CA 99 - The Final Countdown

[nexus73]

Oh heck, just return US 99 and call it a day!  Oregon has large stretches of 99 to add in and so does the Puget Sound area.  The rest can be multiplexed onto I-5. 

Rick

[Max Rockatansky]

Oh heck, just return US 99 and call it a day!  Oregon has large stretches of 99 to add in and so does the Puget Sound area.  The rest can be multiplexed onto I-5. 

Rick

As much as I agree you have to understand that fussy Caltrans policy made that impossible in the 1960s when they renumbered most of the "simplified" the state highways and truncated a lot of the U.S. Routes.  Thing you got to understand is that Caltrans hates multiplexes and duplicate numbers more than a three year old hates eating their veggies.  That's how crap like I-238 has happened out here. 

[Thunderbyrd316]

Oh heck, just return US 99 and call it a day!  Oregon has large stretches of 99 to add in and so does the Puget Sound area.  The rest can be multiplexed onto I-5. 

Rick

   I myself have advocated on another thread that U.S. 99 should be reinstated from Wheeler Ridge to Red Bluff, routed over existing S.R. 70 and S.R. 149 through Marysville and Oroville. Then existing S.R. 99 through Yuba City could either be U.S. 99 Business or U.S. 99A (or 99 alt.). This would be well over 300 miles and would give the Fresno and Bakersfield metro areas a "Federal" highway. Just my 2 cents.

[The Ghostbuster]

Why hasn't someone started playing the Europe song yet? It was in a Geico commercial not terribly long ago.

[Alex]

Why hasn't someone started playing the Europe song yet? It was in a Geico commercial not terribly long ago.

Damn song keeps repeating itself in my head because of this thread... 

On a serious note, should CA 99 be upgraded to an Interstate, has the question of Interstate 7 versus Interstate 9 ever been decided?

[paulthemapguy]

It's always kind of amazed me how California can have these really long important highways with 3-digit numbers, but then the basic numbers like 7 and 9 are dinky little stubs.  If CA99 becomes I-7 or I-9 I don't think it'll be a problem replacing the numbers on CA-7 or CA-9.

[kkt]

It's always kind of amazed me how California can have these really long important highways with 3-digit numbers, but then the basic numbers like 7 and 9 are dinky little stubs.  If CA99 becomes I-7 or I-9 I don't think it'll be a problem replacing the numbers on CA-7 or CA-9.

CA 9 is not such a short route.  It's a significant secondary route over a mountain pass, even if it's just the coast range.

I think at least some of the state route numbers were assigned by seniority, so if they were established first they got low numbers.  That doesn't explain CA 7, obviously.

[myosh_tino]

It's always kind of amazed me how California can have these really long important highways with 3-digit numbers, but then the basic numbers like 7 and 9 are dinky little stubs.  If CA99 becomes I-7 or I-9 I don't think it'll be a problem replacing the numbers on CA-7 or CA-9.

CA 9 is not such a short route.  It's a significant secondary route over a mountain pass, even if it's just the coast range.

I think at least some of the state route numbers were assigned by seniority, so if they were established first they got low numbers.  That doesn't explain CA 7, obviously.

The Long Beach Freeway used to be CA-7 before being renumbered to I-710 in 1983.

[DTComposer]

It's always kind of amazed me how California can have these really long important highways with 3-digit numbers, but then the basic numbers like 7 and 9 are dinky little stubs.  If CA99 becomes I-7 or I-9 I don't think it'll be a problem replacing the numbers on CA-7 or CA-9.

CA 9 is not such a short route.  It's a significant secondary route over a mountain pass, even if it's just the coast range.

I think at least some of the state route numbers were assigned by seniority, so if they were established first they got low numbers.  That doesn't explain CA 7, obviously.

The Long Beach Freeway used to be CA-7 before being renumbered to I-710 in 1983.

