CA-58 and I-40

[kkt]

If the traffic count supports it, I'm all in favor of an interstate-quality highway between Barstow and Bakersfield. The problem is, it can't get a blue shield until and unless a) CA 99 gets a shield; or b) CA 58 gets built out all the way to I-5, which seems very unlikely.

Is that a reference to California's general reluctance to convert anything to an interstate (I-210 being the biggest example)? Or is there some national policy that discourages dangling interstates? It seems there are quite a few around, such as I-11, I-27, I-39, I-44, I-73.

I'm just deferring to a standing AASHTO rule that interstates shouldn't be designated unless it terminates at another interstate or a US highway.

So I-40 could be pushed as far as Bakersfield if US-99 still existed. Oh well...

clearly US 99 needs to be re-designated at least from the Grapevine to Sacramento

[kkt]

Why are there so many people who think that 58 west of I-5 is anything but a sparsely traveled two lane road?  When I last drove east from Santa Margarita earlier this year I encountered maybe half a dozen other cars.  It even has a truck length advisory. 

46 on the other hand is where there is a more reasonable argument for limited access upgrades.  The James Jean Junction just got converted to an interchange.  Polonio Pass is presently being widened to a four lane expressway. 

Yes, I'm not saying I-40 should go west of I-5, but if it did taking CA 46 would make a lot more sense.

[The Ghostbuster]

Does CA 46 from US 101-to-Interstate 5 really need any further upgrades after the last segment east of the CA 41 interchange is expanded to four lanes? I've never been there, but I'd say no.

[JayhawkCO]

Which I-795 project are you describing?

Since I don't think you got an answer, the Florida version that is currently FL9B and up to interstate standards, and always intended to be I-795 at some point a la FL9A becoming I-295.

[Bobby5280]

This feels like a solution in search of a non-existent problem.  The Union Pacific isn't going to front the money for Caltrans to build interchange to access every railroad tunnel.  The CTC will never sign off on allocating the money for sure a conversion on their own.

I'm not suggesting UP (and BNSF) front money for new interchanges along CA-58. I'm only suggesting they need to improve their own railroad access road(s) so their service vehicles don't have to use CA-58 at all. Having so many dirt road driveways going from the edge of CA-58 to the railroad tracks is arguably a security/safety liability. It's a very busy freight rail corridor, but has no passenger train service. There is no need for civilians driving along CA-58 to have any easy access to that rail line.

It's interesting just how few dirt/gravel roads are directly contacting CA-58 on the North side of the highway between Tehachapi and Bealville. Most of those dirt roads are connecting to diamond interchanges, like the ones in/near Keene. The couple or so driveways I do see via Street View look like they're gated or fenced off -unlike the dirt roads going to the railroad tracks; those are wide open.

If the private service road for the rail line was improved enough so the various dirt road connections into CA-58 could be removed that would do a lot to bring the highway up to Interstate standards. The only new interchanges that would be needed are at the intersections of Bealville Road and CA-223.

Since some of you are big on AADT figures go have a look at what is up with US 101 in the Prunedale area.  That has the actual dangerous dirt roads fronting the highway.  Nobody is asking for an Interstate quality rebuild out there.

The problem with US-101: there is far too much shit built near or next to the highway. Too many private driveways for residential properties and businesses connect 90° directly into the highway. There is no room to add frontage roads to control the access. That's certainly the case for Prunedale as well as many other locations between San Jose and Los Angeles. In political terms it's probably impossible to do Interstate quality upgrades on significant stretches of US-101. Anti-highway sentiment is likely pretty strong. At best, location-specific grade separations and interchanges are all that's possible.

CA-58 is a far more rural highway in a more politically "red" part of the state. It would be far easier to upgrade to Interstate standards than US-101.

