes the full length of the rail service from Seattle to Los Angeles.  Understandably Speed is the issue with the number of stops on the Coast Starlight but the ridership certainly suggest a huge demand for rail service. 

Conversely the ridership out of the Santa Fe Rail Depot by itself is close to 400,000 annually. If conventional service over Tehachapi Pass was allowed regularly my thought is that it would be viable as-is in terms of travel.  Rail travel on Amtrak from Fresno to Bakersfield is fairly healthy but itís pretty much limited by the freight only line up Tehachapi Pass. 

Incidentally back on the subject of CA 99 Iíll be doing my photos from US 50/CA 51 south to CA 145 Sunday if weather permits.  I wanted to do the photos from 145 north to US 50 but it just so happens Iíll be heading home from Sacramento, either way it will be the full CA 99 Freeway.  Already wrote my listed of Signed County Route junctions so I donít get burned by missing one this go around. 

The Coast Starlight schedule is actually longer today than it was 20 years ago, partially because of the addition of the Van Nuys and Paso Robles station stops.  Another issue is the track condition of the Coast Line; while the portion of the line south of San Luis Obispo has been upgraded to continuous-welded rail because of the needs of the Coaster service, most of the line between SLO and Gilroy is what is known as "stick rail" -- i.e., the historic 39-foot rail sections (the stuff that provides the "clickety-clack" sound when riding in passenger cars); the speed limit is somewhat lower over those sections (with the exception of a stretch between King City and Soledad that features welded rail due to curvature).  UP, as well as predecessor SP, downgraded the line back in the mid-80's as far as freight service goes; most through freight utilizes the Mojave/San Joaquin line, which has featured not only continuously-welded rail for decades -- but some of the heaviest (161 pounds per linear foot) rail on a US main line (rivaled only by NS and CSX on their coal-corridor lines in WV and VA).  Most freight movement on the Coast Line consists of seasonal agricultural shipments from the Salinas Valley, sugar-beet traffic from near Santa Maria, and "baretable" transfers (unladen container cars) as needed between the Port of L.A./Long Beach and the Port of Oakland.  Because of the relatively light freight load, this is one section of the Amtrak-over-freight-lines situation that is only minimally affected by prioritization of freight by the host railroad.  But that is offset by the lower speed limits necessary with "jointed" non-continuous-welded rail -- not coincidentally on that section of track not utilized by regional Amtrak California service (Coaster on the south and Capitol on the north) or metro commuter lines.  With only the once-daily (per direction) Starlight train on that route, Amtrak doesn't have a viable argument to prompt track owner UP to upgrade the middle section of the line, whereas Amtrak California, partially owned/operated by a dedicated Caltrans division, can put pressure on the RR toward a facility upgrade.  Arguably if the old overnight Californian L.A. to Sacramento service that existed between 1979 and 1984 would have been continued, the Coast trackage might have already seen such upgrades. 
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: Max Rockatansky on December 09, 2018, 05:57:01 PM
^^^

And that's the thing, its like you said the HSR at best will act as a supplement to airline travel more than anything if its built.  I'd argue there is far more need for short line passenger rail service along CA 99 and US 101 than for a High Speed Rail.  I really just see where the passengers in high volume are going to come from, certainly I can't see there being enough demand to compete with current air and highway infrastructure. 


Back on the subject of CA 99, I drove from Sacramento back to Fresno this morning.  That being the case I took photos from US 50/CA 51 south to CA 145 to act as continuation to the first photo album and blog.  I ran into an issue where there was enough haze coupled with headlight glare around Stockton that I couldn't salvage my CA 4 Freeway interchange photos and a couple "Memorial Highway" placards.  I'll likely splice in a CA 4 freeway junction photo whenever the opportunity presents itself but with the Memorial Highways I'll just notate where they are in the blog if I'm missing a photo.  I did manage to pick up all the junctions with Signed County Routes that said...  Anyways, the Part 2 photos of CA 99 south from US 50/CA 51 to CA 145 can be found here:

https://www.flickr.com/gp/151828809@N08/94B8g1

I took a crap ton of notes this time which help expedite the second blog being posted.  I should have it up later this week.  Unfortunately most of the Signed County Routes were Signed on CA 99 which means Iíll have to give those exits context in the second blog post.

Some observations of note for CA 99 from US 50/CA 51:

-   The section between CA 165 to CA 140/59 in Merced is in terrible shape just as Sparker has pointed out.  The road is being repaired near Atwater but an expansion is needed.
-  CA 99 south from CA 152 to the Fresno County line needs an expansion to six lanes as well.  Traffic in Madera is particularly heavy and bottlenecks easily south of CA 145 to Avenue 7. 
-  The HOV lanes around Elk Grove really ought to go, I don't see why a conventional six-lane configuration won't work there.  Oddly the four-lane section south to Lodi in my observation probably the most sub-standard.  At minimum the traffic on CA 99 drops south of Elk Grove really until Stockton.
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: sparker on December 09, 2018, 08:41:15 PM
^^^^^^^
Interestingly, one of the earlier (late '70's) CA 99 expansions to 6 lanes was the Stockton-Lodi segment.  Apparently there was anticipation of large-scale housing developments flanking the freeway at that time, and Caltrans, urged on by San Joaquin County, did the expansion.  As it turns out, those housing developments didn't occur until about 20 years later as part of the Valley affordable-housing alternatives to rising Bay Area prices -- but they centered on I-5 to the west, and for the most part these larger tracts didn't get too far east of County Road J8 (aka Franklin Blvd.)  And in the ensuing years, the land around CA 99 has itself increased in value -- but as a location for vineyards to the burgeoning Lodi-area wine business -- assisted in no small part by the designation of the area between Stockton and Galt as a specifically recognized wine-producing region with the commensurate increase in wineries, including many geared toward the tourist trade (another area to the south between French Camp and Modesto has been lobbying for similar status but hasn't found success at that as of yet).  So the land around CA 99 hasn't been inundated with housing -- but wineries with tasting rooms are cropping up with increasing regularity! 
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: MrAndy1369 on December 12, 2018, 02:41:52 PM
An idea just popped up my head. If CA-99/70/65 north of Sacramento/Roseville ever eventually becomes expanded to interstate standards all the way to Red Bluff, what would you think of designating the segments north of Sacramento and CA-99 between Sacramento and Los Angeles as I-5E? Then the original I-5 can become I-5W concurrently? It'd be easier than having to scramble for a 3di xx5, and I'd think current CA-99 all the way would be too long for a 3di anyway, but it'd also be a waste of a new 2di, especially given it'd be only intra-state. I-5W/E may be a bit 'plain' and boring, but it'd be pretty easy to implement, and people would adjust accordingly.

I can imagine it'd be easy to say "hey, let's take I-5W from Los Angeles to San Francisco!" and "hmm, I'd say I-5E from San Diego to Fresno may be faster." People would then see the split of I-5W/I-5E at the Grapevine and go accordingly.  :coffee:

Thoughts?
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: nexus73 on December 12, 2018, 03:19:19 PM
An idea just popped up my head. If CA-99/70/65 north of Sacramento/Roseville ever eventually becomes expanded to interstate standards all the way to Red Bluff, what would you think of designating the segments north of Sacramento and CA-99 between Sacramento and Los Angeles as I-5E? Then the original I-5 can become I-5W concurrently? It'd be easier than having to scramble for a 3di xx5, and I'd think current CA-99 all the way would be too long for a 3di anyway, but it'd also be a waste of a new 2di, especially given it'd be only intra-state. I-5W/E may be a bit 'plain' and boring, but it'd be pretty easy to implement, and people would adjust accordingly.

I can imagine it'd be easy to say "hey, let's take I-5W from Los Angeles to San Francisco!" and "hmm, I'd say I-5E from San Diego to Fresno may be faster." People would then see the split of I-5W/I-5E at the Grapevine and go accordingly.  :coffee:

Thoughts?

Sounds plausible to me!  Being "old school", I would rather bring back US 99 but if we are going to use Interstate routing, 5E and 5W will do just fine.

Rick
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: Max Rockatansky on December 15, 2018, 11:25:36 PM
Went back and fixed the bad interchange photos with CA 4 East/West on the CA 99 (US 50/CA 51 to CA 145) Flickr album.  They are saved out of order but the file names line up correctly.  I'll have them in a in the right order when I do my second CA 99/US 99 freeway blog post:

https://www.flickr.com/gp/151828809@N08/870665

Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: sparker on December 16, 2018, 02:18:32 PM
An idea just popped up my head. If CA-99/70/65 north of Sacramento/Roseville ever eventually becomes expanded to interstate standards all the way to Red Bluff, what would you think of designating the segments north of Sacramento and CA-99 between Sacramento and Los Angeles as I-5E? Then the original I-5 can become I-5W concurrently? It'd be easier than having to scramble for a 3di xx5, and I'd think current CA-99 all the way would be too long for a 3di anyway, but it'd also be a waste of a new 2di, especially given it'd be only intra-state. I-5W/E may be a bit 'plain' and boring, but it'd be pretty easy to implement, and people would adjust accordingly.

I can imagine it'd be easy to say "hey, let's take I-5W from Los Angeles to San Francisco!" and "hmm, I'd say I-5E from San Diego to Fresno may be faster." People would then see the split of I-5W/I-5E at the Grapevine and go accordingly.  :coffee:

Thoughts?

Sounds plausible to me!  Being "old school", I would rather bring back US 99 but if we are going to use Interstate routing, 5E and 5W will do just fine.

Rick

Still think that there's absolutely nothing wrong with dipping into the pool of unused numbers for this or any reasonable corridor (it's not part of a roadgeek version of "football fantasy" where numbers are hoarded for future use); I-7 still would be the most reasonable -- and Caltrans-friendly -- option here as well as being quite rational, the corridor being a maximum of about 60-odd miles east of I-5.  Don't think CA needs to replicate the TX suffixed trend quite yet.  As it sits, CA 99 is definitely its own corridor with both local and interregional purposes; identifying it as such rather than an adjunct of I-5 would do the trick regarding increasing attractiveness to commercial interests looking to establish warehouse/distribution facilities.  I've railed about the initial overselling of "major" (i.e. those ending in "0" or "5") numbers back in the '50's that led to such weird anomalies as an I-80N (Portland) being situated some 600 miles north of I-80 and a distortion of the overall grid pattern as a result.  A suffixed/3d reference to I-5 won't buy anything a new trunk designation wouldn't.  And at 30+ available, there are more numbers left in the "pool" than realistic places to put them, so it's not like picking I-7 would deprive any of the Western states of future selections.  When it comes time to actually redesignate CA 99, either I-7 or I-9 would be appropriate, with the former a bit easier to deal with internally. 
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: The Ghostbuster on December 18, 2018, 04:45:37 PM
Since the 210 extension is still a state highway, and SR-15 and SR-905 haven't been converted to Interstates yet, I don't see the SR-99 corridor becoming an Interstate either anytime soon, if ever.
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: Max Rockatansky on December 18, 2018, 11:19:34 PM
Finished the second blog post in the CA 99/Old US 99 Freeway series.  The second part covers the CA 99 Freeway south from Sacramento at US 50/CA 51 (the I-80 Business Loop) south to CA 145 in Madera.  The first blog had various links to major original alignments of US 99 from Bakersfield through Fresno.  The second blog has map links and general time periods for alignment shifts in US 99.  The most substantial alignment history that I reviewed was in Stockton which included US 99, US 99W, and US 99E before US 50 was extended to the Bay Area.

https://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2018/12/california-state-route-99old-us-route.html
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: sparker on December 19, 2018, 01:26:47 AM
Since the 210 extension is still a state highway, and SR-15 and SR-905 haven't been converted to Interstates yet, I don't see the SR-99 corridor becoming an Interstate either anytime soon, if ever.

