CA-58 and I-40

[LilianaUwU]

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.

[Rothman]

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.

Saying there's no benefit at all, especially when you also state California only has so many transportation funds available is malarkey.  Upgrading to an Interstate would result in it being eligible for 90% federal reimbursement rather than only 80%.

Not saying it should be done, but there is a fiscal benefit that needs to be compared to cost of any upgrades to bring it up to standard.

[Plutonic Panda]

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.

But what about actually getting the road upgraded? Interstate or not.

[Plutonic Panda]

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.

It's pretty but man I have never seen. Truckers drive is crazy anywhere else in the country as I have on that road and I think it's a safety issue that it should be upgraded. IMO the 40 should go all the way to the 101. Or at the very least, they need to make it four lanes the entire way in grade separate most if not all of the route even if some of the interchanges just see 15 cars a day. I've seen some extremely nasty wrecks on that stretch of 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 think California works with an increase technically anti-Car view.

[Plutonic Panda]

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.

"I'm more than just a number"

[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.

But what about actually getting the road upgraded? Interstate or not.

Aside from a couple at-grade intersections in the Tehachapi Mountains and a climbing lane what actually needs to be upgraded?  This guy and his tent out by Hinkley don't need an interchange:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/CXTmMGxX819bCkuDA

[Plutonic Panda]

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.

But what about actually getting the road upgraded? Interstate or not.

Aside from a couple at-grade intersections in the Tehachapi Mountains and a climbing lane what actually needs to be upgraded?  This guy and his tent out by Hinkley don't need an interchange:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/CXTmMGxX819bCkuDA

I'm not sure but I'm about 74.5% sure that I have had a beer with that guy and a girl that lives in that RV. The only reason I'm not too sure cause I feel like it was a little bit further east but that's crazy. I'm sure he wouldn't mind an interchange. Grade separation would probably be an overpass as opposed to an underpass maybe not though I'm not sure either way I would think there would be less road noise.

[cahwyguy]

Saying there's no benefit at all, especially when you also state California only has so many transportation funda available is malarkey.  Upgrading to an Interstate would result in it being eligible for 90% federal reimbursement rather than only 80%.

Not saying it should be done, but there is a fiscal benefit that needs to be compared to cost of any upgrades to bring it up to standard.

First, note that there is a difference between (a) "upgrade the road to Interstate standards" and (b) change the shield from CA 58 to I-40. I'm all in favor of (a), if the regional planning agencies feel that is a priority for their funds. It is only (b) that I don't feel is worth it.

Regarding the contention about the 90% funding and such. 90% funding for construction and maintenance is only for CHARGEABLE mileage, and we've reached the limit of that (48,000 miles, IIRC). Congress, of course, could change that limit. So this would be non-chargeable mileage, and the funding percentages would be the normal ones. There are a variety of funding sources that the CTC uses, and some of the are federal pots of money. The congressional representatives in that area, if they felt it was a priority, could divert funding to those segments for roadway improvements. Given there political makeup (that part of central California is non-urban and strongly Republican), there would need to be a strong fiscal benefit from the upgrades for them to fight for it in an Infrastructure bill (recent Republican Congresses haven't been that supportive of Infrastructure largess to Democratic-led states).

Yes, they could go the FAI 305 route (to explain for newbies here: Signed US 50 between I-80 and the Route 99/Route 51 (BR 80) junction is technically FAI 305. It is signed as US 50 and BR 80, and the whole BR 80 stuff is written into the legislation for Route 51, as a side-effect of the whole I-880/I-80 debacle in Sacramento). I'm not sure AASHTO would support that, but perhaps if it isn't signed, they could just apply for Interstate funds. I'm not even sure how we would easily find out if they did that, unless it showed up in the CTC minutes.

And, before the next argument starts that we should renumber (hidden) Route 51 to Route 99, because then we could just rebuild the glory days of US 99. I've been looking into the old US 99W/US 99E split as I've been writing the Season 5 podcast episode on Route 16. US 99E did continue up the LRN 98 freeway, today's Route 51, to Roseville, where it exited on today's Route 65, continued up to Maryville (today's Route 70), crossed over to Yuba City (today's Route 20), and then up to Red Bluff (today's Route 99).