There are many sources for this online, but basically when California first signed routes in the 1930s they had a vague grid system and alternated between north and south. Therefore, Northern California had north-south running routes of:
1 (same as today plus extensions)
5 (renumbered as 35 due to I-5)
9 (same as today, although truncated)
13 (soon renumbered to 17)
17 (unsure if this was used on part of today's 17 or I-880)
21 (today's I-680)
25 (same as today)
etc., and Southern California had:
3 (today's southern portion of CA-1)
7 (part of today's I-405)
11 (today's 110)
15 (later 7, today's I-710)
19 (same as today)
etc.
even numbered routes ran west-east, same general idea.

As for bringing US-99 back and connecting it to Oregon: how about extending it west from Red Bluff along CA-36, then up CA-3/CA-263/CA-96 back to I-5? Then the "multiplex" along I-5 is only 10 miles or so to the state line. It also frees up 3 for use should US-101 ever need to become Interstate (I'm not advocating that, though).

[paulthemapguy]

The Long Beach Freeway used to be CA-7 before being renumbered to I-710 in 1983.

Oh yeah!  Derp!  I knew that lol 

[andy3175]

It's always kind of amazed me how California can have these really long important highways with 3-digit numbers, but then the basic numbers like 7 and 9 are dinky little stubs.  If CA99 becomes I-7 or I-9 I don't think it'll be a problem replacing the numbers on CA-7 or CA-9.

CA 7 could easily be renumbered as CA 308 without much difficulty. As far as I know, the CA 7 expressway does not have any addresses along it.

If CA 86, CA 78, CA 111, and CA 7 are unified under a single numerical designation such as CA 111, then CA 7 could be reused elsewhere. But there are no official plans to renumber anything in the Imperial Valley, and there is an implied overlap along I-8 that may not make any sense anyway.

[andy3175]

A couple months ago, I wrote about SR 99 improvements in another thread. Here is some info that might be useful to this discussion:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=17432.msg2125973#msg2125973

Are there still talks about making highway 99 an interstate (I-9)?

Not sure how things are going, but Caltrans is proceeding with numerous projects to upgrade the 99 between Stockton and South Bakersfield to Interstate standards. Once that's done, they fully intend to make the 99 Interstate 7 or 9 (not yet decided). Last I checked, current projects weren't expected to be complete until at least 2020.

Caltrans has not yet taken steps to convert other state highways to Interstates where they are already a continuation of an Interstate highway (e.g. SR 15, SR 210), where it seems pretty clear the intent is to have the Interstate shields on these extensions. Thus, it doesn't seem likely that Caltrans would be eager to convert a much longer highway like SR 99 to a completely new number like I-9.

Not my words. See this PDF from Caltrans. The proposal was put forth Fresno's Regional Jobs Initiative (RJI) in 2003, which called for the transition from state route to interstate to help promote economic growth. Caltrans seems to have picked up on the idea.

Interstate designation, under the current proposal, would apply to the 260 mile segment between the junction of State Route 99 with I-5 south of Bakersfield to I-5 in Stockton using State Route 4 as the connector to I-5. Since there is an I-99 route currently in existence in Pennsylvania, it is anticipated that should designation be granted, the Route 99 designation would become I-7 or I-9 to satisfy Interstate numbering convention.