Yeah, Caltrans can and does at best move glacially about anything to do with designation and signage; their motto seems to be "when in doubt, procrastinate!"  Still, many of the BGS's on intersecting roads out around Upland and Rancho Cucamonga still have the CA 210 shield on greenout slabs over I-210 shields -- so it's clear that either the agency in general or D8 in particular envision that freeway as I-210 at a time TBD later.  There are some narrow bridges & inner shoulders on the older section through the north part of San Bernardino; these just might be holding up the process -- but not something being prioritized at this time.  And the issues with CA-15 and CA-905 are pretty straightforward:  the 15/94 interchange upgrade -- again -- hasn't been prioritized, and constant construction along 905 (I've never seen more programmed "phases" of development on such a short route in CA before!) has delayed re-signage.  But with all Caltrans has on its plate these days -- including programming projects on county/local facilities -- signage concerns (obviously) are well down the "to do" list.  But Interstate designation for the three routes mentioned is all but inevitable -- but Caltrans is in no hurry to add that chore to its plate anytime soon. 

But the political scene in the Valley, with the almost-solid Republican bloc along the CA 99 corridor being upended in the last election, is probably going to result in focus on that region in 2020, with the Democrats who won (generally with slim margins) looking to shore up their local support, and the remaining Republicans (including the incoming minority leader from Bakersfield!) trying to dig moats around their districts (McCarthy's is about the only one reasonably safe down the road in either party).  Pulling a two-part trick like actually designating an Interstate number for the corridor and securing as much Federal $$ as possible to expedite any upgrades might be well within the electoral methodology here; incumbent ineffectiveness in the "bringing home the pork product" was one of the key factors affecting the recent turnover.   It's a safe bet that both the new and old Congresspersons in the region will be quickly looking for ways to nail down this aspect of their duties -- and despite the "take it or leave it" attitude within CA state agencies, calling attention and not a few bucks to the CA 99 corridor might just do the trick for these folks!
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: The Ghostbuster on December 19, 2018, 04:44:41 PM
That's a very interesting analysis, sparker. Thanks!
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: splashflash on July 19, 2019, 10:51:52 PM
Additional lanes on CA-99 in Madera

Construction starts Aug. 5 to add a lane on the northbound side, as well as the southbound side, between Avenue 12 and Avenue 17. The work is set to happen at night to avoid commuters.

Itís slated to end summer 2020.

https://www.yourcentralvalley.com/news/two-new-lanes-coming-to-a-madera-county-stretch-of-highway-99/
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: Max Rockatansky on July 20, 2019, 01:20:42 AM
Additional lanes on CA-99 in Madera

Construction starts Aug. 5 to add a lane on the northbound side, as well as the southbound side, between Avenue 12 and Avenue 17. The work is set to happen at night to avoid commuters.

Itís slated to end summer 2020.

https://www.yourcentralvalley.com/news/two-new-lanes-coming-to-a-madera-county-stretch-of-highway-99/

That still leaves a four lane gap south to Avenue 7 and the County Line. 
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: sparker on July 20, 2019, 02:45:12 AM
Additional lanes on CA-99 in Madera

Construction starts Aug. 5 to add a lane on the northbound side, as well as the southbound side, between Avenue 12 and Avenue 17. The work is set to happen at night to avoid commuters.

Itís slated to end summer 2020.

https://www.yourcentralvalley.com/news/two-new-lanes-coming-to-a-madera-county-stretch-of-highway-99/

That still leaves a four lane gap south to Avenue 7 and the County Line. 

The section through central Madera shouldn't pose any issues; it's had enough room in the median for an additional lane plus ample shoulders for somewhere around two decades.  I'd probably guess that the presence of this ready-to-go segment plus the high level of growth right in and around the city of Madera prompted the prioritization of this particular stretch.  I'd guess ensuing years will see projects let both north and south of this one in order to fully 6-lane the section from Fresno to the CA 152 "split".   Farther north, upgrading the Chowchilla bypass will be a really extensive as well as expensive project; addressing the number of under-height overcrossings alone will probably eat up a chunk of change.  And the old "99 hallmark", the over/under RR crossing just north of the 152 interchange will have to go; the underpass is both under-height and narrow.   Chowchilla will probably be the last stretch in Madera County to see upgrades simply because of the multiple issues and the cost of dealing with them.     
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: cahwyguy on August 22, 2019, 02:04:35 AM
While driving near Le Grand today, I noticed that Silviera Way has Route 99 bridge markers with postmiles, but is not part of 99, nor former 99 to my knowledge. Any ideas why?
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: Max Rockatansky on August 22, 2019, 08:37:28 AM
While driving near Le Grand today, I noticed that Silviera Way has Route 99 bridge markers with postmiles, but is not part of 99, nor former 99 to my knowledge. Any ideas why?

My GPS used to jump there to Silviera Way thinking it was 99 until I updated the data.  I just assumed it might have been just a really old alignment that was showing up on bad map data.  I noticed with the Lanes Bridge in Fresno that it showed up on the same post mileage as the mainline freeway.  Maybe Caltrans constructed said bridge and just rolled it into the mainline post mileage?
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: cahwyguy on August 22, 2019, 09:53:29 AM
As you drive up 99 in that area, there are a bunch of bridges like that along the side road. I'll keep my eyes open for other oddities (we're doing 99-5-97 on the way up, and 139-36-32-5-99 on the way back from vacation).
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: Max Rockatansky on August 22, 2019, 01:02:13 PM
The Klamath trip Iím assuming?  Iíll be curious to see what your take on 139 is, Iíve had that one on my to-do list for years.  With 99 I noticed that in almost every area that has been recently upgraded youíll see newer structures on frontage facilities as well.  Iíll have to keep my eye out the next time I drive through Goshen since that whole segment is essentially brand new. 
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: sparker on August 22, 2019, 01:08:29 PM
The area where this is occurring is along that last segment of 99 to be converted to full freeway between the Madera county line and the southern outskirts of Merced.  While it was being constructed, traffic -- in both directions -- was diverted onto what was a constantly changing set of alignments consisting of portions of the original highway (situated near the adjacent RR line), completed carriageways of the new freeway wherever feasible, or one or another of the frontage roads (one of which functionally replaced the old alignment on the west side of the freeway).  Unusual for D10, the design featured quite a bit of frontage roads -- but those would flank the freeway for a while and eventually curve off as part of the local grid (D6 to the south really liked frontage roads in rural areas, but those tended to hug the flanks of the freeway quite closely and only occasionally segued into local grid patterns -- but then, that section of 99 was oriented much more N-S than the section near Merced, which is almost a 45-degree diagonal.  With all the changes and temporary alignments serving as through lanes of CA 99 during the long construction process, it's likely that some frontage-road bridges were mileposted along the way -- and that at some point the Google car came through, which would tend to archive one or another of the interim configurations -- and subsequently show up on GE/GSV when specific road names are keyed in.  When I saw the "Reply #63" post, I immediately googled up Silveira -- and it pointed to the east frontage road.  Although the nearest community referenced was Athlone, Le Grand, about 5 miles to the east along the mostly parallel BNSF tracks, is probably the USPS reference town for the immediate area. 
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: cahwyguy on August 23, 2019, 12:47:47 AM
The Klamath trip Iím assuming?  Iíll be curious to see what your take on 139 is, Iíve had that one on my to-do list for years.  With 99 I noticed that in almost every area that has been recently upgraded youíll see newer structures on frontage facilities as well.  Iíll have to keep my eye out the next time I drive through Goshen since that whole segment is essentially brand new. 

Yup. Today, because we were running a bit ahead, we did a bit on Old 99W, and then detoured into Williams, took 20 to Colusa, up 45 to Glenn, across 162 back to I-5 (and the Coffee Shop at the Willows Airport is great!), and then up I-5. We wanted to hit the outlets in Anderson, so we took 273 up, and we're staying tonight right where 273 and 44 come together. Tomorrow (assuming the fire near Sherman doesn't grow) we'll be going up I-5 and US 97 into Oregon. Over the week, we'll also be driving OR 66 to Ashland.
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: Max Rockatansky on August 23, 2019, 12:56:51 AM
The Klamath trip Iím assuming?  Iíll be curious to see what your take on 139 is, Iíve had that one on my to-do list for years.  With 99 I noticed that in almost every area that has been recently upgraded youíll see newer structures on frontage facilities as well.  Iíll have to keep my eye out the next time I drive through Goshen since that whole segment is essentially brand new. 

Yup. Today, because we were running a bit ahead, we did a bit on Old 99W, and then detoured into Williams, took 20 to Colusa, up 45 to Glenn, across 162 back to I-5 (and the Coffee Shop at the Willows Airport is great!), and then up I-5. We wanted to hit the outlets in Anderson, so we took 273 up, and we're staying tonight right where 273 and 44 come together. Tomorrow (assuming the fire near Sherman doesn't grow) we'll be going up I-5 and US 97 into Oregon. Over the week, we'll also be driving OR 66 to Ashland.

OR 66 should be interesting given it was early US 97.  I'm to understand when Emigrant Lake is low the original junction of US 97 at US 99 can be seen from Old Greensprings Highway.  Interestingly Jessica and I will be on something of an Oregon kick next month ourselves.  We're heading up to Portland for her birthday and we're hitting Lassen, Crater Lake and Redwood for my mine.  I'm hoping for some new photo stock for; US 97, CA 161, US 199, CA 200, CA 255, CA 96, CA 3, CA 273, some of CA 44 in Redding and CA 151.   If you see anything else worthwhile in your travels let us known. 
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: sparker on August 23, 2019, 10:28:40 AM
^^^^^^^^^
If you're in the Yreka area at any time during your journey, be sure to take a little detour on CA 263 through the Shasta River canyon -- it'll certainly provide the rationale for Caltrans' decision to reroute I-5 over Anderson Grade (a major mountain construction effort if there ever was one!) rather than try to shove it through that gorge.  Also -- a bit SE of there -- the old US 97 alignment from Bray to Macdoel essentially following the original SP Klamath line is a nice detour from the present route and definitely worth doing!
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: Max Rockatansky on August 23, 2019, 11:27:57 AM
^^^^^^^^^
If you're in the Yreka area at any time during your journey, be sure to take a little detour on CA 263 through the Shasta River canyon -- it'll certainly provide the rationale for Caltrans' decision to reroute I-5 over Anderson Grade (a major mountain construction effort if there ever was one!) rather than try to shove it through that gorge.  Also -- a bit SE of there -- the old US 97 alignment from Bray to Macdoel essentially following the original SP Klamath line is a nice detour from the present route and definitely worth doing!

Weíre staying in Yreka, so Iíll be catching 263 south to 3 to get to the hotel.  I forgot that Iíll be checking out 265 as well.  Iím torn on deciding which vehicle I want to bring, something tells me Iíll want something that can handle some unpaved surfaces. 
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: cahwyguy on August 24, 2019, 12:10:32 AM
What I found interesting today was the separation of alignments between Redding and Dunsmuir through the Mount Shasta area. Reminded me of Southern California towards the Grapevine.
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2019, 12:15:00 AM
There is a ton of stuff related to US 99 around Lake Shasta that is worth a look.  Joel Windmiller is always posting stuff from the Lake Shasta Area and Southern Oregon on the Historic US 99 Facebook page.  I know there are a couple bridges that are probably worth the detour to see, I'll have to get them plotted out before late September. 
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: Bickendan on August 24, 2019, 06:51:56 AM
The Klamath trip Iím assuming?  Iíll be curious to see what your take on 139 is, Iíve had that one on my to-do list for years.  With 99 I noticed that in almost every area that has been recently upgraded youíll see newer structures on frontage facilities as well.  Iíll have to keep my eye out the next time I drive through Goshen since that whole segment is essentially brand new. 

Yup. Today, because we were running a bit ahead, we did a bit on Old 99W, and then detoured into Williams, took 20 to Colusa, up 45 to Glenn, across 162 back to I-5 (and the Coffee Shop at the Willows Airport is great!), and then up I-5. We wanted to hit the outlets in Anderson, so we took 273 up, and we're staying tonight right where 273 and 44 come together. Tomorrow (assuming the fire near Sherman doesn't grow) we'll be going up I-5 and US 97 into Oregon. Over the week, we'll also be driving OR 66 to Ashland.