However, that's not today's Route 99. Todays' northern half of Route 99 uses former LRN 232 exits I-5 from near El Centro Road, and continues -- as freeway, cosigned with Route 70 -- up to near Catlett, where it becomes expressway. Route 99 splits off to the NW through Nicolaus and Tudor along former LRN 245 and 87 into Yuba City, and then as expressway from Yuba City to Red Bluff. Pre-1964, this was Sign Route 24 along LRN 232, Alt US 40 along LRN 87, and the LRN 245 segment was unsigned. The point of this being that today's northern half of Route 99 is on the W side of Sacramento, whereas old US 99E was on the E side, so making Route 51 into Route 99 doesn't work. Better to just sign it as Route 51.

[Of course, knowing the folks here, they would argue it should be made an x80 spur route. Two problems with that: First, there's a reason it lost the I-80 number to today's I-80 in Sacramento (which was originally I-880): that stretch of highway wasn't up to Interstate standards. Sacramento received funds to upgrade it, and decided rather than building a new freeway to build transit. Second, there are no spur x80 numbers available: 180 is a state highway; 380, 580, 780, and 980 are all in use. I suppose, now that 480 is free, one could argue that the Route 51 and FAI 305 portions could be I-480. That might make sense, given the aberration that is BR 80 and that Route 51 is unsigned.]

As for Plutonic Panda's statement:

But what about actually getting the road upgraded? Interstate or not.

I'm all for that, if it is the regional transportation planning agencies priorities for those counties.

[PColumbus73]

So far, the two sides of this argument I'm seeing are:

"there's no need to upgrade CA 58 to I-40"

vs.

"in that case, shields are irrelevant, make them all CA shields"

The latter reads like an emotional reaction which, ironically, reinforces the argument that converting CA 58 to I-40 is unnecessary.

Possibly the simplest solution would be to add Barstow as the control city for CA 58 East, particularly at the I-5 and CA 99 interchanges. Considering Bakersfield is the control for CA 58 West, it wouldn't hurt to have them complement each other. And if we're promoting CA 58 as a greater Los Angeles bypass, supplemental signs to the effect of "San Francisco Use CA 58 West" / "Las Vegas / Flagstaff / Use CA 58 East" could be beneficial.

But also, anyone traveling between I-5 and I-40 already know about CA 58 anyway.

[cahwyguy]

So far, the two sides of this argument I'm seeing are:

"there's no need to upgrade CA 58 to I-40"

vs.

"in that case, shields are irrelevant, make them all CA shields"

The latter reads like an emotional reaction which, ironically, reinforces the argument that converting CA 58 to I-40 is unnecessary.

Possibly the simplest solution would be to add Barstow as the control city for CA 58 East, particularly at the I-5 and CA 99 interchanges. Considering Bakersfield is the control for CA 58 West, it wouldn't hurt to have them complement each other. And if we're promoting CA 58 as a greater Los Angeles bypass, supplemental signs to the effect of "San Francisco Use CA 58 West" / "Las Vegas / Flagstaff / Use CA 58 East" could be beneficial.

But also, anyone traveling between I-5 and I-40 already know about CA 58 anyway.

In fact, signs at the Route 99 (and possibly I-5 interchanges) indicating "To I-40 and Barstow: Use Route 58 W" would probably be useful for travelers. In the other direction (i.e., in Barstow), control cities likely suffice, although a "To Bakersfield and I-5, use Route 58 E" probably would be useful.

[Rothman]

Regarding the contention about the 90% funding and such. 90% funding for construction and maintenance is only for CHARGEABLE mileage, and we've reached the limit of that (48,000 miles, IIRC). Congress, of course, could change that limit. So this would be non-chargeable mileage, and the funding percentages would be the normal ones. There are a variety of funding sources that the CTC uses, and some of the are federal pots of money. The congressional representatives in that area, if they felt it was a priority, could divert funding to those segments for roadway improvements. Given there political makeup (that part of central California is non-urban and strongly Republican), there would need to be a strong fiscal benefit from the upgrades for them to fight for it in an Infrastructure bill 

Please provide a source for the 48,000 chargeable mileage limit.

In my experience, California is the only state that uses the term "chargeable" in this context.  NY certainly does not.

CA could just go through the process of upgrading 58 to an Interstate if they so desired and thought it was worth it to do so and get the 90% share after the designation through utilizing NHPP funding in particular.