[cahwyguy]

I don't really care too much about the numbering, but I do think there should be a freeway going from the existing CA-14 to CA-58. CA-58 freeway should go to US-101. 395 should be a freeway from I-15 to I-80 where it would already meet an interstate quality freeway in Carson city. And of course, I think there should be a freeway from the high desert to the low desert connecting I-5 to I-10. The Pearlblossom should also be made into a freeway to connect to the high Desert corridor freeway. Same with the 138.

Perhaps in a world with unlimited road construction dollars. But in a world where there are limited funds, where do these fit in the overall priority list? Pretty low. They aren't high traffic segments, they don't have regular congestion. They are in counties without a lot of funds, or with other more pressing needs for the limited funds.

California works with a holistic view, and with regional planning agencies suggesting improvements. Although these routes look nice on a map, and they might save a few minutes, they are not priorities in the regional transportation organizations.

[ElishaGOtis]

Which I-795 project are you describing?

Since I don't think you got an answer, the Florida version that is currently FL9B and up to interstate standards, and always intended to be I-795 at some point a la FL9A becoming I-295.

Missed this one, but yes. The current goal is to submit the application in the fall cycle, but don't quote me...

No, every dirt driveway in California City needs a full interchange!  It would also look really neat on a map to have I-40 go to I-5.

I do think SR 58/California City Boulevard could stand a grade separation.  I wonder how many crashes there have been at that intersection.

That particular segment has a lot of similar intersections.  If I recall correctly it was one of the first four lane expressway segments on 58 in the Mojave.  It would probably need a complete rebuilding to just bring the lanes and shoulders up to modern standards.

It's notable because that's where the higher speed limit (70 instead of 65) begins when you're going east, after you pass that intersection. But if there are other intersections remaining west of it, then they probably wouldn't extend the 70 section any further.

Completely forgot about the speed limit justification tbh... but yes, 65 is painfully slow on the non-freeway segments so far (as is 70 on the freeway segments, but at least it's not 65...).

[JayhawkCO]

Which I-795 project are you describing?

Since I don't think you got an answer, the Florida version that is currently FL9B and up to interstate standards, and always intended to be I-795 at some point a la FL9A becoming I-295.

Missed this one, but yes. The current goal is to submit the application in the fall cycle, but don't quote me...

About time. I've been waiting for this one for quite some time since my parents used to live in Jax near Baymeadows/I-295 and now in World Golf Village. I clinch/near clinch this every time I go visit.

[Max Rockatansky]

This feels like a solution in search of a non-existent problem.  The Union Pacific isn't going to front the money for Caltrans to build interchange to access every railroad tunnel.  The CTC will never sign off on allocating the money for sure a conversion on their own.

I'm not suggesting UP (and BNSF) front money for new interchanges along CA-58. I'm only suggesting they need to improve their own railroad access road(s) so their service vehicles don't have to use CA-58 at all. Having so many dirt road driveways going from the edge of CA-58 to the railroad tracks is arguably a security/safety liability. It's a very busy freight rail corridor, but has no passenger train service. There is no need for civilians driving along CA-58 to have any easy access to that rail line.

It's interesting just how few dirt/gravel roads are directly contacting CA-58 on the North side of the highway between Tehachapi and Bealville. Most of those dirt roads are connecting to diamond interchanges, like the ones in/near Keene. The couple or so driveways I do see via Street View look like they're gated or fenced off -unlike the dirt roads going to the railroad tracks; those are wide open.

If the private service road for the rail line was improved enough so the various dirt road connections into CA-58 could be removed that would do a lot to bring the highway up to Interstate standards. The only new interchanges that would be needed are at the intersections of Bealville Road and CA-223.

Since some of you are big on AADT figures go have a look at what is up with US 101 in the Prunedale area.  That has the actual dangerous dirt roads fronting the highway.  Nobody is asking for an Interstate quality rebuild out there.