Don't forget to snag OR 273 (the old Syskiyou route for US 99). It is signed -- exactly once, as you start climbing south from OR 66. If you clinch it right, your turn around point will be exit 796 at Hilt.
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2019, 07:54:42 PM
The Klamath trip Iím assuming?  Iíll be curious to see what your take on 139 is, Iíve had that one on my to-do list for years.  With 99 I noticed that in almost every area that has been recently upgraded youíll see newer structures on frontage facilities as well.  Iíll have to keep my eye out the next time I drive through Goshen since that whole segment is essentially brand new. 

Yup. Today, because we were running a bit ahead, we did a bit on Old 99W, and then detoured into Williams, took 20 to Colusa, up 45 to Glenn, across 162 back to I-5 (and the Coffee Shop at the Willows Airport is great!), and then up I-5. We wanted to hit the outlets in Anderson, so we took 273 up, and we're staying tonight right where 273 and 44 come together. Tomorrow (assuming the fire near Sherman doesn't grow) we'll be going up I-5 and US 97 into Oregon. Over the week, we'll also be driving OR 66 to Ashland.

Don't forget to snag OR 273 (the old Syskiyou route for US 99). It is signed -- exactly once, as you start climbing south from OR 66. If you clinch it right, your turn around point will be exit 796 at Hilt.

I'm hoping to have enough time this go around to hit OR 66 and OR 273 but I'll have to see.  This is my Wife's first trip to Crater Lake so I'm looking to get some decent hiking in which might chew up more time than anticipated.  We're staying with a friend in Medford that night and we'll be departing from Weed.  My US 97 photos are absolutely terrible on the California side which is why I'm prioritizing it along with CA 161, the entries on Gribblenation need to be sorely updated.  Either way I think that I'll have a lot more opportunities to get the Oregon Caves and Cascade-Siskiyou National Monuments checked off my National Parks list.  But that bridgework alone on Old US 99/OR 273 seems to be worthwhile.
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: nexus73 on August 24, 2019, 10:14:07 PM
Max, when you get to Dorris CA, look for a Roaring Twenties style motel on the east side of US 97.  The last time I passed through Dorris revealed an unrestored piece of road trip history.  One can imagine Bonnie & Clyde parking their V-8 Ford in the garages which adjoin the rooms.  Hope it is still there for you to see!

Rick
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: sparker on August 25, 2019, 05:46:53 PM
Max, when you get to Dorris CA, look for a Roaring Twenties style motel on the east side of US 97.  The last time I passed through Dorris revealed an unrestored piece of road trip history.  One can imagine Bonnie & Clyde parking their V-8 Ford in the garages which adjoin the rooms.  Hope it is still there for you to see!

Rick

If Bonnie & Clyde had hightailed it up to the CA/OR state line rather than sticking around NW LA, they might have lived considerably longer (who the F. would have looked for them up there?!).
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: Max Rockatansky on August 25, 2019, 06:21:33 PM
Max, when you get to Dorris CA, look for a Roaring Twenties style motel on the east side of US 97.  The last time I passed through Dorris revealed an unrestored piece of road trip history.  One can imagine Bonnie & Clyde parking their V-8 Ford in the garages which adjoin the rooms.  Hope it is still there for you to see!

Rick

If Bonnie & Clyde had hightailed it up to the CA/OR state line rather than sticking around NW LA, they might have lived considerably longer (who the F. would have looked for them up there?!).

Youíd essentially be on the moon by the Mid-1930s and even youíre considerably off the radar even still in Dorris.  I do dig the old rail siding feel that US 97 with all the weird 90 degree jogs it pulls off through town.  Some of those older buildings are in really poor shape and make me wonder how they still are standing. 
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: sparker on August 26, 2019, 03:58:36 AM
Max, when you get to Dorris CA, look for a Roaring Twenties style motel on the east side of US 97.  The last time I passed through Dorris revealed an unrestored piece of road trip history.  One can imagine Bonnie & Clyde parking their V-8 Ford in the garages which adjoin the rooms.  Hope it is still there for you to see!

Rick

If Bonnie & Clyde had hightailed it up to the CA/OR state line rather than sticking around NW LA, they might have lived considerably longer (who the F. would have looked for them up there?!).

Youíd essentially be on the moon by the Mid-1930s and even youíre considerably off the radar even still in Dorris.  I do dig the old rail siding feel that US 97 with all the weird 90 degree jogs it pulls off through town.  Some of those older buildings are in really poor shape and make me wonder how they still are standing. 

That particular area has cold but surprisingly dry winters; sitting at about 4200 foot elevation, the Tulelake Basin is relatively isolated from winter storms coming in from the ocean; in a fashion similar to that of eastern WA, most moisture/precipitation is gone by the time the basin is reached.  I've gone through there in December and the most I've generally seen is snow up by Grass Lake between Weed and the basin, but that is reduced to a dusting by the time one is down the hill in Macdoel.  Once -- back around 1997 or so -- there was snow on the ground all the way up to Klamath and beyond -- but that's been the exception rather than the rule.  And cold & relative dryness is what's needed for the main root-veggie crops that dominate basin agricultural production (sugar beets, parsnips, and in particular horseradish -- the Dorris-Tulelake area is the principal horseradish producer in the entire nation!)  And that lack of moisture tends to aid in the preservation of wood-frame structures such as found in Dorris and the other regional towns; they may look like hell (not a lot of local $$ to spare for physical beauty) but they're generally structurally sound.   
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: Max Rockatansky on August 26, 2019, 11:57:20 AM
Max, when you get to Dorris CA, look for a Roaring Twenties style motel on the east side of US 97.  The last time I passed through Dorris revealed an unrestored piece of road trip history.  One can imagine Bonnie & Clyde parking their V-8 Ford in the garages which adjoin the rooms.  Hope it is still there for you to see!

Rick

If Bonnie & Clyde had hightailed it up to the CA/OR state line rather than sticking around NW LA, they might have lived considerably longer (who the F. would have looked for them up there?!).

Youíd essentially be on the moon by the Mid-1930s and even youíre considerably off the radar even still in Dorris.  I do dig the old rail siding feel that US 97 with all the weird 90 degree jogs it pulls off through town.  Some of those older buildings are in really poor shape and make me wonder how they still are standing. 

That particular area has cold but surprisingly dry winters; sitting at about 4200 foot elevation, the Tulelake Basin is relatively isolated from winter storms coming in from the ocean; in a fashion similar to that of eastern WA, most moisture/precipitation is gone by the time the basin is reached.  I've gone through there in December and the most I've generally seen is snow up by Grass Lake between Weed and the basin, but that is reduced to a dusting by the time one is down the hill in Macdoel.  Once -- back around 1997 or so -- there was snow on the ground all the way up to Klamath and beyond -- but that's been the exception rather than the rule.  And cold & relative dryness is what's needed for the main root-veggie crops that dominate basin agricultural production (sugar beets, parsnips, and in particular horseradish -- the Dorris-Tulelake area is the principal horseradish producer in the entire nation!)  And that lack of moisture tends to aid in the preservation of wood-frame structures such as found in Dorris and the other regional towns; they may look like hell (not a lot of local $$ to spare for physical beauty) but they're generally structurally sound.   

The last time I was in the area was March of 2016.  It was fairly gloomy to the State Line but was absolutely beautiful in Klamath Falls at about 60F and partly cloudy.  I got poured on earlier in the day at Lava Beds National Monument and Tule Lake so the change was welcome.  Surprisingly it was also the calmest weather I've ever experienced at Crater Lake of all places, most winters there was a shroud of fog obstructing the view.
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: sparker on January 02, 2020, 06:56:36 PM
Since the OP/thread title concerns CA 99, this -- despite the 4+ month layoff, is where this news belongs:

Of the four original "over/under" RR crossings (one direction goes under the tracks on the original 2-lane underpass while the other direction, added later, bridges over the tracks) that CA 99 inherited from US 99 at the time the shields were swapped in mid-'66, two were gone by the mid-80's (south of CA 46/Famoso and the CA 198 interchange near Goshen) with two remaining:  Chowchilla and Elk Grove.  Well, it'll be down to one by the end of 2020; the crossing south of Grant Line Road in Elk Grove is being reconstructed as double bridges, with the SB underpass (which featured a low 14'5" clearance) bypassed by a new bridge adjacent to the existing NB bridge; at this point, the berms are being constructed with the actual bridge to follow.  Also, the NB 2-lane bridge is being widened to accommodate shoulders (the new SB bridge will be able to accommodate 3 lanes+ shoulders).  However, there are no immediate plans to widen or replace the series of older bridges immediately to the south crossing the Consumnes River floodplain.   Several miles to the south, the section through Galt has been rebuilt with some new bridges (the old CA 104 interchange remains the same, however); but the interim section, about 5-6 miles, will remain the same for the time being.   But the most egregious substandard structure (the old underpass) will be history.     
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: Max Rockatansky on January 03, 2020, 12:16:25 AM
Is that what the present work zone on 99 near Chowchilla is about?  If so, any idea how long that older set of rail crossings is set to be around?
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: sparker on January 03, 2020, 01:29:03 AM
Is that what the present work zone on 99 near Chowchilla is about?  If so, any idea how long that older set of rail crossings is set to be around?

At this point I'm unaware of any current project to replace the Chowchilla crossings.  If that were to be done, it's likely both the NB underpass and SB bridge would be replaced because of the sharp curve coming off the bridge and then passing under the NB 99>WB 152 LH ramp.  Since not only the SB mainline curvature but that of the ramp is problematic, the interchange and RR crossing may be done as one project -- but AFAIK nothing of that nature has been let yet; any Chowchilla-area work is likely spot fixes, including repaving as necessary (that's one old stretch of freeway, dating to the '50's).  I'll have to dig up the current STIP to make sure, but a full rebuild from south of 152 to the Merced county line is probably at least several years down the line.   
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: Max Rockatansky on January 03, 2020, 05:33:35 PM
Is that what the present work zone on 99 near Chowchilla is about?  If so, any idea how long that older set of rail crossings is set to be around?

At this point I'm unaware of any current project to replace the Chowchilla crossings.  If that were to be done, it's likely both the NB underpass and SB bridge would be replaced because of the sharp curve coming off the bridge and then passing under the NB 99>WB 152 LH ramp.  Since not only the SB mainline curvature but that of the ramp is problematic, the interchange and RR crossing may be done as one project -- but AFAIK nothing of that nature has been let yet; any Chowchilla-area work is likely spot fixes, including repaving as necessary (that's one old stretch of freeway, dating to the '50's).  I'll have to dig up the current STIP to make sure, but a full rebuild from south of 152 to the Merced county line is probably at least several years down the line.   

Either way that crossing sure could use a rebuild.  On northbound 99 traffic is already in a bad position to expect that surprisingly sharp curve to the rail underpass after the left exit for CA 152.  I'm surprised that section of CA 99 is still signed as 70 MPH as opposed to 65 MPH.
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: sparker on January 03, 2020, 06:46:36 PM
Is that what the present work zone on 99 near Chowchilla is about?  If so, any idea how long that older set of rail crossings is set to be around?

At this point I'm unaware of any current project to replace the Chowchilla crossings.  If that were to be done, it's likely both the NB underpass and SB bridge would be replaced because of the sharp curve coming off the bridge and then passing under the NB 99>WB 152 LH ramp.  Since not only the SB mainline curvature but that of the ramp is problematic, the interchange and RR crossing may be done as one project -- but AFAIK nothing of that nature has been let yet; any Chowchilla-area work is likely spot fixes, including repaving as necessary (that's one old stretch of freeway, dating to the '50's).  I'll have to dig up the current STIP to make sure, but a full rebuild from south of 152 to the Merced county line is probably at least several years down the line.   

Either way that crossing sure could use a rebuild.  On northbound 99 traffic is already in a bad position to expect that surprisingly sharp curve to the rail underpass after the left exit for CA 152.  I'm surprised that section of CA 99 is still signed as 70 MPH as opposed to 65 MPH.

