CA-58 and I-40

[Scott5114]

Folks keep missing the point: There is no benefit for the cost:

This is because the point makes a mockery of the entire concept of route marking in the United States.

If it were all about saving money, the thing to do would be to stop signing any Interstate or US route numbers in favor of signing them as SRs. (i.e., everything from San Diego to Primm is now CA 15, that one highway along the coast is now CA 101, etc.) Eliminate the narrow miner's spade and use the three digit blank for everything. That would allow Caltrans to stop carrying five blanks in its inventory (Interstate narrow and wide, US narrow and wide, and CA narrow) and leave everything as a wide miner's spade. If you wanted to save even more money, put the miner's spade on a black background so you can use the same 5:4 rounded rectangle blank as you do for regulatory signs. Oh, and make it black and white, because according to Louisiana, green ink costs more than black.

The fact that nobody thinks going all-SRs-all-the-time is a good idea (if they did, some state more cash-strapped than California probably would have tried it already!) shows there is some apparent perceived utility in different shield styles and colors for different routes. If there is a perceived utility in signing existing I-40 as such instead of as CA 40, then surely the same utility must carry over to theoretically signing CA 58 as I-40.

[Max Rockatansky]

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.

Speaking railroads in Monterey.  I drove past the construction that is ripping a couple miles of the Monterey Branch for an express busway.  That's kind of a shame IMO that restoration of that line never happened.  I guess it wouldn't have mattered much since there was never a chance a reopened line would've have even made it into the Monterey city limit.  There is a surprising amount of abandoned rails left along the Coastal Trail along Del Monte.

[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.)

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.

Ending at a state highway junction makes some amount of logical sense; presumably the traffic disperses enough at that junction to make the upgraded highway designation beyond that point unnecessary. (And indeed a decent amount of traffic turns off of 95 at 157 to head up to Kyle Canyon and Mount Charleston.)

Ending at a state line makes comparatively little sense, because all the people who are interested in going to the state line and turning back around are wanting to do that as pedestrians and thus would have gotten off at NV 172. At the very least, I wish NDOT would put up an [END] (11) assembly on the bridge approach so it's clearer that the end is intentional and not have it just evaporate into thin air once you're in Arizona.

[cahwyguy]

Folks keep missing the point: There is no benefit for the cost:

This is because the point makes a mockery of the entire concept of route marking in the United States.

If it were all about saving money, the thing to do would be to stop signing any Interstate or US route numbers in favor of signing them as SRs. (i.e., everything from San Diego to Primm is now CA 15, that one highway along the coast is now CA 101, etc.) Eliminate the narrow miner's spade and use the three digit blank for everything.

Then you are misunderstanding me again. What I'm arguing against is CHANGING the number. For the segment that is CA 58, that's perfectly fine. There's no benefit from CHANGING the number, only cost. But for things that already have the Interstate or US shield: keep the shield.

In this day and age, when folks tend to navigate via GPS and apps (and even truckers are using trucking apps to navigate), the particular shield on a route really doesn't mean anything, and so there is no benefit in changing. Before GPS, it did: The Interstate shield, with the exception of I-580 in Oakland, signified a truck-safe route. That's why we have I-238 -- to encourage truckers to use that segment. In the 1950s through 1980s, an Interstate shield gave states that promise of the 90% funding ratio, and so meant something.

But today? FHWA funds state routes as well as Interstate and US routes, based more on who the routes service and who the routes connect. States build state and US routes to Interstate standards when constructing freeways, because it is easier to have one set of standards.

So there really is no benefit from CHANGING the sign. Upgrade the route. Add truck lanes. Improve interchanges. But use the funds you would have spent on changing the signs on something that will really benefit drivers.

[And remember, it is not only the state highway departments that pay the costs of number changes. Cities and counties also have shields on directional signage that needs to come out of limited public work funds. Businesses have advertising with inset maps, and that all requires changing. That's a cost to private business. For what benefit?]

[Rothman]

80% to 90% reimbursement is an advantage of designating new Interstate mileage.

[Scott5114]

Then you are misunderstanding me again. What I'm arguing against is CHANGING the number. For the segment that is CA 58, that's perfectly fine. There's no benefit from CHANGING the number, only cost.

I am not misunderstanding you. I feel that you're not following your opinion to its logical conclusion and therefore it's logically inconsistent.

Either there is a benefit to having different shields for different standards of route, or there is not.