California 99 is undergoing a major transformation currently. One of the key focal points is to expand the freeway to six lanes for its entire length, along with elimination of at-grade intersections (at least for the portion of CA 99 south of Sacramento). Significant strides in this direction can be seen especially near Atwater and Merced, where the roadway has been realigned to allow expansion. Most of the route in Kern County (Bakersfield) is at least six lanes if not eight lanes. Additional improvements are needed to make full Interstate standards, and in addition to shoulder widths, bridge heights also remain a concern. The expansion projects will address bridges as they proceed, but they won't raise all bridge heights to Interstate standards, at least not for several years. CA 99 has multiple construction zones currently, so it is getting a makeover and will be a much better drive very soon ... and once it is consistently six lanes from Bakersfield to Stockton, it may have some advantages over mostly four-lane I-5 between Wheeler Ridge and Stockton. CA 99 around Stockton has seen major changes recently too, even north of CA 4. As for an Interstate designation for CA 99 ... I will believe it when I see it. Caltrans does not prioritize adding Interstates, as evidenced by the continuing state route status for those portions of CA 15, CA 210, and CA 905 that already meet Interstate standards (just as roadfro said). And when the easternmost segment of I-210 was removed from the Orange Freeway (CA 57), the Interstate status was removed along with it. So, we'll just have to wait to see how much improvements are completed along CA 99 and whether someone will make application to request an Interstate designation (either I-7 or I-9 appear most likely, although they could call it the western I-99 and not confuse very many people, ha ha!). At this point, I think CA 99 will remain CA 99 until these major upgrades (as outlined in the corridor business plan at 2012 estimated cost of $6.5 billion - see executive summary of the 2012 update of the 99 corridor business plan at http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist6/planning/sr99bus/updated_bp_vol1_feb2013.pdf) are completed, along with another $1.0 billion of upgrades to bring the corridor to Interstate standards (see page 20 of Economic Impact Analysis of Transportation Improvements and Interstate Designation to Route 99 in the San Joaquin Valley Region at http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist6/planning/docs/sr99econ_benefits_study_final_jul2009_remi.pdf).

Speaking of Interstate standards on California highways, I found this passage from the CA 99 corridor business plan somewhat instructive about how Caltrans standardizes its freeway construction:

http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist6/planning/sr99bus/updated_bp_vol1_feb2013.pdf (page 38)

3.5 Caltrans Design Standards: Background and Application: The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) continually updates design guidelines for roads through the publication of A Policy on the Geometric Design of Highway and Streets (Green Book). These guidelines are created in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and State transportation agencies. The FHWA has adopted applicable parts of the Green Book as the national standard for roads on the National
Highway System (NHS). NHS roads comprise all the Interstate system and some other primary routes. While not an Interstate, Route 99 is included in the NHS. Although the standards contained in the Green Book also apply to the Interstate system, additional guidance applicable to the design of highways on the Interstate system is included in another AASHTO publication, A Policy on Design Standards — Interstate System, dated January 2005.

Caltrans typically adopts the guidelines established by AASHTO, including the Interstate System design standards, and incorporates
them into Caltrans' Highway Design Manual (Black Book). The Black Book then serves as the basis for design standards for all State highways in California, Interstate and non-Interstate.

While new standards are periodically adopted, it does not imply that existing standards or highways are unsafe, nor does it mandate the initiation of highway improvement projects to meet these new standards. It is industry practice to compare existing features to the new standards whenever a highway improvement project is proposed. Specific investigations, accident history, and engineering analysis often indicate that existing non-standard features are performing in a satisfactory manner. These findings are documented in a Design Exception Fact Sheet and retained in the project files. These design exceptions are critical for the defense of tort liability cases filed against the State.

The FHWA has mandated that design exceptions be justified for 13 controlling criteria on State freeways. The authority to approve design exceptions for these 13 criteria has been delegated to Caltrans for non-Interstate freeways; however, FHWA retains approval authority for these 13 criteria on Interstate highways. FHWA's 13 controlling criteria are the following:

 Design speed
 Shoulder width
 Horizontal alignment
 Grade
 Cross slope
 Horizontal clearance
 Bridge structural capacity
 Lane width
 Bridge width
 Vertical alignment
 Stopping sight distance
 Superelevation
 Vertical clearance

Meanwhile, over on the I-5 corridor, I believe the focus currently is on high speed rail as a means of moving passengers between Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area. There have been repaving jobs especially in Kern County over the last few years, but I am not aware of any pending capacity improvements on I-5 at least between Wheeler Ridge and Tracy.