Yeah -- when they overlaid that interchange over the original intersection circa 1958 or so, the state speed limit was still 55 -- so curvature such as that wouldn't have been uncommon.  What is interesting is that when that project was let (likely 1955-56) I-5 was still planned as using US 99 in the Valley -- and that section of the road would have been substandard even with the original more "lax" I-standards of the time.  My guess is that this was a "heritage" project intended as part of the original pre-Interstate plans to gradually remake 99 as a freeway, just like the remainder of the Chowchilla bypass.   Another interesting tidbit -- as of the last time I was on that stretch (a hair over a year ago) the BGS on NB 99 for the CA 152 exit still referenced San Francisco as a control city -- even though 99 north to 120 and thence west through Tracy and Livermore is a considerably shorter -- and all-freeway -- routing -- and one that doesn't feature a surface-street slog through Los  Banos!   San Jose would be a more appropriate control city from that exit. 
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: Max Rockatansky on January 03, 2020, 07:47:16 PM
Is that what the present work zone on 99 near Chowchilla is about?  If so, any idea how long that older set of rail crossings is set to be around?

At this point I'm unaware of any current project to replace the Chowchilla crossings.  If that were to be done, it's likely both the NB underpass and SB bridge would be replaced because of the sharp curve coming off the bridge and then passing under the NB 99>WB 152 LH ramp.  Since not only the SB mainline curvature but that of the ramp is problematic, the interchange and RR crossing may be done as one project -- but AFAIK nothing of that nature has been let yet; any Chowchilla-area work is likely spot fixes, including repaving as necessary (that's one old stretch of freeway, dating to the '50's).  I'll have to dig up the current STIP to make sure, but a full rebuild from south of 152 to the Merced county line is probably at least several years down the line.   

Either way that crossing sure could use a rebuild.  On northbound 99 traffic is already in a bad position to expect that surprisingly sharp curve to the rail underpass after the left exit for CA 152.  I'm surprised that section of CA 99 is still signed as 70 MPH as opposed to 65 MPH.

Yeah -- when they overlaid that interchange over the original intersection circa 1958 or so, the state speed limit was still 55 -- so curvature such as that wouldn't have been uncommon.  What is interesting is that when that project was let (likely 1955-56) I-5 was still planned as using US 99 in the Valley -- and that section of the road would have been substandard even with the original more "lax" I-standards of the time.  My guess is that this was a "heritage" project intended as part of the original pre-Interstate plans to gradually remake 99 as a freeway, just like the remainder of the Chowchilla bypass.   Another interesting tidbit -- as of the last time I was on that stretch (a hair over a year ago) the BGS on NB 99 for the CA 152 exit still referenced San Francisco as a control city -- even though 99 north to 120 and thence west through Tracy and Livermore is a considerably shorter -- and all-freeway -- routing -- and one that doesn't feature a surface-street slog through Los  Banos!   San Jose would be a more appropriate control city from that exit.

I hit that interchange headed towards Monterey at least once every 45-60 days, it still says CA 152 west for San Francisco.  Even Gilroy would be a much more accurate control city over San Francisco.  Checking historicaerials the present northbound underpass can be seen as mainline US 99, the swing onto Chowchilla Boulevard looked like it was pretty sharp. 

Interestingly the underpass displays a date stamp of 1929.  That would seem to imply that very early US 99/LRN 4 was routed on Fairmead Boulevard at some point.

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.0882868,-120.2126725,3a,75y,358.75h,97.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAcF5rFcSiilqJ0SRqINa2g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: mrsman on January 04, 2020, 08:55:04 PM
As I was following the conversation about CA 152's control, it may help others to see this, especially if you don't frequent driving 99:

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.0767126,-120.1995221,3a,75y,340h,86.26t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1scbs0-a99JyFb4JXDS_fhDw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

The BGS with San Francisco is a supplemental signage, that is located on a high sign BGS.  (Most of these typses of sign are typically ground mounted, the fact that is high is meant to really get attention.)

The actual sign at the exit does list Los Banos and Gilroy as the controls for 152.  I agree with others here that the SF sign should either be removed or replaced with San Jose.

I agree that given the current highway infrastructure, it is better to stay on 99 to 120.  If you do take 152, you are directed onto I-5 north for SF and to stay on 152 through Pacheco Pass for Gilroy and San Jose.

But in the not too distant past, 152 was the better way from Fresno to SF.  This was true while there was a traffic signal on 99 in Livingston up until 1996.  That signal caused so much backups that it was far better to force as much traffic as possible to take 5 instead.
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: Bobby5280 on January 04, 2020, 09:55:14 PM
The tall trees alongside NB CA-99 just North of the CA-152 left exit do a great job of hiding that upcoming curve and dip.

While the interchange with CA-99 & CA-152 is pretty outdated it's interesting a good chunk of CA-99 just North of that point leading up to Merced has been completely re-built as Interstate quality freeway.
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: Max Rockatansky on January 05, 2020, 12:40:39 AM
The tall trees alongside NB CA-99 just North of the CA-152 left exit do a great job of hiding that upcoming curve and dip.

While the interchange with CA-99 & CA-152 is pretty outdated it's interesting a good chunk of CA-99 just North of that point leading up to Merced has been completely re-built as Interstate quality freeway.

I'd also add that the northbound approach on CA 99 to CA 152 is pretty modern until the actual junction itself.  Regarding using CA 152 versus CA 120 to reach the Bay Area I've kind of found it to be a wash.  The traffic is bad over Altamont Pass on I-580 just as it is on US 101 to San Jose.  I've often found it easier to take CA 152 over Pacheco Pass and use US 101/CA 85 to get to I-280 for a final run to San Francisco.  I'll admit though that using CA 92, I-880, and I-238 to get to I-580 usually goes fairly smoothly but it usually falls apart with traffic from there.
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: nexus73 on January 05, 2020, 01:48:23 AM
The tall trees alongside NB CA-99 just North of the CA-152 left exit do a great job of hiding that upcoming curve and dip.

While the interchange with CA-99 & CA-152 is pretty outdated it's interesting a good chunk of CA-99 just North of that point leading up to Merced has been completely re-built as Interstate quality freeway.

I'd also add that the northbound approach on CA 99 to CA 152 is pretty modern until the actual junction itself.  Regarding using CA 152 versus CA 120 to reach the Bay Area I've kind of found it to be a wash.  The traffic is bad over Altamont Pass on I-580 just as it is on US 101 to San Jose.  I've often found it easier to take CA 152 over Pacheco Pass and use US 101/CA 85 to get to I-280 for a final run to San Francisco.  I'll admit though that using CA 92, I-880, and I-238 to get to I-580 usually goes fairly smoothly but it usually falls apart with traffic from there.

It's fun knowing the traffic flows!  I loved freeway driving SoCal in the Seventies.  All sorts of stuff was going on at such a massive scale compared to anything in the PNW at that time.  I really dug the differences.  Back then one could still find several routings which were not totally hammered to get around the Southland.  Now it is much more of a slog.  At least the smog is mostly gone compared to then!

Back in 2013. on the return from SoCal, my friend and I came up 101, spent the night in Salinas with the next day's SF traffic being dreaded.  Guess what?  The morning hours past 9 AM saw smooth flow all the way to and through downtown SF!  I was so amazed. 

It will be interesting to see how traffic flows change 20 years from now.  If anyone will be around to post about it, it will be you for sure!

Rick
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: sparker on January 05, 2020, 02:32:10 AM
The tall trees alongside NB CA-99 just North of the CA-152 left exit do a great job of hiding that upcoming curve and dip.

While the interchange with CA-99 & CA-152 is pretty outdated it's interesting a good chunk of CA-99 just North of that point leading up to Merced has been completely re-built as Interstate quality freeway.

The Interstate-grade freeway is in Merced County while the Chowchilla bypass and the CA 152 interchange are in Madera County.   Normally that wouldn't make much of a difference; projects often cross county lines  (in this case the Chowchilla River floodplain) -- but Merced County is part of District 10, while Madera is in District 6 -- and projects rarely cross district boundaries.  The Merced County section was expedited because it was the last section of CA 99 from its southern terminus to Sacramento that hadn't been upgraded to a full freeway -- and Interstate standards have been applied on all upgrades (with the exception of some low bridge clearances between Goshen and Kingsburg) since the Turlock bypass in 1973.  Right now D6's priorities with CA 99 are the section between the Fresno county line (San Joaquin River crossing) and the city of Madera; the section from Madera to just south of CA 152 was itself upgraded over the last 10 years.  But the 152 junction and the adjacent Chowchilla bypass is among the oldest full-freeway sections of 99 (Atwater and Manteca are the others of similar vintage) north of Fresno; no doubt it will be upgraded, but not immediately by any means; other district projects, such as the extension of the CA 180 freeway/expressway east of Fresno as well as what seems to be a never-ending expansion project through Kingsburg and Selma (they were working on that back about '97!).  Complicating D6/99 issues:  the adjacent HSR project, which has affected CA 99 from Fowler north to Madera.     
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: TheStranger on January 05, 2020, 01:05:56 PM

Back in 2013. on the return from SoCal, my friend and I came up 101, spent the night in Salinas with the next day's SF traffic being dreaded.  Guess what?  The morning hours past 9 AM saw smooth flow all the way to and through downtown SF!  I was so amazed. 

I've always wondered how much of the SF commute has been changed over due to people now driving south from SF to tech jobs (or taking the Google buses et al.).  At the same time, the outbound rush hour from SF to Oakland starts around 1:30 PM and doesn't let up most weekdays until 7:30!
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: sparker on January 05, 2020, 11:51:00 PM

Back in 2013. on the return from SoCal, my friend and I came up 101, spent the night in Salinas with the next day's SF traffic being dreaded.  Guess what?  The morning hours past 9 AM saw smooth flow all the way to and through downtown SF!  I was so amazed. 

I've always wondered how much of the SF commute has been changed over due to people now driving south from SF to tech jobs (or taking the Google buses et al.).  At the same time, the outbound rush hour from SF to Oakland starts around 1:30 PM and doesn't let up most weekdays until 7:30!

The northbound commute out of San Jose seems to, at present, start at about 2:30 on 680 and usually a half-hour later on 880, when traffic from 237 begins to add to the mix.  880 seems to let up a bit earlier, though (a bit before 7pm), while on weekdays 680 traffic peaks between 4:30 and 5:30 and doesn't thin out until a bit before 8pm -- with Friday's outbound congestion often lasting a half-hour to an hour later.  One of the ways some workers with homes in the Valley are handling the commute is for a number of workers -- usually from the same firm or at least the same employment locale -- to rent an apartment or condo (Milpitas or Fremont are favored locations, since rents are a bit cheaper than in the San Jose-Palo Alto corridor) during the week (and move in extra beds or futons) -- and go back to their Valley homes on Friday afternoon, returning to their Silicon Valley employment early Monday morning.   Not an inviting -- or tenable -- arrangement for those with kids, but something of an alternative for less-tethered folks who still want to retain a permanent home somewhere.   
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: mrsman on January 07, 2020, 07:03:24 PM

Back in 2013. on the return from SoCal, my friend and I came up 101, spent the night in Salinas with the next day's SF traffic being dreaded.  Guess what?  The morning hours past 9 AM saw smooth flow all the way to and through downtown SF!  I was so amazed. 

I've always wondered how much of the SF commute has been changed over due to people now driving south from SF to tech jobs (or taking the Google buses et al.).  At the same time, the outbound rush hour from SF to Oakland starts around 1:30 PM and doesn't let up most weekdays until 7:30!

The northbound commute out of San Jose seems to, at present, start at about 2:30 on 680 and usually a half-hour later on 880, when traffic from 237 begins to add to the mix.  880 seems to let up a bit earlier, though (a bit before 7pm), while on weekdays 680 traffic peaks between 4:30 and 5:30 and doesn't thin out until a bit before 8pm -- with Friday's outbound congestion often lasting a half-hour to an hour later.  One of the ways some workers with homes in the Valley are handling the commute is for a number of workers -- usually from the same firm or at least the same employment locale -- to rent an apartment or condo (Milpitas or Fremont are favored locations, since rents are a bit cheaper than in the San Jose-Palo Alto corridor) during the week (and move in extra beds or futons) -- and go back to their Valley homes on Friday afternoon, returning to their Silicon Valley employment early Monday morning.   Not an inviting -- or tenable -- arrangement for those with kids, but something of an alternative for less-tethered folks who still want to retain a permanent home somewhere.   