Keep in mind federal funding is a reimbursement program.

[FredAkbar]

58 EAST
Las Vegas
Flagstaff

Or as CalTrans would say,

58 EAST
Baker
Needles

[cahwyguy]

Regarding the contention about the 90% funding and such. 90% funding for construction and maintenance is only for CHARGEABLE mileage, and we've reached the limit of that (48,000 miles, IIRC). Congress, of course, could change that limit. So this would be non-chargeable mileage, and the funding percentages would be the normal ones. There are a variety of funding sources that the CTC uses, and some of the are federal pots of money. The congressional representatives in that area, if they felt it was a priority, could divert funding to those segments for roadway improvements. Given there political makeup (that part of central California is non-urban and strongly Republican), there would need to be a strong fiscal benefit from the upgrades for them to fight for it in an Infrastructure bill 

Please provide a source for the 48,000 chargeable mileage limit.

In my experience, California is the only state that uses the term "chargeable" in this context.  NY certainly does not.

CA could just go through the process of upgrading 58 to an Interstate if they so desired and thought it was worth it to do so and get the 90% share after the designation through utilizing NHPP funding in particular.

Keep in mind federal funding is a reimbursement program.

Remember, the IIRC. I didn't. The number is closer to 43K. Sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System
https://highways.dot.gov/highway-history/interstate-system/dwight-d-eisenhower-system-interstate-and-defense-highways/part-1
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Federal_Highway_Act.htm

The last one notes: "The authorization to build 41,000 miles of interstate highways marked the largest American public works program to that time."

California at one time published a document on the history of interstates in California. I captured that document on my page https://www.cahighways.org/itypes.html and https://www.cahighways.org/itypes-history.html

There I note:

Chargeable Interstate Routes
The Interstate System was created by the 1944 Federal-Aid Highway act, which authorized 40,000 miles nationally. California was initially allocated 1,938 miles. Later allocations in 1955 brought the total mileage to 2,135 miles. The 1956 Federal-Aid Highway Act authorized an additional 1,000 miles nationally; California received none of this. The 1968 Highway Act added another 1,500 miles, expanding the system to 42,500 miles. An amendment sponsored by U.S. Representatives James Howard and William Cramer authorized an additional 200 miles for modification or revision of the basic System. The mileage authorized under the Howard-Cramer Amendment was increased eventually to 500 miles under the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973. The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 brought the total authorized mileage to 43,000. Of these miles, California has been allocated 2,311 miles. This mileage is called "chargeable Interstate". All of this mileage is/was eligible for construction with regular Interstate funds.

The Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1978 provided full Interstate Construction funding for all routes designated under previous system adjustments. Another provision of this Act prohibited the use of Interstate Construction (IC) funds for the construction of any new miles designated after passage of the Act. A total of 42,795 miles had been designated for development with IC funds before this measure was enacted.

That page details when each portion of interstate was submitted, and how it counted against California's total chargeable mileage. It also shows other submissions, notably that Route 58 from Bakersfield to Barstow WAS submitted in 1968, and rejected in 1970, and Caltrans hasn't tried since then.

As for non-chargeable mileage, my page notes (again, from the Caltrans document):

Section 139, Title 23 of the US Code allows for the designation of certain highways as Interstate routes in addition to that which is "chargeable". These highways are not eligible for regular Interstate Completion funds and are called "Non-chargeable Interstates". They are all Federal-aid Primary highways that meet the criteria for Interstate routes. They are signed as interstates to provide continuity and connectivity for motorists and truckers. There are two types:

* 139(a) (now 23 USC 103(c)(4)(A)) mileage are routes that already meet Interstate standards and can be immediately signed as interstates once the proposed number is approved.

* 139(b) (now 23 USC 103(c)(4)(B)) mileage is designated as a future part of the system once Interstate construction standards are met. It cannot be signed as interstate until then.

Note that the section numbers have changed. According to the FHWA log:

The FHWA may, at the request of a State or States, designate sections of the National Highway System (NHS) as Interstate Highway under Section 103(c)(4)(A), Title 23, United States Code (23 U.S.C.). The proposed section must:

* Be built to Interstate standards and
* Be a logical addition to the System.