And there is always the thought that CA 65 should someday be built to provide an eastern alternative to CA 99, but I can't easily locate the outcome of the last study or studies on feasibility to construct a portion or all of the long missing link.

[TheStranger]

It's always kind of amazed me how California can have these really long important highways with 3-digit numbers, but then the basic numbers like 7 and 9 are dinky little stubs.  If CA99 becomes I-7 or I-9 I don't think it'll be a problem replacing the numbers on CA-7 or CA-9.

CA 7 could easily be renumbered as CA 308 without much difficulty. As far as I know, the CA 7 expressway does not have any addresses along it.

If CA 86, CA 78, CA 111, and CA 7 are unified under a single numerical designation such as CA 111, then CA 7 could be reused elsewhere. But there are no official plans to renumber anything in the Imperial Valley, and there is an implied overlap along I-8 that may not make any sense anyway.

I have thought for years that Route 7 and Route 115 really should be one extended Route 115 as the two roads are not too far apart and are roughly on the same north-south trajectory.

[Max Rockatansky]

It's always kind of amazed me how California can have these really long important highways with 3-digit numbers, but then the basic numbers like 7 and 9 are dinky little stubs.  If CA99 becomes I-7 or I-9 I don't think it'll be a problem replacing the numbers on CA-7 or CA-9.

CA 7 could easily be renumbered as CA 308 without much difficulty. As far as I know, the CA 7 expressway does not have any addresses along it.

If CA 86, CA 78, CA 111, and CA 7 are unified under a single numerical designation such as CA 111, then CA 7 could be reused elsewhere. But there are no official plans to renumber anything in the Imperial Valley, and there is an implied overlap along I-8 that may not make any sense anyway.

Why not realignment CA 99 along 58 (or possibly 138) 247, 62 and then take over the route you described to the border?  I'd say renumbered it US 99 and then California will have a Federal route but wouldn't have to worry about Interstate standard redesigns.

[Rover_0]

It's always kind of amazed me how California can have these really long important highways with 3-digit numbers, but then the basic numbers like 7 and 9 are dinky little stubs.  If CA99 becomes I-7 or I-9 I don't think it'll be a problem replacing the numbers on CA-7 or CA-9.

CA 7 could easily be renumbered as CA 308 without much difficulty. As far as I know, the CA 7 expressway does not have any addresses along it.

If CA 86, CA 78, CA 111, and CA 7 are unified under a single numerical designation such as CA 111, then CA 7 could be reused elsewhere. But there are no official plans to renumber anything in the Imperial Valley, and there is an implied overlap along I-8 that may not make any sense anyway.

I have thought for years that Route 7 and Route 115 really should be one extended Route 115 as the two roads are not too far apart and are roughly on the same north-south trajectory.

It's always kind of amazed me how California can have these really long important highways with 3-digit numbers, but then the basic numbers like 7 and 9 are dinky little stubs.  If CA99 becomes I-7 or I-9 I don't think it'll be a problem replacing the numbers on CA-7 or CA-9.

CA 7 could easily be renumbered as CA 308 without much difficulty. As far as I know, the CA 7 expressway does not have any addresses along it.

If CA 86, CA 78, CA 111, and CA 7 are unified under a single numerical designation such as CA 111, then CA 7 could be reused elsewhere. But there are no official plans to renumber anything in the Imperial Valley, and there is an implied overlap along I-8 that may not make any sense anyway.

I love this idea!

That said, I think that CA-7 would be a better fit, as there's some chance that you can connect it with CA-99 and thus make it an extension of I-7 (former CA-99).

But even then, CA-7 from Calexico to I-10 would fit the "single digits=longer/major route" convention.

[Rover_0]

It's always kind of amazed me how California can have these really long important highways with 3-digit numbers, but then the basic numbers like 7 and 9 are dinky little stubs.  If CA99 becomes I-7 or I-9 I don't think it'll be a problem replacing the numbers on CA-7 or CA-9.

