CA 99 - The Final Countdown

[TheStranger]

It's a major corridor, but what's the point of an intrastate US route?

California doesn't have secondary state routes so 99 is pretty much on the same level as say a Route 39 or a Route 2, in terms of designation.  I get that to some degree this doesn't matter (no route duplication to begin with) but at the US highway level, there's a better sense of how important the route is.

Or to put it another way:

If US 46 and US 130 can remain in the US route system despite being short, intrastate routings, 99 surely is of more significance than either! 

[sparker]

Only a 7-week necro: not too bad!  First issue: vdeane's comments in the CA 210 thread about 99:  comparing the two corridors is like apples & oranges -- different forces and factors are at work in either case.  99 is a designated future Interstate corridor, CA 210 is not.  The conversion of 99 has some persistent (mostly in & around Fresno) backers, while 210 as a through facility at least signed with that number is locally considered to be a "done deal", regardless of how it sticks in the craw of posters here (myself included).  Besides, 210's a 3di functioning as just another cog in the L.A. metro freeway system; any development along its routing has pretty much already happened -- it's not perceived that any significant economic gain is attached to Interstate signage along that freeway.  99, on the other hand, is thought of as a major inter-regional (if only intrastate) corridor with, according to stats, more truck traffic than any other non-Interstate corridor in the nation, as well as an alternate (with only a few more aggregate miles) to I-5.  Proposals for Interstate status for this route date back to the mid-'80's -- soon after the time that I-5 was fully completed from L.A. to Sacramento (disclosure:  I formulated a series of surveys for one of the groups exploring such status back in 1987).  Local political pressure eventually resulted in the 2005 establishment of HPC 54, with future Interstate status attached.

Caltrans has long considered quests for Interstate status to be, in a nutshell, a pain in the ass to them.  As I've stated in other posts, internally it's considered to be both an unwanted draw on their time & resources, plus a disruption to their planning efforts and priorities.  99 IS being upgraded, but decidedly in a piecemeal fashion.  What, IMHO, is likely to happen is that eventually enough of these upgrades will be completed to get the actual Interstate-grade portion of the CA 99 corridor up above, say, the 80% level.  At that time, the local political machines will start churning, and one or more Congresspersons from the region will be drafted to carry the actual designation legislation to the next available point, be it a multi-year omnibus bill or simply a yearly appropriation.  Then we'll see an I-7 or I-9 being touted locally like I-22 was back in '04 in AL and MS;  details will be worked out with FHWA regarding signage, and the process will be underway.  Whether this happens circa 2020, 2025, 2030 or beyond is purely speculative as of now.

In any case, don't ever count out a Fresnan with an agenda (my ex is one of their number!); they can be relentless in their pursuits!

Re the last 99 stoplight at Livingston:  I remember that the Foster Farms restaurant was situated right on Livingston Ave. as close to the stoplight as was possible; I dined there a few times (one guess what their specialty was!) before the freeway was finished in late '96.  The Livingston Ave. diamond interchange utilized the restaurant site; it apparently was downsized and moved about a block away.  The fried chicken was, as would be expected, first-rate (reminded me of the old "broasted" chicken my folks used to occasionally bring home back in the '50's & '60's).  And as a reply to Max's comments -- I always take 99 rather than 5 whenever possible for the following reasons:  (1) Bravo Farms in Traver -- fantastic & unique cheese selection, (2) bierocks in Fresno (sort of an Armenian-origin "wrap", similar in texture to a chimichanga, but with a uniquely spiced meat filling -- yum!), and (3) if I'm still hungry, 6 In-n-Outs along the road as opposed to 2 on I-5. 

         

[ACSCmapcollector]

But you have to consider the saga of I-5 in San Joaquin Valley is a strange one.  The route avoids Bakerfield, Visalia and Fresno entirely while CA 99 runs through them.  The assumption of the planners was that infrastructure would be built in the empty west valley which really never happened.  For what it's worth I personally find I-5 more desirable to get to Sacramento than following the traffic laden CA 99.

California state route 99 doesn't run through the center of Visalia, California state route 198 does, California state route 99 is on Visalia's western most city limit line, but Goshen, CA is out of Visalia's city limit line to the WNW of the center of Visalia, CA. 