If there is no benefit in having different shields, then current I-40 should be CA 40 and current US 101 should be CA 101. Having only one type of shield for all routes is more operationally efficient and thus less expensive. Therefore the existence of I-40 and US 101 shields is needless frippery with no benefit to anyone. After all, "the particular shield on a route really doesn't mean anything", so you may as well cheap out on it by making them all uniform.

If there is a benefit to having different shields for a different types of highway, then changing the shields to reflect changes to the highway is a necessary expense to attain whatever benefit there is in having different types of shields.

What your opinion boils down to is "We should keep having weird shields on routes that were historically weird, which is both more expensive and also useless, but rather than address that let's just not allow any new weird routes in order to avoid additional expense and uselessness."

[Advertising is just panhandling for rich people so I don't really care about their expenses one way or the other.]

[Max Rockatansky]

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.

Probably not.  46 crosses pretty remote countryside east of Shandon.  The segment through Lost Hills can be unpleasant.  I don't see District 6 asking for funding to bypass a community that small. 

[vdeane]

Then you are misunderstanding me again. What I'm arguing against is CHANGING the number. For the segment that is CA 58, that's perfectly fine. There's no benefit from CHANGING the number, only cost.

I am not misunderstanding you. I feel that you're not following your opinion to its logical conclusion and therefore it's logically inconsistent.

Either there is a benefit to having different shields for different standards of route, or there is not.

If there is no benefit in having different shields, then current I-40 should be CA 40 and current US 101 should be CA 101. Having only one type of shield for all routes is more operationally efficient and thus less expensive. Therefore the existence of I-40 and US 101 shields is needless frippery with no benefit to anyone. After all, "the particular shield on a route really doesn't mean anything", so you may as well cheap out on it by making them all uniform.

If there is a benefit to having different shields for a different types of highway, then changing the shields to reflect changes to the highway is a necessary expense to attain whatever benefit there is in having different types of shields.

What your opinion boils down to is "We should keep having weird shields on routes that were historically weird, which is both more expensive and also useless, but rather than address that let's just not allow any new weird routes in order to avoid additional expense and uselessness."

[Advertising is just panhandling for rich people so I don't really care about their expenses one way or the other.]

I think the bit he's missing is that, if the number stays the same, there is no need to replace all the shields all at once.  It could simply be a policy to replace I shields and US shields with CA shields as they are naturally replaced.

[Scott5114]

I think the bit he's missing is that, if the number stays the same, there is no need to replace all the shields all at once.  It could simply be a policy to replace I shields and US shields with CA shields as they are naturally replaced.

Right. And the fact that some state is not already doing this means there is apparently some perceived utility to having different shield types.

[cahwyguy]

Then you are misunderstanding me again. What I'm arguing against is CHANGING the number. For the segment that is CA 58, that's perfectly fine. There's no benefit from CHANGING the number, only cost.

I am not misunderstanding you. I feel that you're not following your opinion to its logical conclusion and therefore it's logically inconsistent.

Either there is a benefit to having different shields for different standards of route, or there is not.

If there is no benefit in having different shields, then current I-40 should be CA 40 and current US 101 should be CA 101. Having only one type of shield for all routes is more operationally efficient and thus less expensive. Therefore the existence of I-40 and US 101 shields is needless frippery with no benefit to anyone. After all, "the particular shield on a route really doesn't mean anything", so you may as well cheap out on it by making them all uniform.

If there is a benefit to having different shields for a different types of highway, then changing the shields to reflect changes to the highway is a necessary expense to attain whatever benefit there is in having different types of shields.

What your opinion boils down to is "We should keep having weird shields on routes that were historically weird, which is both more expensive and also useless, but rather than address that let's just not allow any new weird routes in order to avoid additional expense and uselessness."

[Advertising is just panhandling for rich people so I don't really care about their expenses one way or the other.]

I think the bit he's missing is that, if the number stays the same, there is no need to replace all the shields all at once.  It could simply be a policy to replace I shields and US shields with CA shields as they are naturally replaced.

But the folks here are proposing changing the number: From 58 to 40. I'm saying there is absolutely no need to change the CA 58 portion to any different number. CA 58 is a perfectly good route number, and there is no real benefit from changing it to anything else.

[Max Rockatansky]

I forget, did all this I-40 stuff even come up before the Hinkley Bypass opened?  I want to say that even back then these discussions were a common occurrence in the hobby. 

[vdeane]

Then you are misunderstanding me again. What I'm arguing against is CHANGING the number. For the segment that is CA 58, that's perfectly fine. There's no benefit from CHANGING the number, only cost.

I am not misunderstanding you. I feel that you're not following your opinion to its logical conclusion and therefore it's logically inconsistent.