Although Section 103(c)(4)(A) segments look like any other Interstate highway, they are not eligible for development with IC funds. In all, the FHWA has approved 2,145.29 miles of highways in the contiguous 48 States, District of Columbia, and Hawaii as Section 103(c)(4)(A) additions to the Interstate System (including additions under former Section 139(a)).

Also added to the Interstate System under Section 103(c)(4)(A) are highways in Alaska and Puerto Rico for a total of 1,331.99 miles (including additions under former Section 139(c)). Alaska and Puerto Rico are exempt from the design standards of Section 109(b). Section 103(c)(1)(B)(ii), 23 U.S.C., states: "Highways on the Interstate System in Alaska and Puerto Rico shall be designed in accordance with such geometric and construction standards as are adequate for current and probable future traffic demands and the needs of the locality of the highway."

The FHWA may also, at the request of a State or States, add highways to the Interstate System that are designated as National Highway System (NHS) high priority corridors and future parts of the Interstate System in Section 1105 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). The proposed section must:

* Be built to Interstate standards and
* Connect with an existing Interstate route.

To my knowledge, California has never submitted Route 58 to be signed as non-chargeable Interstate.

I cannot speak to how New York tracks their interstate mileage. My area of expertise is California's highways.

ETA: I did a quick search. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/highwayhistory/data/page02.cfm details the chargeable and non-chargeable mileage by state, demonstrating that New York indeed does make the distinction. It has 1,392.55 chargeable miles, and 104.24 139(a) non-chargeable miles.

ETA2: And, before folks ask: I-99 appears to be non-charageable interstate. The number was assigned by Congress, not AASHTO. While it receives some federal funding like all major routes on the National Highway System, it does not count against the federal government's original capped mileage of chargeable interstates.

ETA3: And looking into the question of whether Route 58 is part of the National Highway System led to a neat map page: https://hepgis-usdot.hub.arcgis.com/pages/national-highway-system . Looking at the detailed map, https://hepgis-usdot.hub.arcgis.com/apps/7cd9b8ff84504d1fa473fd3ea2a3c683/explore , Route 58 is already on the National Highway System, and thus does appear to be eligible for some federal funding. There's also an interesting map at https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=026e830c914c495797c969a3e5668538 . That, again, shows Route 58 as part of the National Highway System as far W as I-5.

[Max Rockatansky]

I was under the impression that 58 between Bakersfield and Barstow was one of the many corridor submissions the CHC submitted for those chargeable 1,500 miles from the 1968 Federal Aid Highway Act?

[cahwyguy]

I was under the impression that 58 between Bakersfield and Barstow was one of the many corridor submissions the CHC submitted for those chargeable 1,500 miles from the 1968 Federal Aid Highway Act?

It was. If you look at the interstate history page I linked above, it was submitted a number of times between the 1950s and 1970s, and rejected each time. The last time, they just seemed to give up on submitting it, and never submitted it as non-chargeable either.

[Rothman]

Regarding the contention about the 90% funding and such. 90% funding for construction and maintenance is only for CHARGEABLE mileage, and we've reached the limit of that (48,000 miles, IIRC). Congress, of course, could change that limit. So this would be non-chargeable mileage, and the funding percentages would be the normal ones. There are a variety of funding sources that the CTC uses, and some of the are federal pots of money. The congressional representatives in that area, if they felt it was a priority, could divert funding to those segments for roadway improvements. Given there political makeup (that part of central California is non-urban and strongly Republican), there would need to be a strong fiscal benefit from the upgrades for them to fight for it in an Infrastructure bill 

Please provide a source for the 48,000 chargeable mileage limit.

In my experience, California is the only state that uses the term "chargeable" in this context.  NY certainly does not.

CA could just go through the process of upgrading 58 to an Interstate if they so desired and thought it was worth it to do so and get the 90% share after the designation through utilizing NHPP funding in particular.

Keep in mind federal funding is a reimbursement program.

Remember, the IIRC. I didn't. The number is closer to 43K. Sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System
https://highways.dot.gov/highway-history/interstate-system/dwight-d-eisenhower-system-interstate-and-defense-highways/part-1
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Federal_Highway_Act.htm

The last one notes: "The authorization to build 41,000 miles of interstate highways marked the largest American public works program to that time."