Scott C. Presnal
Morro Bay, CA

[Max Rockatansky]

Rather than quote everything Sparker wrote I'll just touch on the food commentary directed at me:

Ever try Harris Ranch out on I-5 and CA 198?  That's actually some pretty good steak and/or burgers for something so far flung out in the middle of an otherwise empty valley.  I always kind of liked to check out the Diablos since you can see them directly west of I-5 as to you might be regretting diverting your attention with the Sierras on 99...if you can even see them that is.  I don't know, it's kind of nice to zone out on I-5 and let the miles roll away.  Also I've noticed that the elevation often is high enough on I-5 to get above the Tule Fog line. 

[ACSCmapcollector]

Uh no, not exactly, I have been raised there in Visalia for a long time to come I am familiar with the city of Visalia, kind of proud to have many high school classmates from the city too.  I traded the heat of the San Joaquin Valley for the rain and fog and cooler temperatures as a meteorologist (since 1984), for the Central California coast for the 6 months in which Morro Bay, gets more rain than Fresno, Bakersfield or Visalia too.  I haven't been to Harris Ranch, I enjoy In and Out Burgers as the best!

Scott C. Presnal
Morro Bay, CA

[Quillz]

Personally, I'm not a big fan of making every last stretch of highway an interstate. I see nothing wrong with having state highways and US highways built up to interstate standards but not actually signed as such. That's how I feel about CA-99. It's a historic number within the state, and, as mentioned, it having an interstate shield really doesn't mean much anymore. So why not just leave well enough alone and keep it as CA-99 while still doing the necessary upgrades?

[Max Rockatansky]

Personally, I'm not a big fan of making every last stretch of highway an interstate. I see nothing wrong with having state highways and US highways built up to interstate standards but not actually signed as such. That's how I feel about CA-99. It's a historic number within the state, and, as mentioned, it having an interstate shield really doesn't mean much anymore. So why not just leave well enough alone and keep it as CA-99 while still doing the necessary upgrades?

Better question was why did everyone push to eliminate US 99 way back in the day when there is actually enough existing segments to merit a highway based off it's own accord?  I can't help but think this whole I-7/9 stuff would be quieted down quite a bit more had at least the section from Red Bluff to Wheeler Ridge stayed US Highway.  Someone pointed out already that it would have been well over the 300 mile Intrastate AASHTO rule...but hell it could have included some alignments in Oregon if someone wanted to just okay the multiplex or find a newer and more creative way of getting it to Oregon.  Non-Interstate freeways seem to work just fine for US 31 out in Michigan, US 70 around Las Cruces, US 101 in California and US 60 in eastern Phoenix amid many other examples.

But then again I tend to be of the camp that believes US Routes are a still a cut above state routes in nears of highway equity.  California for what it's worth hasn't really subscribed that that theory in about a half century. 

[kkt]

The assumption of the planners was that infrastructure would be built in the empty west valley which really never happened.

Are you sure that's what they thought?  I think the planners' reasoning was:

West valley route built on new ROW could be built faster than upgrades done while 99 remained in service
West valley route shorter between LA/San Diego and SF Bay Area than via 99
Ultimately California would need parallel freeway routes
West valley route may not attract the large development that the east valley has, but it will eventually have roadside services -- gas, fast food, hotels -- so that you need not fear being stranded 50 miles from anything.
A route less subject to tule fog is good

[Quillz]

Personally, I'm not a big fan of making every last stretch of highway an interstate. I see nothing wrong with having state highways and US highways built up to interstate standards but not actually signed as such. That's how I feel about CA-99. It's a historic number within the state, and, as mentioned, it having an interstate shield really doesn't mean much anymore. So why not just leave well enough alone and keep it as CA-99 while still doing the necessary upgrades?

Better question was why did everyone push to eliminate US 99 way back in the day when there is actually enough existing segments to merit a highway based off it's own accord?  I can't help but think this whole I-7/9 stuff would be quieted down quite a bit more had at least the section from Red Bluff to Wheeler Ridge stayed US Highway.  Someone pointed out already that it would have been well over the 300 mile Intrastate AASHTO rule...but hell it could have included some alignments in Oregon if someone wanted to just okay the multiplex or find a newer and more creative way of getting it to Oregon.  Non-Interstate freeways seem to work just fine for US 31 out in Michigan, US 70 around Las Cruces, US 101 in California and US 60 in eastern Phoenix amid many other examples.

But then again I tend to be of the camp that believes US Routes are a still a cut above state routes in nears of highway equity.  California for what it's worth hasn't really subscribed that that theory in about a half century. 