Either there is a benefit to having different shields for different standards of route, or there is not.

If there is no benefit in having different shields, then current I-40 should be CA 40 and current US 101 should be CA 101. Having only one type of shield for all routes is more operationally efficient and thus less expensive. Therefore the existence of I-40 and US 101 shields is needless frippery with no benefit to anyone. After all, "the particular shield on a route really doesn't mean anything", so you may as well cheap out on it by making them all uniform.

If there is a benefit to having different shields for a different types of highway, then changing the shields to reflect changes to the highway is a necessary expense to attain whatever benefit there is in having different types of shields.

What your opinion boils down to is "We should keep having weird shields on routes that were historically weird, which is both more expensive and also useless, but rather than address that let's just not allow any new weird routes in order to avoid additional expense and uselessness."

[Advertising is just panhandling for rich people so I don't really care about their expenses one way or the other.]

I think the bit he's missing is that, if the number stays the same, there is no need to replace all the shields all at once.  It could simply be a policy to replace I shields and US shields with CA shields as they are naturally replaced.

But the folks here are proposing changing the number: From 58 to 40. I'm saying there is absolutely no need to change the CA 58 portion to any different number. CA 58 is a perfectly good route number, and there is no real benefit from changing it to anything else.

Here's the thing: by saying "it shouldn't be I-40", in the same breath you're basically saying "it shouldn't be an interstate", because you can't just make it I-58 unless you're willing to pull an I-238 (which most people here consider an abomination).*  That said, I do agree that people here are jumping the gun when the study description makes no mention of extending I-40, despite the title.

*Well, the sparseness of interstate numbers between 50 and 60 combined with the lack of east-west 2dis in California between I-40 and I-80 means that you technically can, but I'd question the usefulness of giving it a whole separate number when it's clearly the same corridor, and basing exit numbers/mileage on two-lane portions of CA 58 would be less useful.

[Bobby5280]

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).

California can work on more than one highway corridor at a time. Some "problem corridors" are more feasible to upgrade than others.

I think it's idiotic CA-99 isn't a complete Interstate from the I-5 split thru Bakersfield and up to Sacramento. It might be costly to bring that segment of CA-99 fully up to Interstate standards (and then actually sign it as an Interstate), but I still think the upgrade is feasible. There have been plenty of discussions about the CA-99 corridor in this forum.

US-101 between LA and San Jose is largely a lost cause.

I'd like to see the CA-86/CA-111 corridor from Coachella down to El Centro brought up to Interstate standards. An upgrade is certainly feasible. But can it be fully justified?

The CA-58 corridor from Barstow to Bakersfield and then I-5 would be easier/cheaper to upgrade than the other corridors mentioned above. Bakersfield is not a small city. The metro population is 900,000 people. In other states that's big enough to draw multiple Interstate connections. Around 3 million or more people live near the CA-99 corridor from Bakersfield up to Sacramento. I-5 bypasses all those cities except Stockton and Sacramento.

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

I'm not calling for those rail-related dirt road connections into CA-58 to be turned into interchanges. I'm not even calling for new frontage roads to be built for them. I think those dirt road connections into CA-58 should be removed. There are other dirt/gravel service roads running alongside the freight rail corridor. It probably wouldn't cost all that much to pave the service roads next to the rail line and even build modest bridges over the creeks along the way. The federal government probably could/should help with that. Under the current circumstances railroad service trucks can use hi-rail setups to use the railroad tracks to cross creeks and other crap that disconnect the existing service roads. They don't have to be using CA-58 at all.

So there really is no benefit from CHANGING the sign. Upgrade the route. Add truck lanes. Improve interchanges. But use the funds you would have spent on changing the signs on something that will really benefit drivers.

As I said before, the money is going to get spent on maintaining/replacing those highway signs anyway.

For items like cut-out shields and cardinal direction panels on post-mounted signs, those things can't be re-used. The aluminum can be recycled. But it would be a freakish waste of time and money to try peeling weathered reflective vinyl off those sign parts for new vinyl to be applied to them. It's faster/cheaper to just mass produce new sign panels.

Regarding there being no benefit from changing a state highway into an Interstate: cities that have Interstates running through them are more visible from a PR image and marketing standpoint. Lots of motorists will go well out of their way to route their road trips along an all-Interstate path. I personally know people in Lawton who've driven from here to Denver via Salina, KS just so they could stay on an Interstate the whole way. If I-40 was extended thru Bakersfield and to I-5 it could actually end up working as a relief route for I-10 going into the LA area.