That type of arrangement is sad but somewhat familiar.

About 20 years ago, I knew someone who was a student at UCLA who shared an apartment with several other students in Westwood and on the weekends would go home to Orange County.    This wasn't a single 19 year old college student, but rather a 36 year old adult (with wife and kids in OC) who was going back to school for a B.S. in engineering.  He made an amazing sacrifice, IMO, but it seemed to be the only way that he could get ahead.  Granted, the arrangement was temporary, only for the 4 years that he needed his degree.

I can't imagine somebody doing that in an open-ended way.
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: kkt on January 09, 2020, 11:17:17 PM
My uncle lived in San Diego but taught in a community college in El Centro from the late 1970s to mid 1990s.  To make it work, he did much the same thing:  had a roommate with a cheap apartment in El Centro and stayed there three nights a week.  He was able to arrange his courses so he taught just 4 days a week.
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: sparker on January 10, 2020, 02:10:08 AM
My uncle lived in San Diego but taught in a community college in El Centro from the late 1970s to mid 1990s.  To make it work, he did much the same thing:  had a roommate with a cheap apartment in El Centro and stayed there three nights a week.  He was able to arrange his courses so he taught just 4 days a week.


Not so unusual -- except for intro lower-division classes, holding classes on Friday tends to be assiduously avoided by faculty and students alike.  Profs, at least in my experience (a total of 12 years in undergrad/postgrad programs) often keep office hours on Friday morning, but arrange any appointments so they can be on their merry way by lunchtime.   Getting home or to alternate destinations well before peak commutes is as desirable in the academic arena as anywhere else (and the ability to do so is de facto a perk of tenure).  So a 4-day effective work week is often the rule rather than the exception.  And given the fact that the average CA community college is woefully underfunded -- and faculty is often paid by the class taught rather than a regular salary -- not having to provide certain services on Fridays is considered a positive thing rather than a problem.       
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: dbz77 on January 11, 2020, 07:25:58 PM

But in the not too distant past, 152 was the better way from Fresno to SF.  This was true while there was a traffic signal on 99 in Livingston up until 1996.  That signal caused so much backups that it was far better to force as much traffic as possible to take 5 instead.
Just by looking at the map, the 99 seems to have been routed on what is now Campbell Boulevard, and the traffic signal was an the intersection with Hammatt Avenue.

Can anyone verify this?
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: mrsman on January 11, 2020, 09:28:56 PM

But in the not too distant past, 152 was the better way from Fresno to SF.  This was true while there was a traffic signal on 99 in Livingston up until 1996.  That signal caused so much backups that it was far better to force as much traffic as possible to take 5 instead.
Just by looking at the map, the 99 seems to have been routed on what is now Campbell Boulevard, and the traffic signal was an the intersection with Hammatt Avenue.

Can anyone verify this?

According to this website, 99 was indeed on Campbell, but the last signal was a little to the north at Main, also known as Livingston-Cressey.

A long time ago, I remember a Foster Farms commercial that aired that compared their home town, Livingston, to the big city and ended with a catch phrase that they also have a morning rush hour (in a joke fashion).  Now, that I know that they had this signal, the commercial may have rung true.


https://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM9N2W_Last_Stop_Light_on_99_Livingston_CA
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: sparker on January 11, 2020, 09:47:16 PM
^^^^^^^^^^
Back in the spring of 1966, when the Kingsburg bypass was completed (at about the same time as signage on 99 switched from the US shields to the CA green spades), CH&PW, which had switched formats from a technically-oriented journal to one more aimed at releasing easy-to-digest public information about system updates (almost to the extent of being a "chamber-of-commerce"-type hack job), published a long article about being able to drive continuously from Orange County to Livingston without hitting a single traffic signal -- albeit with quite a few at-grade crossings on the expressway segments.  The article was from the POV of a northbound driver; it concluded with a late-night stop at Main St. in Livingston staring at a red signal aspect.  But the publication itself had only a few more editions before it was abruptly discontinued (not coincidentally with the ascent of the Reagan gubernatorial administration) after the first 1967 issue.   Sad that it was gone -- but the last year's issues were so far removed from the classic informational format that the loss was certainly a mixed bag!    And it's hard to believe that it took another 30 years to obviate that damn signal!  :poke:
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: Max Rockatansky on January 11, 2020, 10:13:41 PM
^^^^^^^^^^
Back in the spring of 1966, when the Kingsburg bypass was completed (at about the same time as signage on 99 switched from the US shields to the CA green spades), CH&PW, which had switched formats from a technically-oriented journal to one more aimed at releasing easy-to-digest public information about system updates (almost to the extent of being a "chamber-of-commerce"-type hack job), published a long article about being able to drive continuously from Orange County to Livingston without hitting a single traffic signal -- albeit with quite a few at-grade crossings on the expressway segments.  The article was from the POV of a northbound driver; it concluded with a late-night stop at Main St. in Livingston staring at a red signal aspect.  But the publication itself had only a few more editions before it was abruptly discontinued (not coincidentally with the ascent of the Reagan gubernatorial administration) after the first 1967 issue.   Sad that it was gone -- but the last year's issues were so far removed from the classic informational format that the loss was certainly a mixed bag!    And it's hard to believe that it took another 30 years to obviate that damn signal!  :poke:

Speaking of those California Highway and Public Works guides, Iíve heard tale they continued as an annual edition for awhile as the Division of Highways spun into itís eventual death spiral.  Is there any validity to those annual editions?...Iíve never actually seen one myself.   
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: Kniwt on January 12, 2020, 01:15:54 AM
Speaking of those California Highway and Public Works guides, Iíve heard tale they continued as an annual edition for awhile as the Division of Highways spun into itís eventual death spiral.  Is there any validity to those annual editions?...Iíve never actually seen one myself.   

I've not seen any trace of CH&PW past 1967, and I just looked again to be sure, but my trail did lead me to this, which I didn't know about and which (as far as I can tell) has never been mentioned in the forum:

https://cdm16436.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16436coll1

Quote
Going Places was created in 1983 as an employee newsletter in an effort to inform Caltrans employees not only of new directions and important activities of the department, but also to highlight contributions of individual workers. Spanning 10 years, this publication offers a unique glimpse into both the institutional history and individual stories of the California Department of Transportation and its employees. Except for the first and last two years of its run, Going Places was published bi-monthly. This collection contains the entire run of the publication.

The first issue I picked at random included an "annual report," which might be the speck of truth in the rumor.

Overall, although an "employee newsletter," the content appears to be such that the public would be informed and/or entertained (not shocked) by it.
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: Max Rockatansky on January 12, 2020, 01:27:22 AM
Speaking of those California Highway and Public Works guides, Iíve heard tale they continued as an annual edition for awhile as the Division of Highways spun into itís eventual death spiral.  Is there any validity to those annual editions?...Iíve never actually seen one myself.   

I've not seen any trace of CH&PW past 1967, and I just looked again to be sure, but my trail did lead me to this, which I didn't know about and which (as far as I can tell) has never been mentioned in the forum:

https://cdm16436.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16436coll1

Quote
Going Places was created in 1983 as an employee newsletter in an effort to inform Caltrans employees not only of new directions and important activities of the department, but also to highlight contributions of individual workers. Spanning 10 years, this publication offers a unique glimpse into both the institutional history and individual stories of the California Department of Transportation and its employees. Except for the first and last two years of its run, Going Places was published bi-monthly. This collection contains the entire run of the publication.

The first issue I picked at random included an "annual report," which might be the speck of truth in the rumor.

Overall, although an "employee newsletter," the content appears to be such that the public would be informed and/or entertained (not shocked) by it.

Flipping through a couple of those newsletters Iím pretty sure thatís what I was told about.  Either way thatís a solid find for the Post Division of Highways era before the internet became viable.   Too bad the 1970s essentially is a black hole of information. 
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: dbz77 on January 12, 2020, 02:47:16 AM
From what I have been able to deduce reading these articles, the plans to convert Highway 99 to a freeway all the way from the bottom of the Grapevine to Sacramento predated the 1950's. This article states that the Livingston section was planned in 1958.

https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Infamous-Blood-Alley-to-Disappear-New-bypass-2960729.php

The intersection was first signalized in the mid-1940's; I am guessing it was a span-wire installation.

The routing of Interstate 5 on the west side of the valley, for faster road access between Los Angeles and San Francisco, most likely delayed the construction of the freeway around Livingston for at least twenty years.

I actually remember this stoplight on a family road trip going home from Reno via Interstate 80 to Highway 99, back in 1988. It was dark, so I could not see if there was a nearby freeway under construction at the time.
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: mrsman on January 12, 2020, 08:42:51 AM
The last signal on CA 99 in Livingston was removed in 1996.
The last signal on US 101 in Santa Barbara was removed in 1991.

LA-SF and LA-Sac traffic was absolutely prioritized to take I-5.  One solitary signal on both of those corridors would force endless delays.  If you were connecting big cities, you had I-5 and it was great.  But for those who needed to make connections in the Central Valley and Central Coast, those delays really did pile on.

The removal of the signals certainly helped balance some of the intrastate traffic around CA.
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: dbz77 on January 12, 2020, 11:55:34 AM
The last signal on CA 99 in Livingston was removed in 1996.
The last signal on US 101 in Santa Barbara was removed in 1991.

LA-SF and LA-Sac traffic was absolutely prioritized to take I-5.  One solitary signal on both of those corridors would force endless delays.  If you were connecting big cities, you had I-5 and it was great.  But for those who needed to make connections in the Central Valley and Central Coast, those delays really did pile on.

The removal of the signals certainly helped balance some of the intrastate traffic around CA.
I wish there was a picture of that signalized intersection in Livingston. I have not been able to find it online.


http://libraryarchives.metro.net/DPGTL/Californiahighways/chpw_1966_julaug.pdf
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: Max Rockatansky on January 12, 2020, 01:00:20 PM
The last signal on CA 99 in Livingston was removed in 1996.
The last signal on US 101 in Santa Barbara was removed in 1991.

LA-SF and LA-Sac traffic was absolutely prioritized to take I-5.  One solitary signal on both of those corridors would force endless delays.  If you were connecting big cities, you had I-5 and it was great.  But for those who needed to make connections in the Central Valley and Central Coast, those delays really did pile on.

The removal of the signals certainly helped balance some of the intrastate traffic around CA.

US 101 between LA-SF has always been fascinating to me.  The corridor essentially engineered to the point where it free flowing but canít be improved upon any further unless specific segments are made full limited access.  I cannot think of another example anywhere in the country where a free flowing expressway (albeit with freeway segments) exists like it does with US 101.  Compared to I-5 and even CA 99 driving US 101 is always intriguing because there are so many varying design standards at play to keep traffic moving. 
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: mrsman on January 12, 2020, 02:05:22 PM
The last signal on CA 99 in Livingston was removed in 1996.
The last signal on US 101 in Santa Barbara was removed in 1991.

LA-SF and LA-Sac traffic was absolutely prioritized to take I-5.  One solitary signal on both of those corridors would force endless delays.  If you were connecting big cities, you had I-5 and it was great.  But for those who needed to make connections in the Central Valley and Central Coast, those delays really did pile on.

The removal of the signals certainly helped balance some of the intrastate traffic around CA.

US 101 between LA-SF has always been fascinating to me.  The corridor essentially engineered to the point where it free flowing but canít be improved upon any further unless specific segments are made full limited access.  I cannot think of another example anywhere in the country where a free flowing expressway (albeit with freeway segments) exists like it does with US 101.  Compared to I-5 and even CA 99 driving US 101 is always intriguing because there are so many varying design standards at play to keep traffic moving.

I view US 101 as a model for other national highways.  We can't put an interstate everywhere, but many areas can be reached with a solid highway built with similar characteristics.  No signals, minimum 4 lanes, medians/guard rails, limited access to businesses, occasional cross traffic.