I agree, but I also think some of the issue is that early on, US highways had no real design standards.

I think in a perfect world, US highways would have to meet some minimal design standards (I'm aware that today, this is the case, but I'm talking about the early days here). I think if, say, US-99 had to maintain a higher design standard than California State Route #, then Caltrans might have been less averse to killing off most of the US highways within the state.

I myself have been trying to find a middle ground for fictional purposes.

[Max Rockatansky]

Personally, I'm not a big fan of making every last stretch of highway an interstate. I see nothing wrong with having state highways and US highways built up to interstate standards but not actually signed as such. That's how I feel about CA-99. It's a historic number within the state, and, as mentioned, it having an interstate shield really doesn't mean much anymore. So why not just leave well enough alone and keep it as CA-99 while still doing the necessary upgrades?

Better question was why did everyone push to eliminate US 99 way back in the day when there is actually enough existing segments to merit a highway based off it's own accord?  I can't help but think this whole I-7/9 stuff would be quieted down quite a bit more had at least the section from Red Bluff to Wheeler Ridge stayed US Highway.  Someone pointed out already that it would have been well over the 300 mile Intrastate AASHTO rule...but hell it could have included some alignments in Oregon if someone wanted to just okay the multiplex or find a newer and more creative way of getting it to Oregon.  Non-Interstate freeways seem to work just fine for US 31 out in Michigan, US 70 around Las Cruces, US 101 in California and US 60 in eastern Phoenix amid many other examples.

But then again I tend to be of the camp that believes US Routes are a still a cut above state routes in nears of highway equity.  California for what it's worth hasn't really subscribed that that theory in about a half century. 

I agree, but I also think some of the issue is that early on, US highways had no real design standards.

I think in a perfect world, US highways would have to meet some minimal design standards (I'm aware that today, this is the case, but I'm talking about the early days here). I think if, say, US-99 had to maintain a higher design standard than California State Route #, then Caltrans might have been less averse to killing off most of the US highways within the state.

I myself have been trying to find a middle ground for fictional purposes.

Basically the design back in those early days was just having a somewhat straight roadway between major civic points.    For what it was worth those were still a hell of an upgrade over the Auto Trails which were largely aligned in ways that went where someone sponsored them to do so.  I couldn't even fathom how awful it must have been to try to traverse some of those early western US Highways when they were gravel...or worse dirt roads out in the desert.  Even the Ridge Route was still a scary as all proposition back in those days...people were just happy to have a road.  But then again we're talking 1960s/1970s when California slashed their US Highways.  Basically I think it was more of a sign of the times with all those new fancy pants Interstates opening up in the boonies...who would need a US Highway?    For what it's worth it seems as time has dragged on that the need for a quality secondary national highway system has become more and more of a need with population increases around the country.   

[sparker]

While I'm certainly not advocating turning every availble freeway or expressway into an Interstate (is that an owl I hear hooting?); some corridors are more appropriate for this status than others.  If any corridor has the traffic levels -- particularly of the commercial variety -- to warrant Interstate status, it's the CA 99 corridor.  And yes, the support for this Interstate upgrade is largely political in nature -- but that has been the case for every Interstate addition since 1973!  Expecting the process by which such matters are addressed to strictly follow a bottom-up methodology -- where decisions for enhanced status are based upon a more heuristic and exhaustive approach that demands overwhelming robustness of data before any changes are made -- is, simply due to the fact that these are public roads within the public arena, unrealistic.  Decisions like determining status upgrades aren't made in a vacuum (as much as some would like it so); as long as constituents are affected -- or even perceived to be affected -- by such things as the status delineation of a piece of roadway, politics, for better or worse, will be involved!  If nostalgia for a return to US highway status for the CA 99 corridor was pervasive among the population arrayed along the route, the regional political figures would have sniffed that out and likely would have pressed for action along those lines. 

But the reality is that such seniments, from either area residents or their various political and/or civic leaders, don't seem to exist to any visible degree.  The plain fact is that since 2005 there is a federally established definition of this route as a future Interstate route, and its degree of completion and/or compliance to the appropriate criteria for such status is heads & above most other "future" corridors, including those within states more actively pursuing Interstate aspirations (looking at you, NC!).  And whether we as ad hoc critics characterize the backers of Interstate status for not only the CA 99 corridor but other potential routes in the national arena as being deluded, misinformed, or even guilty of hucksterism, they certainly don't -- and it's their opinion that actually counts!  Remember, it was politically-motivated action that kept some ill-conceived segments -- mostly in urban areas -- of the Interstate network from a fruition that would have done more damage than good.  Also remember that one of the primary rationales underpinning the original Interstate concept was as a farm-to-market network -- and if any corridor characteristics squarely fit that definition, CA 99 does -- in spades! 

