CA 99 - The Final Countdown

[Max Rockatansky]

I'll just be happy when that railroad crossing east of Boron is gone and Kramer Junction is bypassed.  The rest of the route at least to Bakersfield is more than adequate even with the heavy all-weather truck traffic.  As for 99 the one improvement I would like to see is six regular lanes all the way from US 50 in Sacramento to CA 4 in Stockton.  Those are two pretty large cities and the four lane configuration is pretty interesting on a high speed replication of a restrictor plate race during rush hour.

Also, someone correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Caltrans seeking pre-approval from the AASHTO to sign CA 58 as I-40 if and when it was even completed to Interstate standards?

[myosh_tino]

Also, someone correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Caltrans seeking pre-approval from the AASHTO to sign CA 58 as I-40 if and when it was even completed to Interstate standards?

According to Daniel Faigin's site, Caltrans submitted CA-58 from I-5 to Barstow for inclusion in the Interstate system in 1956 and 1968.  Both times, AASHTO denied the application.  There is no mention of the route number Caltrans was seeking but many have speculated it would be 40.

[Max Rockatansky]

Also, someone correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Caltrans seeking pre-approval from the AASHTO to sign CA 58 as I-40 if and when it was even completed to Interstate standards?

According to Daniel Faigin's site, Caltrans submitted CA-58 from I-5 to Barstow for inclusion in the Interstate system in 1956 and 1968.  Both times, AASHTO denied the application.  There is no mention of the route number Caltrans was seeking but many have speculated it would be 40.

It's actually kind of surprising that didn't pass in 1956.  US 466 was always a major trucking route but Bakersfield was just a 60,000 resident city back in those days.  Things sure look different now that Barstow didn't really grow all that much while Bakersfield grew up to almost 400,000 people.

[The Ghostbuster]

No one in 1956 could have predicted what would happen to the Interstate System in the years and decades following its passage by President Eisenhower. If they did, I'm sure things would have turned out much differently.

[Max Rockatansky]

No one in 1956 could have predicted what would happen to the Interstate System in the years and decades following its passage by President Eisenhower. If they did, I'm sure things would have turned out much differently.

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.

[mrsman]

No one in 1956 could have predicted what would happen to the Interstate System in the years and decades following its passage by President Eisenhower. If they did, I'm sure things would have turned out much differently.

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.

It was fortuitous that the planners built I-5 on the west side of the valley.  It effectively provides an express routing from L.A. to either SF or Sacramento by skipping the majority of the towns along the way.  The traffic to the local towns is separated from the LA-SF/Sac traffic so that neither routing is overwhelmed.  Imagine if I-5 was routed as a 6-lane freeway through Bakersfield and Fresno.  This roadway would hit traffic going through Bakersfiled, Tulare, Fresno, Merced, Modesto, and Stockton.  By having two routes, the traffic is split effectively:   LA-Sac/SF traffic taking the 5 and traffic from either end to the main cities of the Valley using the 99.


Bakersfield and Fresno have always been reachable via 99 and it has been many years since there was a traffic light between LA and Sac along 99.  99, for a long time, was a very effective expressway - providing a freeway bypass through every city and a routing without signals but with cross-traffic along the rural areas in between.  101 was similar along the coast. Now, it is nearly entirely freeway.  And this is largely good enough.  Becuase of the effective bypass of I-5, we do not need an interstate grade highway along 99.

[kkt]

No one in 1956 could have predicted what would happen to the Interstate System in the years and decades following its passage by President Eisenhower. If they did, I'm sure things would have turned out much differently.

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.

I think the planners had a good idea what would happen.  Some who were opposed to the west valley route for I-5 noted that there were no gas stations, restaurants, or hotels along the west valley.  That's the development that the planners said would come, and it has.  Clusters at every exit.  Boring sameness, yes, but no danger of being out of gas with the nearest station 50 miles away.

The west valley route is a fast alternative to 99 for traffic between Socal and the Bay Area and Sacramento areas.  It's shorter as well as higher speed limits and fewer backups.  It was also possible to construct it much faster than the alternative of reconstructing 99 into an interstate.  Caltrans made the right decision in this case.

[Max Rockatansky]

No one in 1956 could have predicted what would happen to the Interstate System in the years and decades following its passage by President Eisenhower. If they did, I'm sure things would have turned out much differently.

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.

I think the planners had a good idea what would happen.  Some who were opposed to the west valley route for I-5 noted that there were no gas stations, restaurants, or hotels along the west valley.  That's the development that the planners said would come, and it has.  Clusters at every exit.  Boring sameness, yes, but no danger of being out of gas with the nearest station 50 miles away.

The west valley route is a fast alternative to 99 for traffic between Socal and the Bay Area and Sacramento areas.  It's shorter as well as higher speed limits and fewer backups.  It was also possible to construct it much faster than the alternative of reconstructing 99 into an interstate.  Caltrans made the right decision in this case.