[cahwyguy]

Here's the thing: by saying "it shouldn't be I-40", in the same breath you're basically saying "it shouldn't be an interstate", because you can't just make it I-58 unless you're willing to pull an I-238 (which most people here consider an abomination).*  That said, I do agree that people here are jumping the gun when the study description makes no mention of extending I-40, despite the title.

*Well, the sparseness of interstate numbers between 50 and 60 combined with the lack of east-west 2dis in California between I-40 and I-80 means that you technically can, but I'd question the usefulness of giving it a whole separate number when it's clearly the same corridor, and basing exit numbers/mileage on two-lane portions of CA 58 would be less useful.

No, I'm saying there is no benefit from giving it the I-40 shield over the CA 58 shield it has now. It can certainly be upgraded in terms of lanes, intersections and roadway standards, if that is within the regional transportation organization's priority for the route. There's just no reason to change the number from what is there now.

[Max Rockatansky]

What prestige do I gain from 99 becoming an Interstate do I as a Fresno resident receive?  I was under the impression that Fresno being largest city in California which had its freeway network fully constructed was pretty prestigious already. 

Also, does anyone besides me even recall how recent the full freeway conversion of 99 between Wheeler Ridge and Sacramento was?  The Chowchilla-Merced expressway alignment was only bypassed in 2016.  I still own a GPS that shows the older alignment as being active. 

[cahwyguy]

I think it's idiotic CA-99 isn't a complete Interstate from the I-5 split thru Bakersfield and up to Sacramento. It might be costly to bring that segment of CA-99 fully up to Interstate standards (and then actually sign it as an Interstate), but I still think the upgrade is feasible. There have been plenty of discussions about the CA-99 corridor in this forum.

[...]

I'd like to see the CA-86/CA-111 corridor from Coachella down to El Centro brought up to Interstate standards. An upgrade is certainly feasible. But can it be fully justified?

The CA-58 corridor from Barstow to Bakersfield and then I-5 would be easier/cheaper to upgrade than the other corridors mentioned above. Bakersfield is not a small city. The metro population is 900,000 people. In other states that's big enough to draw multiple Interstate connections. Around 3 million or more people live near the CA-99 corridor from Bakersfield up to Sacramento. I-5 bypasses all those cities except Stockton and Sacramento.

California has limited transportation funding (even with the gas tax) -- I know, I read through all of the CTC minutes for my pages and see when funding is delayed. I read all the articles that note that perfectly important projects are being delayed for years and years because the funding isn't in place. Further, California is a state that actually cares about climate change and reducing VMT, and that factors into any road project.

So, turning CA 99 between LA and Sacramento into an "Interstate" (actually, most of it is to that standard already) is feasible. There's just no point to it, independent of the number that would be given to the route (there are no even x05 numbers available; I-99 would be just wrong (plus there's an I-99 on the east coast), and Route 7 and Route 9 are already taken (with Route 9 having quite a bit of history). Plus there's the issue that there's the other half of Route 99 from N Sacramento to Red Bluff.

Route 99 will be improved. There's no need to make it an interstate. You would have better luck bringing back US 99, but AASHTO wouldn't go for it.

As for Route 86 and Route 111: The traffic isn't there to justify conversion to full freeway, especially for the towns S of the Salton Sea (Brawley, Imperial). There's no need for freeway bypasses for those towns. Again, there's also the issue of there being no reasonable number, unless you're seeing it as a spur x10 or x08. No valid reason.

As for Route 58. Certainly, add climbing lanes and improve the corridor, if the RTPAs feel there is a priority. No real need to change the number; changing the number itself brings no benefits.

And if you're thinking I'm against changing numbers, I'm not. I do believe that, eventually, Route 210 should become non-chargeable interstate. Similarly, with Route 15. Maybe one day for Route 905. I just don't see the point for 58.

[Max Rockatansky]

I-99 amusingly wouldn't even require a change in the route legislative definition. 

[gonealookin]

Also, does anyone besides me even recall how recent the full freeway conversion of 99 between Wheeler Ridge and Sacramento was?  The Chowchilla-Merced expressway alignment was only bypassed in 2016.  I still own a GPS that shows the older alignment as being active.

I've been around plenty long enough to remember the signal in Livingston.  It looks like that was finally removed in 1996...a few years after the signals on US 101 in Santa Barbara were removed.