Finally -- aside from the intrinsic inconveniences endemic to any route number change or a knee-jerk aversion to the relatively minimal $$ outlays for signage change -- I've yet to hear a convincing argument for NOT performing an Interstate upgrade to this (or a number of other) corridor(s); i.e. -- no one has cited any negative effects stemming from deploying Interstate shields on an appropriate-grade facility (except for the governing agency getting nasty letters/emails from the Sierra Club).  In this case, I look at it this way -- if there are local forces that want this route to be an Interstate, and can get their shit together enough to make it happen, let 'em have it.   If they don't, so be it -- it'll remain CA 99.  Even if the sight of a red, white, and blue shield is simply a variation on the placebo effect, it'll won't hurt much of anything (thankfully, the Interstate exit/mileage numbers will line up correctly due to the same southern terminus).  That being said, I can think of one potential benefit -- if indeed Interstate status is eventually granted -- with the requisite 25-year window for facility compliance -- it might accelerate the process of "cleaning up" the substandard segments (Tulare, Chowchilla, and Atwater come to mind) that haven't seen upgrades since their deployment in the '50's -- and which are, safety-wise, problematic in "tule fog" situations.  As one who uses 99 several times a year, these are issues I'd like to see addressed -- and if the means to do so involve I-status, that's quite OK.       

[TheStranger]

  That being said, I can think of one potential benefit -- if indeed Interstate status is eventually granted -- with the requisite 25-year window for facility compliance -- it might accelerate the process of "cleaning up" the substandard segments (Tulare, Chowchilla, and Atwater come to mind) that haven't seen upgrades since their deployment in the '50's -- and which are, safety-wise, problematic in "tule fog" situations.  As one who uses 99 several times a year, these are issues I'd like to see addressed -- and if the means to do so involve I-status, that's quite OK.       

Before the West Side Freeway was ever proposed along the Route 33 side of the valley...US 99 between Wheeler Ridge and Sacramento was the initial proposed I-5 routing (though this only lasted for a year or two on paper).  Crazy to think then that system upgrades along that route that were suggested in the mid-1950s are only happening...in 2016.

[coatimundi]

The negative effect of an interstate designation on 99 would probably be increased truck traffic. The local area would like that, but 99 can't handle it the way it is. Some interstate-related upgrades might help with that respect - mainly those awful 90-degree turn "interchanges" they put in - but I think a lot of widening would be necessary. 99 from LA to Sac is only additional 3 miles roughly, so it wouldn't take much to push people over there.
You also have the business changes: every bit of directions that a business has published will need to be changed. This is really tough with the internet, because there are pages that businesses don't control, and those things will just sit out there, with the wrong directions, for a very long time. I'm not saying that's a huge issue, but it's a concern in number and name changes.

I would think that we're done with intrastates. Even the most ridiculous one of all - I-99 - isn't going to be one for much longer. An I-7 or I-9 would have no where else to go, and would be doomed for its life as an intrastate.
An interstate on 99 would also have no benefit to the system as a whole, beyond serving the largest city not currently served by an interestate. The routing is already handled by I-5, and 99 is not a short-cut, like I-12 is, so it's just not justified.

More playing devil's advocate here than anything. I don't really care either way, though I would guess my roadgeek side would lean me more toward seeing it a new interstate.

A thought though: are designations less important in a world so reliant on GPS? The concept of, say, remembering to follow Interstate 70 has disappeared for most people. They just do what the little robotic voice tells them to do, and don't even look at it on a map.

[cahwyguy]

coatimundi - I agree with you, and that's one reason I tend not to frequent these forums. I like to focus on fact: what is the designation, what has been submitted, what is the history, what are the published proposals. Changing one type of sign to another may be significant to the folks here, but it is really meaningless to those who drive -- who as you note, probably just follow the GPS voice. Further, any of those changes are real significant dollars not just to the state for changing the signs, but for the hundreds of businesses along the road who have to change published directions and references. In these days of constrained road funding dollars, we have to put what limited funds we have into where they do the most good -- infrastructure repair and maintenance, key route completions, key upgrades that improve safety, key upgrades justified by service needs.

