CA-99 Interstate corridor? (From Bakersfield to Stockton if not Sacramento)

[The Ghostbuster]

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

[Max Rockatansky]

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

[vdeane]

Honestly, as much as I'm in the "this would be a good corridor for an interstate" camp, I'm mainly arguing here because I find the "we don't need any new interstate shields anywhere ever" crowd to be just as ridiculous as FritzOwl (and also the strawmen arguments that have been brought out).  Are the interstates not supposed to be the most significant/important routes in the country and connect the most significant/important places together to each other and the nation?  I mean, this view tells the whole story: three lanes of traffic go to the major cities of Bakersfield and Fresno (which would be on the interstate system were they in literally any other state), while two lanes travel through the middle of nowhere, with I-5 itself not even going to San Francisco (3dis are needed for that) and San Jose isn't even accessible by interstate at all coming from the south (looking at street view, it carries a surprisingly large amount of traffic for the desolate area it serves, and I can't help but wonder where the employment base for the necessary traveler services is).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Max Rockatansky]

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

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

[english si]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

[Rothman]

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

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

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

[vdeane]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[english si]

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

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

and your reply to this was

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

then perhaps you struggle at comprehension?

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

[english si]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Max Rockatansky]

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

[Rothman]

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

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

and your reply to this was

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

then perhaps you struggle at comprehension?

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

I think your posts now speak for themselves.

[Scott5114]

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

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

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

[Max Rockatansky]

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

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

[Rothman]

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

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

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

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

[Scott5114]

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

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

[FredAkbar]

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

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

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

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

[vdeane]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[pderocco]

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

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

[Max Rockatansky]

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