California at one time published a document on the history of interstates in California. I captured that document on my page https://www.cahighways.org/itypes.html and https://www.cahighways.org/itypes-history.html

There I note:

Chargeable Interstate Routes
The Interstate System was created by the 1944 Federal-Aid Highway act, which authorized 40,000 miles nationally. California was initially allocated 1,938 miles. Later allocations in 1955 brought the total mileage to 2,135 miles. The 1956 Federal-Aid Highway Act authorized an additional 1,000 miles nationally; California received none of this. The 1968 Highway Act added another 1,500 miles, expanding the system to 42,500 miles. An amendment sponsored by U.S. Representatives James Howard and William Cramer authorized an additional 200 miles for modification or revision of the basic System. The mileage authorized under the Howard-Cramer Amendment was increased eventually to 500 miles under the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973. The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 brought the total authorized mileage to 43,000. Of these miles, California has been allocated 2,311 miles. This mileage is called "chargeable Interstate". All of this mileage is/was eligible for construction with regular Interstate funds.

The Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1978 provided full Interstate Construction funding for all routes designated under previous system adjustments. Another provision of this Act prohibited the use of Interstate Construction (IC) funds for the construction of any new miles designated after passage of the Act. A total of 42,795 miles had been designated for development with IC funds before this measure was enacted.

That page details when each portion of interstate was submitted, and how it counted against California's total chargeable mileage. It also shows other submissions, notably that Route 58 from Bakersfield to Barstow WAS submitted in 1968, and rejected in 1970, and Caltrans hasn't tried since then.

As for non-chargeable mileage, my page notes (again, from the Caltrans document):

Section 139, Title 23 of the US Code allows for the designation of certain highways as Interstate routes in addition to that which is "chargeable". These highways are not eligible for regular Interstate Completion funds and are called "Non-chargeable Interstates". They are all Federal-aid Primary highways that meet the criteria for Interstate routes. They are signed as interstates to provide continuity and connectivity for motorists and truckers. There are two types:

* 139(a) (now 23 USC 103(c)(4)(A)) mileage are routes that already meet Interstate standards and can be immediately signed as interstates once the proposed number is approved.

* 139(b) (now 23 USC 103(c)(4)(B)) mileage is designated as a future part of the system once Interstate construction standards are met. It cannot be signed as interstate until then.

Note that the section numbers have changed. According to the FHWA log:

The FHWA may, at the request of a State or States, designate sections of the National Highway System (NHS) as Interstate Highway under Section 103(c)(4)(A), Title 23, United States Code (23 U.S.C.). The proposed section must:

* Be built to Interstate standards and
* Be a logical addition to the System.

Although Section 103(c)(4)(A) segments look like any other Interstate highway, they are not eligible for development with IC funds. In all, the FHWA has approved 2,145.29 miles of highways in the contiguous 48 States, District of Columbia, and Hawaii as Section 103(c)(4)(A) additions to the Interstate System (including additions under former Section 139(a)).

Also added to the Interstate System under Section 103(c)(4)(A) are highways in Alaska and Puerto Rico for a total of 1,331.99 miles (including additions under former Section 139(c)). Alaska and Puerto Rico are exempt from the design standards of Section 109(b). Section 103(c)(1)(B)(ii), 23 U.S.C., states: "Highways on the Interstate System in Alaska and Puerto Rico shall be designed in accordance with such geometric and construction standards as are adequate for current and probable future traffic demands and the needs of the locality of the highway."

The FHWA may also, at the request of a State or States, add highways to the Interstate System that are designated as National Highway System (NHS) high priority corridors and future parts of the Interstate System in Section 1105 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). The proposed section must:

* Be built to Interstate standards and
* Connect with an existing Interstate route.

To my knowledge, California has never submitted Route 58 to be signed as non-chargeable Interstate.

I cannot speak to how New York tracks their interstate mileage. My area of expertise is California's highways.

My dude, your information is horrifically obsolete.  23 USC 139 now refers to Efficient Environmental Reviews, just as one example: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=%28title:23%20section:139%20edition:prelim%29.  Interstate Completion funds went the way of the dodo decades ago.  Time to move into the 21st Century!

There's also a whole lot of irrelevant information in what you shared for whether or not upgrading CA 58 to an Interstate would qualify it for a 90% federal reimbursement rate.  Verbosity is only helpful when coupled with relevancy.