Do you want to fight something useful? Fight the numerous naming resolutions that open up families to identity theft and social engineering attacks (have you ever read them -- full birthdates and family info -- which I don't put on my pages), only to put up a sign that most people ignore. Better to remember the person by living the way they would have lived, setting up scholarships, helping another person. Those are the signs we should be talking about. To me, it is one of the most important thing my site does -- preserves those stories.

As we're talking route 99, here's an example. Here are some names memorialized on the route. Do you know who they are? Jose Rivera. James J. Schumacher, Jr.. Steven Lindblom. Stephan Gene Gray. Daniel Lee Archuleta. Gerald N. Harris. Donald Mark Lichliter.

Daniel

[Avalanchez71]

It seems as if folks in California can navigate on a "freeway" no matter the designation.  Why spend the money to change the signs?  Are upgrades neccessary for travel?  What is the accident rate?

[Max Rockatansky]

It seems as if folks in California can navigate on a "freeway" no matter the designation.  Why spend the money to change the signs?  Are upgrades neccessary for travel?  What is the accident rate?

There is some safety improvements on 99 that could be had in regards to Tule Fog.  Wasn't it back in 2012 when all those hundreds of cars piled into each other one morning?  The VMS signage is incredibly poor for bad weather conditions....and at least in my own observations is largely ignored due to the inane things that get posted on them on the average day.  You could look at something like using adverse weather advisory signage in place of VMS like ADOT does in dust storm prone regions.  That and maybe add some room to the shoulders between Bakersfield and Fresno since they are either narrow, soft or a combination of the two in a lot of locations.  Basically nothing too nuts that would require a full Interstate conversion.

[Quillz]

The negative effect of an interstate designation on 99 would probably be increased truck traffic. The local area would like that, but 99 can't handle it the way it is. Some interstate-related upgrades might help with that respect - mainly those awful 90-degree turn "interchanges" they put in - but I think a lot of widening would be necessary. 99 from LA to Sac is only additional 3 miles roughly, so it wouldn't take much to push people over there.
You also have the business changes: every bit of directions that a business has published will need to be changed. This is really tough with the internet, because there are pages that businesses don't control, and those things will just sit out there, with the wrong directions, for a very long time. I'm not saying that's a huge issue, but it's a concern in number and name changes.

I would think that we're done with intrastates. Even the most ridiculous one of all - I-99 - isn't going to be one for much longer. An I-7 or I-9 would have no where else to go, and would be doomed for its life as an intrastate.
An interstate on 99 would also have no benefit to the system as a whole, beyond serving the largest city not currently served by an interestate. The routing is already handled by I-5, and 99 is not a short-cut, like I-12 is, so it's just not justified.

More playing devil's advocate here than anything. I don't really care either way, though I would guess my roadgeek side would lean me more toward seeing it a new interstate.

A thought though: are designations less important in a world so reliant on GPS? The concept of, say, remembering to follow Interstate 70 has disappeared for most people. They just do what the little robotic voice tells them to do, and don't even look at it on a map.

I agree with the last part, and also why I'm of the opinion that concurrencies are fine (which Caltrans would disagree with).

I, too, don't think we should have any more intrastate interstates. More reason to just upgrade CA-99 and leave the number be.

[kkt]

  That being said, I can think of one potential benefit -- if indeed Interstate status is eventually granted -- with the requisite 25-year window for facility compliance -- it might accelerate the process of "cleaning up" the substandard segments (Tulare, Chowchilla, and Atwater come to mind) that haven't seen upgrades since their deployment in the '50's -- and which are, safety-wise, problematic in "tule fog" situations.  As one who uses 99 several times a year, these are issues I'd like to see addressed -- and if the means to do so involve I-status, that's quite OK.       

Before the West Side Freeway was ever proposed along the Route 33 side of the valley...US 99 between Wheeler Ridge and Sacramento was the initial proposed I-5 routing (though this only lasted for a year or two on paper).  Crazy to think then that system upgrades along that route that were suggested in the mid-1950s are only happening...in 2016.

The completion of I-5 certainly made upgrades to 99 a lot less urgent.