I'd love to see this in other parts of the country as well.
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: Max Rockatansky on January 12, 2020, 02:21:23 PM
The last signal on CA 99 in Livingston was removed in 1996.
The last signal on US 101 in Santa Barbara was removed in 1991.

LA-SF and LA-Sac traffic was absolutely prioritized to take I-5.  One solitary signal on both of those corridors would force endless delays.  If you were connecting big cities, you had I-5 and it was great.  But for those who needed to make connections in the Central Valley and Central Coast, those delays really did pile on.

The removal of the signals certainly helped balance some of the intrastate traffic around CA.

US 101 between LA-SF has always been fascinating to me.  The corridor essentially engineered to the point where it free flowing but canít be improved upon any further unless specific segments are made full limited access.  I cannot think of another example anywhere in the country where a free flowing expressway (albeit with freeway segments) exists like it does with US 101.  Compared to I-5 and even CA 99 driving US 101 is always intriguing because there are so many varying design standards at play to keep traffic moving.

I view US 101 as a model for other national highways.  We can't put an interstate everywhere, but many areas can be reached with a solid highway built with similar characteristics.  No signals, minimum 4 lanes, medians/guard rails, limited access to businesses, occasional cross traffic.

I'd love to see this in other parts of the country as well.

Most examples Iíve seen in other states usually donít have a fully limited access bypass of population centers like US 101 does.  US 27 south of I-4 has a similar feel to US 101 but lacks the bypass routes necessary to make it truly a fully free flowing expressway.  There are a couple smaller scale variants in California that have no lights like US 101.  One that comes to mind is CA 198 west of CA 99 to Naval Air Station Lemoore.  CA 58 has similar expressway segments East of CA 14 which are even more recent example.  Not every good road needs to be an Interstate regardless of what many in the road geek world might say or think. 
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: mrsman on January 12, 2020, 04:22:14 PM
The last signal on CA 99 in Livingston was removed in 1996.
The last signal on US 101 in Santa Barbara was removed in 1991.

LA-SF and LA-Sac traffic was absolutely prioritized to take I-5.  One solitary signal on both of those corridors would force endless delays.  If you were connecting big cities, you had I-5 and it was great.  But for those who needed to make connections in the Central Valley and Central Coast, those delays really did pile on.

The removal of the signals certainly helped balance some of the intrastate traffic around CA.

US 101 between LA-SF has always been fascinating to me.  The corridor essentially engineered to the point where it free flowing but canít be improved upon any further unless specific segments are made full limited access.  I cannot think of another example anywhere in the country where a free flowing expressway (albeit with freeway segments) exists like it does with US 101.  Compared to I-5 and even CA 99 driving US 101 is always intriguing because there are so many varying design standards at play to keep traffic moving.

I view US 101 as a model for other national highways.  We can't put an interstate everywhere, but many areas can be reached with a solid highway built with similar characteristics.  No signals, minimum 4 lanes, medians/guard rails, limited access to businesses, occasional cross traffic.

I'd love to see this in other parts of the country as well.

Most examples Iíve seen in other states usually donít have a fully limited access bypass of population centers like US 101 does.  US 27 south of I-4 has a similar feel to US 101 but lacks the bypass routes necessary to make it truly a fully free flowing expressway.  There are a couple smaller scale variants in California that have no lights like US 101.  One that comes to mind is CA 198 west of CA 99 to Naval Air Station Lemoore.  CA 58 has similar expressway segments East of CA 14 which are even more recent example.  Not every good road needs to be an Interstate regardless of what many in the road geek world might say or think.

That is true.  Although the jaded view in me thinks that there are few true expressways here in the Northeast to force people to use toll roads and bridges.  Imagine if US 1 from Philly to Newark, NJ were designed like US 101 without traffic signals. It would mean less traffic on the NJTP.
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: sprjus4 on January 12, 2020, 04:59:26 PM
I cannot think of another example anywhere in the country where a free flowing expressway (albeit with freeway segments) exists like it does with US 101.
US-301 in Maryland. No traffic signals, limited-access expressway with intersections & interchanges about 40 miles long, and connecting freeways on either end.

In Texas, US-59 / US-77 between Houston and Refugio, 118 miles long, mix of non-limited-access and limited-access bypass segments, constant 75 mph speed limit, no traffic signals. Once bypasses are constructed of Odem and Refugio, this would be extended another 36 miles southwest towards I-37 connecting to Corpus Christi.
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: Techknow on January 12, 2020, 06:25:07 PM
Most examples Iíve seen in other states usually donít have a fully limited access bypass of population centers like US 101 does.  US 27 south of I-4 has a similar feel to US 101 but lacks the bypass routes necessary to make it truly a fully free flowing expressway.  There are a couple smaller scale variants in California that have no lights like US 101.  One that comes to mind is CA 198 west of CA 99 to Naval Air Station Lemoore.  CA 58 has similar expressway segments East of CA 14 which are even more recent example.  Not every good road needs to be an Interstate regardless of what many in the road geek world might say or think.
US 50 from I-80 fits this description as well, freeway quality to Placerville and then expressway several miles towards Sly Park Road at Pollock Pines.
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: Max Rockatansky on January 12, 2020, 06:35:18 PM
I cannot think of another example anywhere in the country where a free flowing expressway (albeit with freeway segments) exists like it does with US 101.
US-301 in Maryland. No traffic signals, limited-access expressway with intersections & interchanges about 40 miles long, and connecting freeways on either end.

In Texas, US-59 / US-77 between Houston and Refugio, 118 miles long, mix of non-limited-access and limited-access bypass segments, constant 75 mph speed limit, no traffic signals. Once bypasses are constructed of Odem and Refugio, this would be extended another 36 miles southwest towards I-37 connecting to Corpus Christi.

Another one that comes to mind that I didnít think of earlier is US 127 north of I-69 to US 10.  Even when US 27 was still the primary highway in the area it was always a really high class expressway north of St. Johnís.  The addition of a freeway segment north of I-69 made it a really handy alternate to I-75 heading to the Upper Peninsula. 

Back to California Iíve always found the expressway configuration of CA 70, CA 149, and CA 99 around Oroville/Chico to be really handy.  If CA 70 could ever get expanded and bypass Marysville that would be the ticket. 
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: dbz77 on January 12, 2020, 08:16:05 PM
The last signal on CA 99 in Livingston was removed in 1996.
The last signal on US 101 in Santa Barbara was removed in 1991.

LA-SF and LA-Sac traffic was absolutely prioritized to take I-5.  One solitary signal on both of those corridors would force endless delays.  If you were connecting big cities, you had I-5 and it was great.  But for those who needed to make connections in the Central Valley and Central Coast, those delays really did pile on.

The removal of the signals certainly helped balance some of the intrastate traffic around CA.

US 101 between LA-SF has always been fascinating to me.  The corridor essentially engineered to the point where it free flowing but canít be improved upon any further unless specific segments are made full limited access.  I cannot think of another example anywhere in the country where a free flowing expressway (albeit with freeway segments) exists like it does with US 101.  Compared to I-5 and even CA 99 driving US 101 is always intriguing because there are so many varying design standards at play to keep traffic moving.

I view US 101 as a model for other national highways.  We can't put an interstate everywhere, but many areas can be reached with a solid highway built with similar characteristics.  No signals, minimum 4 lanes, medians/guard rails, limited access to businesses, occasional cross traffic.

I'd love to see this in other parts of the country as well.
True.

a rule of thumb would be we only need a freeway upgrade if it is to bypass a population center greater than 100,000 people, or if there are population centers with 100,000 people within one hundred miles in both directions.

This situation became true of the 99 between Grapevine and Sacramento by 1970.
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: Max Rockatansky on January 12, 2020, 08:23:35 PM
The last signal on CA 99 in Livingston was removed in 1996.
The last signal on US 101 in Santa Barbara was removed in 1991.

LA-SF and LA-Sac traffic was absolutely prioritized to take I-5.  One solitary signal on both of those corridors would force endless delays.  If you were connecting big cities, you had I-5 and it was great.  But for those who needed to make connections in the Central Valley and Central Coast, those delays really did pile on.

The removal of the signals certainly helped balance some of the intrastate traffic around CA.

US 101 between LA-SF has always been fascinating to me.  The corridor essentially engineered to the point where it free flowing but canít be improved upon any further unless specific segments are made full limited access.  I cannot think of another example anywhere in the country where a free flowing expressway (albeit with freeway segments) exists like it does with US 101.  Compared to I-5 and even CA 99 driving US 101 is always intriguing because there are so many varying design standards at play to keep traffic moving.

I view US 101 as a model for other national highways.  We can't put an interstate everywhere, but many areas can be reached with a solid highway built with similar characteristics.  No signals, minimum 4 lanes, medians/guard rails, limited access to businesses, occasional cross traffic.

I'd love to see this in other parts of the country as well.
True.

a rule of thumb would be we only need a freeway upgrade if it is to bypass a population center greater than 100,000 people, or if there are population centers with 100,000 people within one hundred miles in both directions.

This situation became true of the 99 between Grapevine and Sacramento by 1970.

But thatís the thing with US 101, more often than not between SF-LA the highway bypasses towns mostly on freeway grades way under that population figure.  The majority of at grade intersections usually are in rural areas and many only allow traffic to go one direction.  Prunedale comes to mind as where this kind of configuration can be seen in regular usage.  US 101 bypasss Salinas on a freeway grade but has a ton of at grade intersections within gun Prunedale.  I want to say the only at grade intersections between CA 183 and CA 156 which allows traffic to turn both ways is Rocks Road. 
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: Kniwt on January 13, 2020, 10:59:12 PM
https://cdm16436.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16436coll1

Flipping through a couple of those newsletters Iím pretty sure thatís what I was told about.  Either way thatís a solid find for the Post Division of Highways era before the internet became viable.   Too bad the 1970s essentially is a black hole of information. 

Now that I've had time to read a few more of these, they really do read like a feel-good version of CH&PW updated for the '80s, complete with the "cool" graphic design, but still with many photo-laden articles about the big (and small) projects of the era. About the only things missing are the pages of agate at the back listing contracts and other ephemera ... but those had been jettisoned by the end of CH&PW anyway.

And it turns out that Going Places was intended for public consumption -- a note on the contents page indicates that anyone could buy a subscription for a mere $9/year.
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: sparker on January 14, 2020, 02:40:51 AM
^^^^^^^^^^^
Even though the last year ('66) of CH&PW paled in comparison with the previous 40+, they still managed to list and describe any formal freeway adoptions alongside the "fluff".  It appears, at least to me, that the DOH was attempting to transition the publication into what eventually became "Going Places" (which dispensed with most technical content) in order to actually attract subscribers.  Of course, the whole thing became moot once the original publication was terminated the following year, only to re-emerge in the "GP" format a little more than a decade later.   But any reiterated acknowledgement that the revamped-as-Caltrans DOH still was engaged in highway development had to wait until the Gianturco agency leadership was in the rear view mirror ('83).   
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: doorknob60 on January 15, 2020, 05:03:34 PM
I cannot think of another example anywhere in the country where a free flowing expressway (albeit with freeway segments) exists like it does with US 101.
US-301 in Maryland. No traffic signals, limited-access expressway with intersections & interchanges about 40 miles long, and connecting freeways on either end.

This is a good road, I used it driving from NJ to Washington, DC and it worked great. Very little traffic until I hit US-50, and then it was still free flowing. My only complaint is the 55 MPH speed limit, make it 65 and I'd have no complaints. I was driving 65-70 the whole way regardless.
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: sprjus4 on January 15, 2020, 06:05:59 PM
I cannot think of another example anywhere in the country where a free flowing expressway (albeit with freeway segments) exists like it does with US 101.
US-301 in Maryland. No traffic signals, limited-access expressway with intersections & interchanges about 40 miles long, and connecting freeways on either end.

This is a good road, I used it driving from NJ to Washington, DC and it worked great. Very little traffic until I hit US-50, and then it was still free flowing. My only complaint is the 55 MPH speed limit, make it 65 and I'd have no complaints. I was driving 65-70 the whole way regardless.
Very nice bypass of the I-95 corridor and Baltimore. With the recently completed Middletown Bypass, the roadway becomes a 65 mph freeway upon entering Delaware and ties directly into the DE-1 freeway.