The amount of Interstate Highway mileage is not a hard cap.  States go through designating more Interstate mileage "frequently" (e.g., NY and NC).  The designation process really isn't an insurmountable obstacle if a State desires to add more mileage.  The much bigger issue is bringing obsolete roads up to current Interstate Highway System standards.

NY has a similar issue to what you're describing as "chargeable" mileage, albeit on a much smaller scale from California.  A decent mileage of signed Interstates in the NYC area are not eligible for the 90% share due to the evolution of the federal definition of the Interstate Highway System, some of which is pointed out in your quotes of your own material.  Frankly, I think this whole situation may be because of unintentional miscitations in laws that were passed regarding various federal funding sources (e.g., incorrectly pointing towards a USC section of an earlier definition, rather than current).  No matter the cause, though, here we are.  And, at least in NY, at this point getting those urban segments of 80% Interstates up to standard for designation would be fiscally impossible.

Anyway, even from your long post, I'm still not seeing why CA could not upgrade CA 58 to Interstate standards, go through the designation process and thereby obtain the 90% share promised in current federal funding programs (e.g., National Highway Performance Program being the largest by far).

Sure, it may not be cost-effective for them to do so, but the 90% share eligibility would still be pertinent post-designation.

[Max Rockatansky]

I was under the impression that 58 between Bakersfield and Barstow was one of the many corridor submissions the CHC submitted for those chargeable 1,500 miles from the 1968 Federal Aid Highway Act?

It was. If you look at the interstate history page I linked above, it was submitted a number of times between the 1950s and 1970s, and rejected each time. The last time, they just seemed to give up on submitting it, and never submitted it as non-chargeable either.

Noted, I was mostly just making sure I had my own history correct.  1968 CHC submissions seem to have been drafted without an understanding of the limited number of allocated chargeable miles.  I want to say US 101 between San Francisco and Los Angeles was another submission from 1968?  All that I-70/Minaret Summit stuff was being studied heavily in advance of the 1968 Federal Highway Aid Act.  I don't believe off the top of my head that the Minaret Summit corridor was actually submitted though.

[Rothman]

*sees cahwyguy's ETAs*

Regarding I-99:  That table is as of 1997!  Get into the 21st Century!

NHS does not determine if a road is federal-aid eligible or not.  The Federal-Aid System does.  NHS is a subset of the FAS.  And, of course, some federal funds are eligible to be spent off the FAS (e.g., STBG-OSB and TAP, etc.).

[cahwyguy]

My dude, your information is horrifically obsolete.  23 USC 139 now refers to Efficient Environmental Reviews, just as one example: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=%28title:23%20section:139%20edition:prelim%29.  Interstate Completion funds went the way of the dodo decades ago.  Time to move into the 21st Century!

My information came from the Caltrans Interstate History document. It may indeed be out of date, and I welcome corrections as to what today's terminology is. Please point me to the correct information (or email me some corrections at faigin -at cahighways.org) and I'll get the pages updated.

NY has a similar issue to what you're describing as "chargeable" mileage, albeit on a much smaller scale

The terminology of "chargeable" mileage didn't come from me. It is in the Caltrans Interstate History document, and in the FHWA documents that I cited. It might be an outdated term as I'm not up to date on the latest Federal statutes, but it isn't my term.

[vdeane]

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.

Yep.  And things like beltways.  Of course, just about any other state would have just put I-5 on CA 99 and never built the present alignment of I-5 in the first place.

You would have better luck bringing back US 99, but AASHTO wouldn't go for it.

Honestly, I don't understand why US 99 was decommissioned in California in the first place.  The rule is "over 300 miles or crosses a state line".  CA 99 from Grapevine to Red Bluff is at least 420 miles and would have crossed multiple state lines if it were anywhere else in the country.  As far as I'm concerned, there's no reason for it to not be a US route.

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.

None of those would be a change in number, though - just a change in shield.

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).

I was about to ask "since when do interstate decommissioning require refunding anything" only to then think "I wonder if this is why NYSDOT wants an act of Congress to move I-81".  Anyone know if anything needed to be refunded when I-895 was removed?