[sparker]

I-42 sez a big Hello!  I certainly realize that some posters don't care much for intrastate trunk Interstates, but as long as the current methodology for designating Interstates remains as is, it's going to happen -- repeatedly.  Nothing has ever been written into the U.S. Code restricting trunk Interstate numbers to multi-state facilities only, and it's likely nothing ever will.  My thoughts -- if it serves long-distance traffic -- and at 250+ miles in its Stockton-terminus iteration and about 300 miles if extended to Sacramento, this potential Interstate corridor is at least 30 miles longer than the newly-completed I-22 (it just so happens that the latter route extends across two geographically smaller states), I'm fine with it as an Interstate route.  Frankly, I don't understand the near-obsession some have with NOT establishing new Interstate routes -- unless it's part of a larger criticism of the whole Interstate concept as laid out back in '56!  The system's not perfect -- nothing ever done in the public arena is -- but, IMO, it is neither aggregately obsolete nor intrinsically harmful (yeah, I know some opponents of the concept of mobility will vehemently disagree!).

It's interesting to me that a perusal of Adam's rendition of the '44 proposal for a 48.3K Interstate network indicates that several of the routes not included in the final '57-'58 iteration have been the ones added to the system at a later time.  It may be that this larger system -- or one of similar size adjusted for more recent demographic trends -- is the logical, or even organic, natural size for a national limited-access network -- and we're getting there one route or even one SIU at a time!  The original 41K network as laid out by '58 was certainly a compromise plan, dispersed so that every one of the then 48 states got at least a small slice of the pie.  The very fact that an expansion bill was passed ten years later attests to the ongoing impetus for system additions. However, the "block-grant" changes of '73 cast the entire Interstate-augmentation process into the political arena -- essentially transferring any facility planning origins from the national to the state/local level.  The result has been the deployment of localized, often intrastate, I-routes that nevertheless meet FHWA criteria. 

I certainly don't make these rules; I just analyze the results (and detritus!).  As far as an Interstate designation attracting truck traffic, that ship sailed decades ago even with mere CA 99 signage -- as Jerry Seinfeld might say, "COULD there be any more trucks on this damn highway?"  Serving one of the most concentrated agricultural regions in the country, as well as several metro areas, each with hundreds of thousands population, has made the constant and consistent presence of trucks on this corridor a given.                 

[coatimundi]

No, I know that there's significant truck traffic on CA 99 as of today. However, I believe that most of that is localized truck traffic. Serving, say, the Sunmaid factory and bringing its tiny-boxed, brunette-faced results to the rest of the world. What's missing is the coastal truck traffic; going from the Port of LA/Long Beach out to northern CA, Oregon and Washington.
I-5 remains a viable thoroughfare simply because it's an interstate. Its construction standards allow a 70 mph limit. Meanwhile, 99's lackluster designs and haphazard interchanges make it unattractive to both truckers and GPS units, who claim longer timeframes along its routing. Meanwhile, I would much rather get a hotel in Bakersfield, Visalia, Merced or Turlock as opposed to Lost Hills, Kettlemen, or Los Banos. Having to spend even 8 hours in those latter towns would be reason enough to migrate over to 99, provided Google Maps offered it as an alternative. But, of course, I know better, and I would take 99 anyway.
Most people don't though, and see I-5 as the only, unattractive option. Bringing 99 into the interstate fold means bringing the GPS users on as well. I can't imagine Fresno McFreely wants to see Ms. Lexus of Glendale driving 65 in the left lane for 8 miles, as she now does on I-5, but that's what will kill the 99 even more.

I-42 brings up the point of I-37: an intrastate introduced with the second wave of the system map. I-37 provided access to important military-industrial facilities in that overgrown embarrassment to the Gulf (and that's saying a lot, seeing as that includes Port Arthur and Biloxi). I-42 at least provides access to a number of industrial towns and a Marine Corps base. I-9 would provide access to nectarine and almond farms.
I also have the belief that Californians, typically being more progressive than most of the rest of the country, do not wholeheartedly believe that an interstate designation provides inherent and automatic economic development. It's certainly possible that some city council in Chowchilla would advocate for the designation, but would that actually bring said benefit to Chowchilla? I sincerely doubt it. And I think that most of the rest of the state recognizes this.