The problem with US-101: there is far too much shit built near or next to the highway. Too many private driveways for residential properties and businesses connect 90° directly into the highway. There is no room to add frontage roads to control the access. That's certainly the case for Prunedale as well as many other locations between San Jose and Los Angeles. In political terms it's probably impossible to do Interstate quality upgrades on significant stretches of US-101. Anti-highway sentiment is likely pretty strong. At best, location-specific grade separations and interchanges are all that's possible.

CA-58 is a far more rural highway in a more politically "red" part of the state. It would be far easier to upgrade to Interstate standards than US-101.

Prunedale and most of Monterey County both seem pretty red to me.  The problem with modern 101 in Prunedale is that the residences were there first when the highway was realigned of the San Juan Grade in 1932.  The CHC did adopt a freeway alignment which was to be located uphill of Prunedale above where anyone lives in the Gabilan Range. 

Either way, the point I'm really trying to get at is people make excuses to hypothetically I-40 extended and ignore actual problem corridors.  I'm fine with driveways to obscure rail frontages and ranches on 58.  Those are a waste money to get rid only so fancy pants Interstate shields can go up.  Yeah sure, a couple at-grade intersections on 58 probably can be closed off (like 223 and Bealville Road).

[Plutonic Panda]

I don't really care too much about the numbering, but I do think there should be a freeway going from the existing CA-14 to CA-58. CA-58 freeway should go to US-101. 395 should be a freeway from I-15 to I-80 where it would already meet an interstate quality freeway in Carson city. And of course, I think there should be a freeway from the high desert to the low desert connecting I-5 to I-10. The Pearlblossom should also be made into a freeway to connect to the high Desert corridor freeway. Same with the 138.

Perhaps in a world with unlimited road construction dollars. But in a world where there are limited funds, where do these fit in the overall priority list? Pretty low. They aren't high traffic segments, they don't have regular congestion. They are in counties without a lot of funds, or with other more pressing needs for the limited funds.

California works with a holistic view, and with regional planning agencies suggesting improvements. Although these routes look nice on a map, and they might save a few minutes, they are not priorities in the regional transportation organizations.

I mean, I agree with you on some points, but if there's any state that would have the money to get stuff like that done it would be California, but we definitely should go back to a formula where the federal government funds more of it. I think it has to do with politics more than anything. Which is funny cause a lot of my proposals are just in the middle of the desert and a lot of the same groups like the Sierra club that hate stuff like that have no problem covering the entire Mojave desert in solar panels.

[Plutonic Panda]

At any rate, I'm not sure what they expect to achieve here if this gets approved wouldn't Los Angeles County have to be on board with it as well? I don't think it's something I'd be against, but I don't know how cooperative they'd be. I was surprised at how much of this road in the high desert is actually in Kern County. I didn't know Kern County went that far west.

And for the people that are saying about these dirt roads needing to be interchanges there's these things called service roads you know.

[JayhawkCO]

And for the people that are saying about these dirt roads needing to be interchanges there's these things called service roads you know.

You mean frontage roads.

[ElishaGOtis]

If this actually goes through, that does beg the question if Los Angeles continues to be a valid control city in AZ... just saying.

And for the people that are saying about these dirt roads needing to be interchanges there's these things called service roads you know.

You mean frontage roads.

FDOT seems to think there's a difference (no idea WHAT the difference is but they do seem to think there is). 🤓

On that note, such frontage/service roads connecting to these dirt roads could be dirt roads themselves tbh, if such alternative is selected. I mention this because some of the EXISTING frontage/service roads are unpaved near there.

[Plutonic Panda]

I'd imagine some of them would need to be paved or packed with gravel they tried to prevent the amount of dust that would be kicked up by anyone driving on them.

[FredAkbar]

Prunedale and most of Monterey County both seem pretty red to me.

Monterey County is not red. It voted Harris+30 in the last election. By comparison, Kern County was Trump+21 and San Bernardino County was Trump+2.