[Max Rockatansky]

There is some scant evidence that the Division of Highways wanted initially to retain US 99.  US 99 wasn't actually deleted in California until June 1965 which was well after the 1964 State Highway renumbering (most US Route deletion requests/truncations were filed in the summer of 1963).  At least one CHPW referred to the segment north of Sacramento which was partially overlaid on former CA 24 to Yuba City as "New US 99."

My working theory is the Division of Highways got flustered after AASHTO wouldn't play ball with their desired numbering scheme for the Interstates in 1957-1958.  The system the Division of Highways came up with would have avoided duplicating existing US Route numbers.  The whole "one number, one route" concept came after AASHTO pushed back with the Interstate system we have in place today.  It seems at some point the Division of Highways concluded the US Route system was dying and wasn't worth maintaining. 

FWIW this is the blog I did on the 1957-1958 California Interstate Highway numbering requests:

https://www.gribblenation.org/2022/11/establishing-numbering-conventions-of.html?m=1

[cahwyguy]

Yep.  And things like beltways.  Of course, just about any other state would have just put I-5 on CA 99 and never built the present alignment of I-5 in the first place.

There were a few rationales for moving I-5, which are discussed on my I-5 page, based on discussions here from Sparker.

First, Route 99 pretty much carried local traffic, and at the time, had a lot of city interactions and undersized underpasses. Caltrans wanted to avoid that for through truck traffic.

Second, the existing road wouldn't work as well for the new 90% federal match. Better to use the match for a new roadway that would be faster for the trucks. I'm also sure that the routing through the west side of Sacramento kept a lot of truck traffic out of the main areas.

For more, see https://www.cahighways.org/ROUTE005.html:

Many ask why the Westerly routing in the San Joaquin Valley was constructed. One poster on MTR noted that in 1965 or thereabouts, in response to a legislative request, the then California Division of Highways prepared a report on the effect of the Interstate system on California highway development. One important point noted in this report was that although both I-5 and Route 99 were planned for eventual development as freeways, I-5 had received artificially higher priority over Route 99 because it was funded as an Interstate and so attracted federal completion deadlines. This in turn meant that more resources were being devoted to I-5 even though it was projected to be far less busy than Route 99. This might imply that the Division had had the decision to build I-5 on an independent alignment wished on it—possibly by the Legislature, the Highway Commission, or even the B.P.R.—and would rather have chased the traffic on Route 99, possibly by building it as an Interstate, while leaving the facility now known as I-5 to be developed as a western relief route at some point in the relatively distant future.

According to CHPW: It was anticipated that when the Westside Freeway was completed, it would afford a substantial distance savings to through traffic. For travel between the San Francisco-Oakland metropolitan area and the Southern California metropolitan area, the approximate distance savings of the Westside Freeway over use of US 99 and US 50 would be 20 miles and over use of US 101 would be 43 miles. Between Los Angeles and Sacramento, the driving distance would be reduced six miles over the present US 99. The distance savings to through traffic that would be afforded bv the Westside Freeway, combined with the rural character of the route, would encourage its use by heavy through trucking. Studies indicated that approximately 25 percent of the traffic on this route would be trucks, with 60 percent having five axles.
(Source: CHPW, Sep/Oct 1960)

[...]