Agreed about the speed limit on the Maryland portion. Like any state in the northeast, because there's at-grade crossings, the whole roadway is restricted to a maximum limit of 55 mph despite the roadway having an interstate-standard cross section and is limited access. When I used it, I had my cruise control set at 70 mph the entire way without any issues. I was passed multiple times by traffic doing up to 80 mph, and only passed a few vehicles myself. With the exception of those at-grade crossings, the roadway practically is a 70 mph interstate highway.
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: Kniwt on January 15, 2020, 08:13:16 PM
Speaking of those California Highway and Public Works guides, I’ve heard tale they continued as an annual edition for awhile as the Division of Highways spun into it’s eventual death spiral.  Is there any validity to those annual editions?...I’ve never actually seen one myself.   

I've not seen any trace of CH&PW past 1967, and I just looked again to be sure, but my trail did lead me to this, which I didn't know about and which (as far as I can tell) has never been mentioned in the forum:

https://cdm16436.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16436coll1

Flipping through a couple of those newsletters I’m pretty sure that’s what I was told about.  Either way that’s a solid find for the Post Division of Highways era before the internet became viable.   Too bad the 1970s essentially is a black hole of information. 

Here's an interesting tidbit found in the January-February 1990 (post-earthquake) edition of Going Places, which seems to suggest there might actually be something from the '70s:
https://cdm16436.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16436coll1/id/712/rec/37

Quote
... Those words, by Wendall Pond, the department's chief bridge engineer in the south state, were included in the California Highways magazine following the 1971 San Francisco earthquake.

I've looked and looked for some evidence of this, but I still can't find anything to indicate that CH(&PW?) was published past 1967, but this is intriguing to say the least.
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: skluth on January 15, 2020, 08:27:11 PM
A good non-stop expressway is WI 29 in Wisconsin. You can go from I-94 west of Eau Claire to Green Bay with no stops. There are bypasses at Chip Falls, Abbotsford, Wausau, Wittenburg, and Shawano/ Bonduel. US 67 south of MO 110 to Poplar Bluff, MO is also a four-lane non-stop expressway. I'm sure there are others I've traveled. But I've taken these two a few times and they're great highways.
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: Max Rockatansky on January 15, 2020, 11:56:18 PM
Speaking of those California Highway and Public Works guides, Iíve heard tale they continued as an annual edition for awhile as the Division of Highways spun into itís eventual death spiral.  Is there any validity to those annual editions?...Iíve never actually seen one myself.   

I've not seen any trace of CH&PW past 1967, and I just looked again to be sure, but my trail did lead me to this, which I didn't know about and which (as far as I can tell) has never been mentioned in the forum:

https://cdm16436.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16436coll1

Flipping through a couple of those newsletters Iím pretty sure thatís what I was told about.  Either way thatís a solid find for the Post Division of Highways era before the internet became viable.   Too bad the 1970s essentially is a black hole of information. 

Here's an interesting tidbit found in the January-February 1990 (post-earthquake) edition of Going Places, which seems to suggest there might actually be something from the '70s:
https://cdm16436.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16436coll1/id/712/rec/37

Quote
... Those words, by Wendall Pond, the department's chief bridge engineer in the south state, were included in the California Highways magazine following the 1971 San Francisco earthquake.

I've looked and looked for some evidence of this, but I still can't find anything to indicate that CH(&PW?) was published past 1967, but this is intriguing to say the least.

It certainly sounds like there was something published during those years leading up to the Division of Highways being scrapped in favor Caltrans.  If something from the 1970s is out there I certainly hope it gets recovered and scanned online.  I tend to think that there might be a couple documents out there, it seems that Caltrans regularly published semi-annual State Highway Maps starting in 1975.  The last Division of Highways State Map I can find is from 1970, that five year gap has left a ton of open mysteries on project time frames on Gribblenation. 
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: mgk920 on January 16, 2020, 12:13:50 PM
A good non-stop expressway is WI 29 in Wisconsin. You can go from I-94 west of Eau Claire to Green Bay with no stops. There are bypasses at Chip Falls, Abbotsford, Wausau, Wittenburg, and Shawano/ Bonduel. US 67 south of MO 110 to Poplar Bluff, MO is also a four-lane non-stop expressway. I'm sure there are others I've traveled. But I've taken these two a few times and they're great highways.

Also, outside of Madison, WI, all of US 151 in Wisconsin west of Fond du Lac, WI is also four lanes/free-flowing.

Mike
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: sparker on January 16, 2020, 04:59:55 PM
The principal difference between CA 99 and US 101 in terms of development is that the 99 corridor has the "master plan", finalized circa 2006, that provides a schematic for the various upgrades that have been deployed and are yet to come, with the final goal being a minimum-6-lane facility (it's already full freeway) with even 8+ lanes in some more urbanized areas.  The upgrades, which have been almost continuous for well over 20 years now, are intended to bite off relatively small chunks at a time, which tends to make them fit into the overall agency budget quite well.  In contrast, US 101 has no such overall plan; any upgrades are decided by the various districts through which it travels -- in some locales in conjunction with the Coastal Commission, which has veto/edit powers regarding facilities close to the ocean -- quite a bit of the overall length.  And unlike I-5 and CA 99, US 101, although de facto a commercial artery, isn't being "groomed" as is CA 99 for long-term and long-distance commercial activity.  It's being done more on the basis of "if it isn't broke, don't fix it!"  And the current mixture of freeway and sporadic expressway segments seems to be working out just fine for the time being -- and if the recent modifications in the Rincon and Prunedale areas -- clearing up cross-traffic safety and congestion issues but hardly approaching Interstate-grade configurations -- are any indication, the various Caltrans districts approach US 101 improvements on a more "customized" basis -- rather than simply applying standards more appropriate for the archetypal 70 mph freeway.   It's likely that 30 or so years down the line CA 99 will resemble the model outlined in its master plan; it's just as likely that US 101 will still be the amalgalm of full freeway and rural expressway it presently is. 
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: Bobby5280 on January 16, 2020, 09:16:49 PM
I think 30 or so years from now California could be a very different place if the state doesn't start waking up to some dysfunctional realities that could screw its real estate industry and overall economy for a really long time. Young, American-born residents are leaving the state in droves due to the insane living costs. Combine that with America's current anti-immigrant, borderline nationalist vibe. That sours potential foreign buyers from wanting to snap up over-priced real estate properties along the coast when the American owners are getting really old and wanting to cash out. There's going to be a lot of people who paid huge for their homes and possibly very few people wanting to buy. Lots of other big urban markets around the US are headed in this direction.

Anyway, the elites in California just need to enjoy that bubble economy while it lasts.

30 years from now CA-99 will be a fully Interstate-class facility, whether it carries an Interstate designation or not. It probably won't. At the same time the town fathers along or near the coast who blocked various US-101 upgrades in the past could be crying out for them in earnest as a means of trying to spur local economic development.
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: Max Rockatansky on January 16, 2020, 09:52:14 PM
I think 30 or so years from now California could be a very different place if the state doesn't start waking up to some dysfunctional realities that could screw its real estate industry and overall economy for a really long time. Young, American-born residents are leaving the state in droves due to the insane living costs. Combine that with America's current anti-immigrant, borderline nationalist vibe. That sours potential foreign buyers from wanting to snap up over-priced real estate properties along the coast when the American owners are getting really old and wanting to cash out. There's going to be a lot of people who paid huge for their homes and possibly very few people wanting to buy. Lots of other big urban markets around the US are headed in this direction.

Anyway, the elites in California just need to enjoy that bubble economy while it lasts.

30 years from now CA-99 will be a fully Interstate-class facility, whether it carries an Interstate designation or not. It probably won't. At the same time the town fathers along or near the coast who blocked various US-101 upgrades in the past could be crying out for them in earnest as a means of trying to spur local economic development.

Ironically almost none of those urban housing issues are present along the corridor of 99.  99 is mostly in agricultural centric area, the cost of living and mode of life is almost completely opposite to the big cities.  Home prices around places like Fresno and Bakersfield are very reasonable compared to the rest of the state.  Right now 99 is on track to be fully modernized sooner rather than later.  If the project south of 198 can get funded again that will be a huge boost the viability of the Golden State Freeway through Tulare County. 
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: sparker on January 17, 2020, 05:10:00 AM
I think 30 or so years from now California could be a very different place if the state doesn't start waking up to some dysfunctional realities that could screw its real estate industry and overall economy for a really long time. Young, American-born residents are leaving the state in droves due to the insane living costs. Combine that with America's current anti-immigrant, borderline nationalist vibe. That sours potential foreign buyers from wanting to snap up over-priced real estate properties along the coast when the American owners are getting really old and wanting to cash out. There's going to be a lot of people who paid huge for their homes and possibly very few people wanting to buy. Lots of other big urban markets around the US are headed in this direction.

Anyway, the elites in California just need to enjoy that bubble economy while it lasts.

30 years from now CA-99 will be a fully Interstate-class facility, whether it carries an Interstate designation or not. It probably won't. At the same time the town fathers along or near the coast who blocked various US-101 upgrades in the past could be crying out for them in earnest as a means of trying to spur local economic development.

Ironically almost none of those urban housing issues are present along the corridor of 99.  99 is mostly in agricultural centric area, the cost of living and mode of life is almost completely opposite to the big cities.  Home prices around places like Fresno and Bakersfield are very reasonable compared to the rest of the state.  Right now 99 is on track to be fully modernized sooner rather than later.  If the project south of 198 can get funded again that will be a huge boost the viability of the Golden State Freeway through Tulare County. 

The issue with the section of CA 99 in Tulare County (essentially from the north end of Delano to the Kings River) are the absolutely huge number of substandard (read low -- 15'6" and under) overcrossings.  Even the widening project from Goshen up to the Kings River didn't tackle the low overpasses; they just widened the carriageways beneath them.   Just traveling on 99 in the south part of the county through the small towns of Tipton, Earlimart, and Pixley is a blast from the past -- most of the structures date from 1963 or earlier, when even Interstate standards allowed clearances less than 15 feet.  Many of these overpasses have gashes or chunks broken off by overheight trucks passing under them -- trailers can and do "bounce" anywhere up to a couple of feet over their stated height, particularly on aging jointed concrete pavement.    The latter issue (old/uneven pavement) has seen quite a few "spot" repair projects including asphalt "capping" -- but with breaks under the bridges so as not to exacerbate the clearance problems.  Of course there are solutions -- raising the bridges, scooping out/lowering the pavement underneath them, or simply reconstructing the overcrossing to present standards.  The latter is cited in the CA 99 "master plan" as Caltrans' preferred methodology -- although like with most recent plans of this type, it doesn't include dedicated funds to accomplish this; it's dependent upon either multi-year STIP programmed outlays or the use of maintenance funds to effect sporadic fixes. 

But an additional issue with the Tulare County 99 segment is that it features the lowest overall traffic volume of the entire corridor; considerably lower than from the Fresno area north, which functions as an agricultural-product "conveyor belt" to the food processors in the Bay Area and Stockton-Sacramento.   That section has gotten considerably more attention re upgrades/expansion than the portion to the south -- most probably because it featured the last expressway segments of the whole Valley corridor -- the section south of Fresno was full freeway by the late '60's -- albeit not to current standards -- so it was viewed as a fait accompli by both DOH/Caltrans and the general driving public.  It wasn't until the massive traffic increases on the corridor by the '80's corresponding to the rapid growth of Bakersfield, Fresno, and the Modesto area coupled with increased regional agricultural output that pressure to make the corridor more efficient was felt.  But the priority was to eliminate the grade crossings rampant north of Fresno; the already-completed freeway south of CA 198 was relegated to secondary consideration.   And as of 2017, the entire corridor -- Wheeler Ridge to Sacramento -- is full freeway, regardless of age or standards. 