[FredAkbar]

One interesting thing if I-40 was extended to Bakersfield (but not all the way to I-5) would be a 2di terminating at a State highway. This does not seem to be very common at all. There are however some cases of a 2di terminating at a US highway (e.g. I-27 and I-44 in Texas, I-80 in California).

I-10 in Santa Monica doesn't count: it can't exactly continue westward because there is an ocean in the way.

[Plutonic Panda]

One interesting thing if I-40 was extended to Bakersfield (but not all the way to I-5) would be a 2di terminating at a State highway. This does not seem to be very common at all. There are however some cases of a 2di terminating at a US highway (e.g. I-27 and I-44 in Texas, I-80 in California).

I-10 in Santa Monica doesn't count: it can't exactly continue westward because there is an ocean in the way.

Perhaps this could be what helps get the recent 58 extension in Bakersfield further extended interstate five.

[Max Rockatansky]

Prunedale and most of Monterey County both seem pretty red to me.

Monterey County is not red. It voted Harris+30 in the last election. By comparison, Kern County was Trump+21 and San Bernardino County was Trump+2.

The Monterey Peninsula and Salinas Valley are two different beasts.  Prunedale and Salinas Valley don't have much in common with the Peninsula.  The mode of life couldn't be more different in those parts of Monterey County.  The Peninsula has most of the population that is heavily urbanized.  The rest of the county (including Salinas) is very Ag centric. 

I wrote my previous post after having just passed through Prunedale.  There was a back up on 101 so I took Prunedale Road, San Miguel Canyon Road and Echo Valley to get around the issue.  There is a certain pattern plainly obvious on homes about who they support politically.  My understanding the resistance to having US 101 relocated to a freeway in Prunedale had more to do with rural ranchers being upset over potential eminent domain.

As an aside, I'd like to take this opportunity to remind everyone that I am not politically affiliated.  I should have clarified my previous post to say "Prunedale and rural Monterey County."  I was actually working in Monterey this week and just got home.  I wish that I was still out there since it is 104F in Fresno right now.

[stevashe]

The point is these agencies have to periodically replace sign panel graphics on an ongoing basis anyway. The notion of adding an Interstate marker to these signs being a budget buster is ridiculous.

It's much more than that. First, a lot of the signs along 58 are still older button copy. You also have all the interchange signs and directional signage. All the postmiles paddles will require changing. All the bridge markers with postmiles require changing. Those are not insignificant costs, especially when they don't provide any significant benefit.

Older button copy either (1) needs to be replaced anyway or (2) can have CA 58 shields covered by I-40 shields just like any other sign (there's plenty of precedent for this). Yes, all the interchange and directional signage would need to have 58's covered by I-40's but that's not a terribly large cost.

Since postmiles restart at county lines anyway, you'd only need to change mileage for the portion in San Barnardino County, and even then, Caltrans could probably just add a prefix for existing CA 58 in SBD and leave I-40's postmiles alone (either D or L could work). That way no postmile paddles would need to be relocated, which accounts for most of the cost. New sign panels are cheap as chips (especially panels as small as postmile paddles).

The largest cost would probably be updating all the exit numbers to reflect distance from I-5. At any rate, costs such as these should be factored into the feasibility study, so we'll see what comes out of that.

[Scott5114]

One interesting thing if I-40 was extended to Bakersfield (but not all the way to I-5) would be a 2di terminating at a State highway. This does not seem to be very common at all.

I-11 ends at NV 157, so it's not entirely unheard of. (The roadbed continues as US 95, which is probably how they got that approved.)

[Max Rockatansky]

One interesting thing if I-40 was extended to Bakersfield (but not all the way to I-5) would be a 2di terminating at a State highway. This does not seem to be very common at all.

I-11 ends at NV 157, so it's not entirely unheard of. (The roadbed continues as US 95, which is probably how they got that approved.)

The opposite end just terminates at the Arizona state line and doesn't even touch a state highway junction.  I honestly do see a big deal with an Interstate corridor ending at a state highway or something like a state line.