There were lots of controversies about the routing of the I-5, US 50, I-80 (now Route 51/BR 80), and Route 99 freeways through downtown Sacramento. The UCLA Institute of Transportation Studies did a detailed study and report that covered the history of development and the impact on communities of color in the area. In Sacramento, the West End, which lies between the State Capitol and the Sacramento River north of M Street, was the city's original business district and was known for its rich ethnic diversity as it welcomed people from around the world. A mixed-use, mixed-income area, it became Sacramento's most populated, diverse, integrated, and historically significant neighborhood. and was originally home to Japantown, the fourth-largest Japanese community in California.  The neighborhood was vulnerable owing to the FHA's practice of denying mortgage insurance to older buildings in low-income neighborhoods and areas of color. This practice contributed to the characterization of the area as "blighted" under the Housing Act of 1949, enabling the City to demolish buildings and then sell or lease the cleared land for urban renewal projects or freeway construction. Sacramento designated 62 blocks of West End as "Redevelopment Area № 1," and in 1957, the Sacramento Redevelopment Agency proceeded to demolish many of the buildings in the area. The plans for the West-Side freeway began in the 1950s, in alignment with the city's redevelopment plans for the West End. Most of the initial planning and public hearing processes for this freeway also coincided with the planning of US 50. With most residents of the neighborhood displaced by redevelopment by the late 1950s, opposition to the freeway came mostly from concerns over the impact of the freeway on historic parts of the city. In the end, I-5 faced a much longer period of public scrutiny and opposition than US 50 or Route 99. In the late 1960s, planners proposed the routing for the west-side freeway between 2nd and 3rd Streets from I to N Streets. One analysis showed that 15 state-designated historic buildings and five blocks of the area bounded by I, 2nd, 3rd, and N Streets would require clearance to make way for the freeway. Given the historical importance of the area, several historians, historical organizations, and individuals expressed their opposition to the freeway development plan. The National Trust for Historic Preservation in Washington D.C. and the California Historical Society also showed support for the cause. The public hearing for this freeway was combined with the second public hearing for US 50 on February 20, 1961. At the hearing, planners proposed three alternative routes for the west-side freeway. These were: (1) Between Front and 2nd Streets, as close to the river as possible (2) Between 2nd and 3rd Streets (3) West of the river in its entirety, in Yolo County. After the public hearing, more arguments in opposition to the freeway flowed in: the freeway would brutally uproot the landmarks of the history of the Gold Rush, the freeway would blight the remaining landmarks, the freeway would inundate the new investments in the redevelopment area with unwanted traffic, the freeway would deface the entrance to the city and bring blight to the Capitol Mall, and it would become an obstacle for riverfront redevelopment. Despite the opposition, the California Highway Commission adopted the 2nd and 3rd Streets route (i.e., route (2) above) for the West-Side freeway, but it could not yet move forward with construction plans. U.S. Secretary of Interior Stewart Udall sent a telegram to Governor Pat Brown advising that the Big Four Building (birthplace of the first transcontinental railroad), which lay in the proposed path of the freeway, was eligible for national historic landmark status and should be protected from destruction or displacement. This telegram restricted the approval of federal funds until a consultation with local authorities could take place. By late 1961, an agreement was reached regarding the preservation of these buildings, and the Highway Commission agreed to work with the State Division of Beaches and Parks and the National Park Service to clearly lay out a plan for preserving and recreating historical sites, buildings, and areas (Hart, 1963). Even so, the freeway was not completed until the first half of the 1970s.
(Sources: "An interactive history of California's freeways, redlining and racism", Transfers, 2/28/2025; "The Implications of Freeway Siting in California: Four Case Studies on the Effects of Freeways on Neighborhoods of Color", UCLA Institute of Transportation Studies: Loukaitou-Sideris, Anastasia;Handy, Susan L.;Ong, Paul M.;Barajas, Jesus M.;Wasserman, Jacob L.;Pech, Chhandara;Garcia Sanchez, Juan C.;Ramirez, Andres F.;Jain, Aakansha;Proussaloglou, Emmanuel;Nguyen, Andrea;Turner, Katherine;Fitzgibbon, Abigail;Kaeppelin, Francois;Ramirez, Felipe;Arenas, Marc, 2023)

As for the Route 99/US 99 changes: I think a lot was driven by AASHTO and the fact that all of US 99, after the renumbering of I-5, was in California. Additionally, a good portion of the route new Route 99 between Sacramento and Yuba City wasn't either US 99W or US 99E, so calling it US 99 would have been a problem.

[Bobby5280]

The rationale of building I-5 as a relief route/truck bypass for the cities in the San Joaquin Valley could apply just the same for an extension of I-40 from Barstow to the I-5 corridor. The extended highway would probably draw a significant amount of long distance traffic away from the LA area and I-10 corridor.

[cahwyguy]

The rationale of building I-5 as a relief route/truck bypass for the cities in the San Joaquin Valley could apply just the same for an extension of I-40 from Barstow to the I-5 corridor. The extended highway would probably draw a significant amount of long distance traffic away from the LA area and I-10 corridor.

Except, of course, that I-5 didn't exist as a relief route before it was constructed. Route 58, on the other hand, already existed and exists today (and, before conversion to expressway/freeway, was US 466). So a simple change in signage wouldn't draw additional traffic away. The Traffic and GPS already route folks onto Route 58 (and, for the folks that don't want to deal with 58, across Route 18 and Route 138 to Route 14 to I-5)