CA 7 could easily be renumbered as CA 308 without much difficulty. As far as I know, the CA 7 expressway does not have any addresses along it.

If CA 86, CA 78, CA 111, and CA 7 are unified under a single numerical designation such as CA 111, then CA 7 could be reused elsewhere. But there are no official plans to renumber anything in the Imperial Valley, and there is an implied overlap along I-8 that may not make any sense anyway.

Why not realignment CA 99 along 58 (or possibly 138) 247, 62 and then take over the route you described to the border?  I'd say renumbered it US 99 and then California will have a Federal route but wouldn't have to worry about Interstate standard redesigns.

Of course, this works, too. 

[andy3175]

I have thought for years that Route 7 and Route 115 really should be one extended Route 115 as the two roads are not too far apart and are roughly on the same north-south trajectory.

Based on a conversation I had several years ago, there could be a desire on the part of Caltrans to eliminate portions of SR 115 from the state system (maybe the overlap section with Old US 80?), but I have not seen anything official on it. I'd like to see SR 115 renumbered as well so that the 115 designation could be used at some point in the future as a future Interstate 115 in California, should the need arise.

[Henry]

I have thought for years that Route 7 and Route 115 really should be one extended Route 115 as the two roads are not too far apart and are roughly on the same north-south trajectory.

Based on a conversation I had several years ago, there could be a desire on the part of Caltrans to eliminate portions of SR 115 from the state system (maybe the overlap section with Old US 80?), but I have not seen anything official on it. I'd like to see SR 115 renumbered as well so that the 115 designation could be used at some point in the future as a future Interstate 115 in California, should the need arise.

I-115 would be  perfect fit for a freeway in San Diego (CA 52, I'm looking at you!).

[Occidental Tourist]

I-115 would be  perfect fit for a freeway in San Diego (CA 52, I'm looking at you!).

How about a second San Diego beltway? I.e.,
52+125+54 = I-408

[paulthemapguy]

I-115 would be  perfect fit for a freeway in San Diego (CA 52, I'm looking at you!).

How about a second San Diego beltway? I.e.,
52+125+54 = I-408

I have had this exact idea ^_^ then I put CA-94 as a 3di spur into San Diego (i.e. 52/125/54 is I-208 and 94 is I-308)

[Henry]

I-115 would be  perfect fit for a freeway in San Diego (CA 52, I'm looking at you!).

How about a second San Diego beltway? I.e.,
52+125+54 = I-408

I have had this exact idea ^_^ then I put CA-94 as a 3di spur into San Diego (i.e. 52/125/54 is I-208 and 94 is I-308)

Well, as much as I like these ideas, shouldn't we discuss them in Fictional Highways? Like I-7/I-9, they may or may not happen, if ever.

[myosh_tino]

Well, as much as I like these ideas, shouldn't we discuss them in Fictional Highways? Like I-7/I-9, they may or may not happen, if ever.

I just thinking the same thing with regards to the 3DI discussion.

OTOH, the I-7/I-9 discussion is anything but fictional as the conversion of CA-99 to an Interstate is or was in Caltrans' long-range plans given the documents that are floating around out there.

[The Ghostbuster]

But will it become a reality anytime soon? I think the answer is no. Although I think the conversion of CA 99 into an Interstate should happen sooner than later.

[andy3175]

But will it become a reality anytime soon? I think the answer is no. Although I think the conversion of CA 99 into an Interstate should happen sooner than later.

The freeway upgrades, such as removal of intersections and expansion to six lanes, is clearly a Caltrans priority for CA 99 and will continue to position CA 99 closer and closer to Interstate standards as various projects are completed. The key to changing CA 99 signs to I-7 or I-9 shields will depend on political willpower, as Caltrans is not particularly interested in changing route classifications (as evidenced by CA 15, CA 210, and CA 905).

[The Ghostbuster]

CA 15, 210 and 905 should have become Interstates by now. They should have become Interstates when they were completed. Did they do this because they favor state routes to Interstates?