[cahwyguy]

The point is these agencies have to periodically replace sign panel graphics on an ongoing basis anyway. The notion of adding an Interstate marker to these signs being a budget buster is ridiculous.

It's much more than that. First, a lot of the signs along 58 are still older button copy. You also have all the interchange signs and directional signage. All the postmiles paddles will require changing. All the bridge markers with postmiles require changing. Those are not insignificant costs, especially when they don't provide any significant benefit.

Older button copy either (1) needs to be replaced anyway or (2) can have CA 58 shields covered by I-40 shields just like any other sign (there's plenty of precedent for this). Yes, all the interchange and directional signage would need to have 58's covered by I-40's but that's not a terribly large cost.

Since postmiles restart at county lines anyway, you'd only need to change mileage for the portion in San Barnardino County, and even then, Caltrans could probably just add a prefix for existing CA 58 in SBD and leave I-40's postmiles alone (either D or L could work). That way no postmile paddles would need to be relocated, which accounts for most of the cost. New sign panels are cheap as chips (especially panels as small as postmile paddles).

The largest cost would probably be updating all the exit numbers to reflect distance from I-5. At any rate, costs such as these should be factored into the feasibility study, so we'll see what comes out of that.

Folks keep missing the point: There is no benefit for the cost: Resigning it as I-40 brings absolutely no benefit to the road, and does bring costs. Further, giving funding priorities in the impacted counties, the costs required for resigning would be really low on the priority totem pole compared to other projects in those counties.

I understand all the fantasies that come from seeing I-40 extended to Route 99, to I-5, or even to US 101. They make every map-loving roadgeek happy to see the Interstate extended. However, in the real world, there's no reason to do it.

Add passing lanes where necessary. Improve intersections and make more of it limited access. That's all great ... and not one whit of it REQUIRES resigning the road.

[Max Rockatansky]

We don't often get a lot of activity on this board from folks outside the Southwest.   However, every time something related to possibly making CA 99 or CA 58 an Interstate it becomes all the rage.  Considering how many awesome roads we have in California in Nevada I don't know whether not to find that amusing or disappointing. 

Yeah sure, a feasibility study being funded is neat.  The odds of it actually resulting in anything tangible are probably close to zero percent.

[FredAkbar]

Prunedale and most of Monterey County both seem pretty red to me.

Monterey County is not red. It voted Harris+30 in the last election. By comparison, Kern County was Trump+21 and San Bernardino County was Trump+2.

The Monterey Peninsula and Salinas Valley are two different beasts.  Prunedale and Salinas Valley don't have much in common with the Peninsula.  The mode of life couldn't be more different in those parts of Monterey County.  The Peninsula has most of the population that is heavily urbanized.  The rest of the county (including Salinas) is very Ag centric. 

I wrote my previous post after having just passed through Prunedale.  There was a back up on 101 so I took Prunedale Road, San Miguel Canyon Road and Echo Valley to get around the issue.  There is a certain pattern plainly obvious on homes about who they support politically.  My understanding the resistance to having US 101 relocated to a freeway in Prunedale had more to do with rural ranchers being upset over potential eminent domain.

As an aside, I'd like to take this opportunity to remind everyone that I am not politically affiliated.  I should have clarified my previous post to say "Prunedale and rural Monterey County."  I was actually working in Monterey this week and just got home.  I wish that I was still out there since it is 104F in Fresno right now.

Yeah, that's a fair pushback, but it depends on what granularity is most relevant at getting these projects approved. If it's the residents of a particular area fighting a project, versus the county leadership as a whole (which might be more reflective of the aggregate political lean). Sort of analogous to CAHSR being pushed at the state level even if the local Central Valley residents aren't that interested in it.

[cl94]

County leadership in Monterey County isn't super into the idea of massive 101 improvements, either. They'd much rather put that money into improved rail service. So it's both sides of the aisle up in Prunedale.