And Max is completely correct -- if the housing prices along 99 lag behind the coastal regions, that will prompt even further development up and down the corridor -- little towns like Ripon and Salida are becoming favored exurban developmental areas as overflow from Manteca and Lathrop, themselves overflow from Tracy.   CA "sprawl" tends to follow perceived property bargains, even if many of those come with outsized costs in terms of commute time and money.  So, to date, most of the "action" involved in fulfilling the CA 99 "master plan" has been directed to the north part of the corridor due to the aggregate pressure emanating from the increased regional housing supply.   For better or worse, the southern portion has received, in relative terms, the funding "scraps" as a result.       
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: Max Rockatansky on January 17, 2020, 01:44:03 PM
Regarding Tulare County there are also some really vintage right-on/right-off ramps that are pure 1950s.  Most of the existing overpasses south of 198 to Delano seem to have time stamps from 1956-1958 on them.  There is at least one left hand on-ramp that I can think off the top of my head near Tulare which can sneak up on you if youíre trying to pass a truck.  As much as Tulare County segment or 99 is a blast from the past it can be barely adequate if the truckers and a slow left lane driver are present.  The other segment that has similar problems is north of Merced, but that one is already being improved due to the priority Bay Area sprawl has brought. 
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: sparker on January 17, 2020, 06:07:10 PM
Regarding Tulare County there are also some really vintage right-on/right-off ramps that are pure 1950s.  Most of the existing overpasses south of 198 to Delano seem to have time stamps from 1956-1958 on them.  There is at least one left hand on-ramp that I can think off the top of my head near Tulare which can sneak up on you if youíre trying to pass a truck.  As much as Tulare County segment or 99 is a blast from the past it can be barely adequate if the truckers and a slow left lane driver are present.  The other segment that has similar problems is north of Merced, but that one is already being improved due to the priority Bay Area sprawl has brought. 

Addressing the Bay sprawl has certainly prompted several upgrade projects; Manteca-Stockton was completed last year, with spot improvements north all the way into Elk Grove including reconfiguring a number of interchanges in Galt and the replacement of the low-clearance (14'5"!) RR underpass near Grant Line Road.  However, much of the CA 99 segment north of Stockton still features an array of lower-clearance overpasses markedly similar to the Tulare County stretch; AFAIK there are no pending projects to remedy this.  Right now Bay Area overflow/"affordable" housing extends to the north end of Stockton; north of there much of the land is too valuable as farms and/or vineyards to be converted to housing tracts.  So the south-of-Sacramento development essentially ends at the Consumnes River floodplain; south from there to Stockton still hasn't experienced the level of development seen in Elk Grove, Manteca, and Lathrop.   It's probably not a coincidence that the segment of CA 99 passing through that less developed area has only seen "as needed" improvements; it just hasn't been prioritized like the sections serving Bay overflow.  Sort of a "mini-Tulare" situation;  most of those 15' or so overpasses will probably remain the same for quite some time.     
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: dbz77 on January 17, 2020, 09:41:57 PM

In Texas, US-59 / US-77 between Houston and Refugio, 118 miles long, mix of non-limited-access and limited-access bypass segments, constant 75 mph speed limit, no traffic signals. Once bypasses are constructed of Odem and Refugio, this would be extended another 36 miles southwest towards I-37 connecting to Corpus Christi.
Highway 41 between Lemoore and Fresno is a fun drive (though there are traffic signals every few miles or so).

I do notice rural expressways have very wide medians, which makes it easier to convert to full freeway if traffic gets heavier. Clark County 215 in Nevada is another exampled (The section in western Las Vegas was built as an expressway first, and the freeway was built in the median as funding became available.)
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: sparker on January 18, 2020, 02:14:50 AM
Highway 41 between Lemoore and Fresno is a fun drive (though there are traffic signals every few miles or so).

I do notice rural expressways have very wide medians, which makes it easier to convert to full freeway if traffic gets heavier. Clark County 215 in Nevada is another exampled (The section in western Las Vegas was built as an expressway first, and the freeway was built in the median as funding became available.)

The term "expressway" is pretty fluid in CA; many "named" expressways, particularly here in the San Jose area, have plenty of traffic signals.   Rural expressways such as CA 41 south of Fresno generally only feature signals at major crossing arterials (including state highways, of course) or connectors to adjoining towns.  And aside from the generous medians, many frontage roads flare out at intersections in order to be able to accommodate diamond ramps when and if interchanges are built in the future.  The CC215 example (widely spaced directional "frontage" roads with room in between to accommodate eventual freeway lanes) was pioneered in Texas several decades ago; a current example of a "work in progress" in that state that is following that motif is I-69C along US 281; it's very gradually being upgraded to a full freeway using that very method. 
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: Max Rockatansky on January 18, 2020, 10:29:32 AM
Highway 41 between Lemoore and Fresno is a fun drive (though there are traffic signals every few miles or so).

I do notice rural expressways have very wide medians, which makes it easier to convert to full freeway if traffic gets heavier. Clark County 215 in Nevada is another exampled (The section in western Las Vegas was built as an expressway first, and the freeway was built in the median as funding became available.)

The term "expressway" is pretty fluid in CA; many "named" expressways, particularly here in the San Jose area, have plenty of traffic signals.   Rural expressways such as CA 41 south of Fresno generally only feature signals at major crossing arterials (including state highways, of course) or connectors to adjoining towns.  And aside from the generous medians, many frontage roads flare out at intersections in order to be able to accommodate diamond ramps when and if interchanges are built in the future.  The CC215 example (widely spaced directional "frontage" roads with room in between to accommodate eventual freeway lanes) was pioneered in Texas several decades ago; a current example of a "work in progress" in that state that is following that motif is I-69C along US 281; it's very gradually being upgraded to a full freeway using that very method.

And CA 41 has one of the infamous two-lane expressway segments from Elkhorn Avenue south to Excelsior Avenue where it opens back up to four lanes.  Iíd argue CA 41 south of Lemoore to CA 46 also falls under that vague definition of a two-lane expressway.  It would be nice on 41 if a couple of those traffic signals between South Avenue and Elkhorn Avenue went away given how long they can be.  Most traffic can cross just fine without signals, it seems the lights are placed where there is a commercial trucking interest. 
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: sprjus4 on January 18, 2020, 12:07:20 PM
Highway 41 between Lemoore and Fresno is a fun drive (though there are traffic signals every few miles or so).

I do notice rural expressways have very wide medians, which makes it easier to convert to full freeway if traffic gets heavier. Clark County 215 in Nevada is another exampled (The section in western Las Vegas was built as an expressway first, and the freeway was built in the median as funding became available.)

The term "expressway" is pretty fluid in CA; many "named" expressways, particularly here in the San Jose area, have plenty of traffic signals.   Rural expressways such as CA 41 south of Fresno generally only feature signals at major crossing arterials (including state highways, of course) or connectors to adjoining towns.  And aside from the generous medians, many frontage roads flare out at intersections in order to be able to accommodate diamond ramps when and if interchanges are built in the future.  The CC215 example (widely spaced directional "frontage" roads with room in between to accommodate eventual freeway lanes) was pioneered in Texas several decades ago; a current example of a "work in progress" in that state that is following that motif is I-69C along US 281; it's very gradually being upgraded to a full freeway using that very method.

And CA 41 has one of the infamous two-lane expressway segments from Elkhorn Avenue south to Excelsior Avenue where it opens back up to four lanes.  Iíd argue CA 41 south of Lemoore to CA 46 also falls under that vague definition of a two-lane expressway.  It would be nice on 41 if a couple of those traffic signals between South Avenue and Elkhorn Avenue went away given how long they can be.  Most traffic can cross just fine without signals, it seems the lights are placed where there is a commercial trucking interest.
The segment from Elkhorn Ave northwards could reasonably be upgraded to freeway standards... the roadway is already limited access and many of the cross roads have traffic signals. Replace those with interchanges, and overpasses for minor connections.

The remaining 2-lane segment is also on limited-access right of way, and needs to be dualized to provide a consistent 4 lane section as well, either expressway (cross roads, no signals) or freeway.
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: Max Rockatansky on January 18, 2020, 11:33:40 PM
Highway 41 between Lemoore and Fresno is a fun drive (though there are traffic signals every few miles or so).

I do notice rural expressways have very wide medians, which makes it easier to convert to full freeway if traffic gets heavier. Clark County 215 in Nevada is another exampled (The section in western Las Vegas was built as an expressway first, and the freeway was built in the median as funding became available.)

The term "expressway" is pretty fluid in CA; many "named" expressways, particularly here in the San Jose area, have plenty of traffic signals.   Rural expressways such as CA 41 south of Fresno generally only feature signals at major crossing arterials (including state highways, of course) or connectors to adjoining towns.  And aside from the generous medians, many frontage roads flare out at intersections in order to be able to accommodate diamond ramps when and if interchanges are built in the future.  The CC215 example (widely spaced directional "frontage" roads with room in between to accommodate eventual freeway lanes) was pioneered in Texas several decades ago; a current example of a "work in progress" in that state that is following that motif is I-69C along US 281; it's very gradually being upgraded to a full freeway using that very method.

And CA 41 has one of the infamous two-lane expressway segments from Elkhorn Avenue south to Excelsior Avenue where it opens back up to four lanes.  Iíd argue CA 41 south of Lemoore to CA 46 also falls under that vague definition of a two-lane expressway.  It would be nice on 41 if a couple of those traffic signals between South Avenue and Elkhorn Avenue went away given how long they can be.  Most traffic can cross just fine without signals, it seems the lights are placed where there is a commercial trucking interest.
The segment from Elkhorn Ave northwards could reasonably be upgraded to freeway standards... the roadway is already limited access and many of the cross roads have traffic signals. Replace those with interchanges, and overpasses for minor connections.

The remaining 2-lane segment is also on limited-access right of way, and needs to be dualized to provide a consistent 4 lane section as well, either expressway (cross roads, no signals) or freeway.

The problem north of Elkhorn is that the traffic volume likely isn't high enough to justify interchanges until maybe Adams Avenue.  With the 2-lane segment south of Elkhorn the main issue is any expressway expansion is going to consume what is left of the community of Camden.  Considering that traffic volume is kind of way too highway for a 2-lane segment with heavy CHP enforcement I kind of find it surprising that it hasn't been a priority for District 6.
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: Max Rockatansky on January 18, 2020, 11:38:35 PM
With the Avenue 7 overpass being closed due to HSR construction there is presently a good opportunity to view the original alignment of US 99 from the overpass.  Even the pre-1928 alignment through Herndon can be seen east of UP tracks behind the power line in the first photos.  The first photo is looking south from Avenue 7, the second is looking north, and the third is a map a drew showing the pre-1928 alignment of US 99 through Herndon:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49406423373_56dce1a745_4k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2igSQnK)IMG_0023 (https://flic.kr/p/2igSQnK) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49406898521_42d585024b_4k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2igVgBX)IMG_0029 (https://flic.kr/p/2igVgBX) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr

(https://live.staticflickr.com/7831/46517103195_c53098c230_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2dSyj9B)Herndon (https://flic.kr/p/2dSyj9B) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: mrsman on January 19, 2020, 08:37:39 AM
About how wide would you estimate the pavement those original 99 corridors in the above photos?  (To me, it seems about 15 feet)

It seems to me that it isn't wide enough for two cars to comfortably pass each other, so likely if two cars are approaching head-on, both cars would be expected to drive half in the dirt so that they could both pass.

Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: Max Rockatansky on January 19, 2020, 09:05:58 AM
About how wide would you estimate the pavement those original 99 corridors in the above photos?  (To me, it seems about 15 feet)

It seems to me that it isn't wide enough for two cars to comfortably pass each other, so likely if two cars are approaching head-on, both cars would be expected to drive half in the dirt so that they could both pass.

The Herndon Bridge was a single lane but those concrete slabs are about 20 feet wide.  That segment at the overpass would have still been in service until 99 was widened to four lanes.  You can see there probably was some asphalt top layering over the years. 
Title: Re: CA 99
Post by: kkt on January 20, 2020, 12:39:02 AM
10 foot wide lanes were standard and considered sufficient even for major highways until the mid 1950s.  Cars and especially trucks were smaller then.