[sparker]

All well & good -- but the rest of the state really doesn't have a dog in this particular race.  Unless they're of the specific ideological bent that generically opposes highway upgrade projects, even progressives are decidedly incurious about highway-related matters in areas of the state that they don't frequent on a regular basis.  I certainly wouldn't expect a coder from Mountain View to give much of a rat's ass about the issues faced by a courier driver with a Fresno-Visalia route.  Inversely, I also wouldn't expect a pharmacist from Kingsburg to care about the condition of the 101/880 interchange here in San Jose (which causes me to howl in despair/dismay several times a week -- because I'm here!).  California's a big and far-flung state -- and despite its relatively progressive bent, hardly, in the aggregate, a communitarian paradise, where the problems of one are considered the problems of all.  We forum contributors are a unique bunch -- we care about such things.  But, for better or worse, our opinion doesn't really matter either.  As I've said previously, it'll be the local activists out in the trenches who, if they're committed to seeing an I-7 or I-9 on the 99 corridor, will at some point force the issue by hook or crook until they either get what they want or expend all their available resources.  These aren't the type of matters that come up for a public referendum -- so the chances are good that the squeaky wheel will eventually prevail, given the collective shrug of the shoulders of pretty much everyone else (we posters being the exception that proves the rule!).   

[cahwyguy]

I'd say I don't care about the 101/880 interchange, but then again, you don't care about the 101/405 interchange :-)

What will force the issue, if you really need the condition of 99 upgraded, is a multi-county-coalition of the transportation agencies along the corridor. They are the agencies that make funding requests to the CTC, and they are the agencies that would likely do a coordinated sales tax increase along the corridor to provide local funding to augment the cost.

No matter what activitists or roadgeeks think or want, it is money that pays for environmental studies and gets highways built. It is the CTC putting the project on the TCRP or STIP or SHOPP agendas, and allocating the funds to the phases of construction. With statewide highway funds going down, and funds being increasingly allocated to other transportation avenues (rail, bike lanes, etc.), nothing will be done without transportation agency backing and funds.

[sparker]

I do care about the 405/101 interchange; it's just that i cared about it a bit more when I lived in the LA area.  As a Glendale kid, I remember driving out 101 just after it opened back in '59 to visit cousins in Canoga Park, and seeing the 405 interchange, marked with white-on-black signs (they were black, so you can't call them BGS's -- maybe BBS's  ) -- also seeing the LH entrances from 405 to 101 and thinking that they were going to be problematic down the line once 405, then a stub, was connected to the rest of the system!  (I do have something of both photographic and idetic memories, although I'll be damned if I have ever been able to recall where I put something 10 seconds after laying it down!).

Frankly, I think, collectivly, we've wrung about all we can out of the CA 99/Interstate upgrade subject.  Everyone has their POV re the efficacy of such an endeavor, including whether such an action is warranted at all.  For those of us who think the possibility still looms, we cite different factors as contributory or even causal for the change to occur -- Dan F., institutional cooperation, CTC interest, plus measures to wring some more tax $$ from the locals for federal matching; myself,  local political persistence, the presence of both Federal legislation and the state's CA 99 master improvement plan, and the fact that upgrades to Interstate criteria are progressing (albeit sometimes at a snail's pace). 

Chances are it's all of the above, plus factors (overall political climate, competing projects elsewhere in the broader transportation arena, the roller-coaster that is today's prevailing funding source) beyond the control of the immediate players in the arena.  I think it'll eventually be done, although maybe not in my own lifetime.  I certainly don't plan to hold my breath. 

This'll likely be my final pontification on the subject -- unless someone posts something so F'ing outrageous that steam starts pouring from my ears :  then, as the Terminator said, ahll be bock!

[cahwyguy]

And, sparker, the final wrench in the mess: the High Speed Rail proposal, which for many miles goes along 99. Setting aside the political aspects and any merits/demerits of HSR, the presence of rail in that corridor will be significant for both passenger and freight movement, will require reconstruction and rerouting of portions, and may either spur completion to upgraded status or the continued benign neglect.

[sparker]

Back for a quick in & out:  99 has intimately coexisted with "low-speed rail" (I'm sure UP would appreciate that description!) since its inception -- and the HSR line, the last I heard, would be parallel to 99 north of Fresno, but between a few hundred yards and a mile or so to the east until it splits near Chowchilla.  Nevertheless, there is proximity; 99 will likely serve as the major access thoroughfare for HSR construction activity.  That may prompt some upgrades in the Chowchilla area -- probably centered around 99/HSR grade separation --  but frankly I don't see HSR prompting widespread upgrading to the route as a whole.  The Sacramento HSR leg, which does generally parallel 99, will be the last to be constructed -- if at all!