I've always thought of SR 99 as the "local" route from Sacramento to the Grapevine, passing through all the towns, while I-5 doesn't hit any towns at all between I-205 and that south junction with SR 99.  Having the "express" route marked as an Interstate while keeping the "local" marked with green spades has always made perfect sense to me.

[Max Rockatansky]

Also, does anyone besides me even recall how recent the full freeway conversion of 99 between Wheeler Ridge and Sacramento was?  The Chowchilla-Merced expressway alignment was only bypassed in 2016.  I still own a GPS that shows the older alignment as being active.

I've been around plenty long enough to remember the signal in Livingston.  It looks like that was finally removed in 1996...a few years after the signals on US 101 in Santa Barbara were removed.

I've always thought of SR 99 as the "local" route from Sacramento to the Grapevine, passing through all the towns, while I-5 doesn't hit any towns at all between I-205 and that south junction with SR 99.  Having the "express" route marked as an Interstate while keeping the "local" marked with green spades has always made perfect sense to me.

December 1996 to be exact.  The bypassed traffic light segment and railroad underpass are still there:

https://www.gribblenation.org/2022/05/former-us-route-99-in-livingston-and.html?m=1

[Scott5114]

No, I'm saying there is no benefit from giving it the I-40 shield over the CA 58 shield it has now.

Then there is likewise no benefit in giving I-40 the I-40 shields it has now, and it should be CA 40.

[LilianaUwU]

i think the entirety of I-40 up to Wilmington, NC should be CA 58. who's with me

[pderocco]

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.

Probably not.  46 crosses pretty remote countryside east of Shandon.  The segment through Lost Hills can be unpleasant.  I don't see District 6 asking for funding to bypass a community that small.

Especially since they just spent a bunch of money fourlaning it.

[cahwyguy]

No, I'm saying there is no benefit from giving it the I-40 shield over the CA 58 shield it has now.

Then there is likewise no benefit in giving I-40 the I-40 shields it has now, and it should be CA 40.

Except that it already has those shields, and so there's no cost justification for changing them, or for having I-40 suddenly end at the AZ border. It is also part of the chargeable mileage, and so dropping that mileage would mean that California would likely need to refund the Federal funds used to construct that segment. There is precedent for that: remember that was one of the discussions regarding the I-15 rerouting to the west: They thought they would have to refund the funds used to construct the LRN 43/LRN 31 freeway in San Bernardino, until it was realized that that freeway was funded before the 1956 Federal Act authorized funds. That's what allowed them to build the Route 31 freeway, which became I-15 to I-10, with 90% Federal Funding. The extension of I-15 S to I-8 (which is where that designation ends) was with additional mileage added to the Interstate system. Federal funding was used convert the Route 71 Freeway to interstate standards in the 1970s (US 395 and Route 103 had already been mostly upgraded). The mileage S of I-8 to I-5 -- the part still CA 15 -- is actually 125(b) non-chargeable mileage already, and can be resigned as I-15 once everything is up to Interstate standards and AASHTO signs off. My understanding is that there are some portions between I-8 and I-805 that are not up to spec yet (if that's different, I'd like to know to update my pages, and hopefully, before we record that episode of the podcast).

By the way, Route 210 is a very different issue. In the FHWA and AASHTO's eyes, the Route 57 portion from I-210 to I-10, former I-210, is still officially I-210. Caltrans hasn't resubmitted the paperwork regarding the former Route 30 portion. My understanding is that initially they were waiting until the upgrades to the portions between San Bernardino and Redlands were up to spec. I think that construction is done, but Caltrans now doesn't appear to be in a rush to submit the paperwork. Why? Probably the $$$ related to resigning. Most likely, they might wait until they need to do a resigning project on the entire portion of Route 210 E of the Route 57 interchange. Note that no postmile changes are required there, as to the state there's no difference between I-210 and CA 210 (legislatively).

[pderocco]

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.

But it continues as US-93.

[Scott5114]

Except that it already has those shields, and so there's no cost justification for changing them...

So just change them out when the existing ones get run over by semis or whatever else it is that causes them to get replaced. I assume at least some of the signs on that highway are newer than 1959.

It is also part of the chargeable mileage, and so dropping that mileage would mean that California would likely need to refund the Federal funds used to construct that segment.

There are plenty of chargeable Interstates that aren't signed as such when the Interstate designation isn't seen as aiding in navigation. I-444, for example. So I'm not sure why Caltrans would need to refund anything if they just decided to sign CA 40 from now on.

i think the entirety of I-40 up to Wilmington, NC should be CA 58. who's with me

I support this just because I want to see if ODOT can fuck up a miner's spade worse than Caltrans can.