Personally it's my preferred route north and well worth my time usually to head west on 58 or 46 to get to.  It's a lot better built with Interstate standards behind it and I almost never run into the cluster of cars that I do on 99.  It was probably a tough as hell sell back in those days when it was an empty void.  There are some decent travel centers here and there nowadays with the intersection of 198 coming to mind. 

[TheStranger]

Bakersfield and Fresno have always been reachable via 99 and it has been many years since there was a traffic light between LA and Sac along 99.

It's only been 20 years since the last stoplight (in Livingston) was finally bypassed:

http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM9N2W_Last_Stop_Light_on_99_Livingston_CA

There were several others bypassed in the 1980s too.  For comparison, 101's last stoplight between Los Angeles and San Francisco (Santa Barbara) was removed mid-1992.

[texaskdog]

I was looking at my 1970 map and US 99 had been decommissioned even before I-5 was built.  This seems like the strangest decommissioning ever.

Also interesting was how interstates weren't built in straight lines to go by every small town but I-5 was built so far away from 99.  There is still little on it.

[Desert Man]

I-5 was meant as a "shortcut" across the Central Valley in CA, skipping the more populated towns and cities along US (now CA SR) 99, to save time and avoid gridlock when you're through them.  The northern Central or Sacramento valley section of I-5 has slightly more population than most of the southern Central or San Joaquin valley. Interestingly, I-5 and the 99 goes across both urban Stockton and Sacramento.

[oscar]

Also interesting was how interstates weren't built in straight lines to go by every small town but I-5 was built so far away from 99.  There is still little on it.

Utah did the same with I-70 west of Green River.

[Desert Man]

Also interesting was how interstates weren't built in straight lines to go by every small town but I-5 was built so far away from 99.  There is still little on it.

Utah did the same with I-70 west of Green River.

Original plans in the 1960s-70s showed I-70 could started between Provo and Payson, imagine towns like Springville and Spanish Fork with two interstates instead of I-15, which was finished in the early 1980s.

[texaskdog]

Also interesting was how interstates weren't built in straight lines to go by every small town but I-5 was built so far away from 99.  There is still little on it.

Utah did the same with I-70 west of Green River.

But they didn't decommission anything, especially beforehand.

[sparker]

Actually, the official decommissioning of US 99 took place in 1964, coincident with that years' massive state highway renumbering (and US highway retrenchment!).  US 99 shields east and south of Los Angeles were removed by the summer of that year (a "END US 99" shield assembly was posted southbound at the present I-5/I-10 [San Bernardino Freeway] interchange).  Between L.A. and Sacramento, US 99 signage remained until fall 1966, when CA 99 shields were posted north of the I-5 divergence near Wheeler Ridge (and "Temporary I-5" signage applied along non-Interstate-standard route segments south of there). 

Also, US 99E signage was also removed by the end of 1964; oddly enough, they kept US 99W shields up from Davis to Red Bluff until about 1969, when enough of I-5 along that route was completed to warrant more "Temporary I-5" signage along that route.  From Red Bluff to the Oregon state line US 99 shields were retained until most of that section, save the segment in the Sacramento River Canyon that was not fully completed until 1992, was done (about 1976, IIRC).  This resulted in, for a time, a rather odd situation in Red Bluff where southbound US 99 traffic could continue south on US 99W or turn east/south on CA 99!     

[texaskdog]

It just seems to me to be the weirdest recommissioning ever.  The only reason I could think was to get more people to drive on I-5, but it wasn't finished yet.

[sparker]

Well -- the basic reason for the original US 99 decommissioning, as well as the principal reason behind the 1964 renumbering, was to eliminate concurrencies, including those of different highway classifications.  I.E., no I-5 marked concurrent with US 99, no I-15 concurrent with US 91/466, ad nauseum.  To the Division of Highways (Caltrans' predecessor), that meant that of the 5 southernmost U.S. Highway entry points from Nevada or Arizona, 4 of them, save US 95, had to go!  North from there, the only Interstate/US concurrencies were along I-80/US 40 and I-5/US 99; every other US highway that crossed the state line remained intact and still does. 

Most of the truly egregious concurrencies (I-15/US 66/US 91/US 395, I-10/US 60/US 70/US 99) occurred simply due to topography and convenience -- Beaumont Summit & Cajon Pass were the only two practical ways east/northeast out of the L.A. basin.  The '64 renumbering was, as the Division stated in their classic publication "California Highways & Public Works" (may it RIP!), a manifestation of their newfound credo of "one road, one number" (wherever possible, of course).  But it should be noted that before 1964 there were two numbering system: the legislative route number, and the State Sign Routes, which included signed US and, later, Interstate routes.  As an example, US 99 from L.A. to Sacramento was also Legislative Route #4.  Ironically, the West Valley section of I-5 from Wheeler Ridge through Sacramento, ending near Woodland, was Legislative Route #238!  One of the main reasons for wanting to dispense with the dual legislative/signed systems could be illustrated by the case of I-80 between Sacramento and the Nevada state line; it was, variously, SLR 3, SLR 17, SLR 37, and SLR 38 along that stretch of highway.  In this case, the case for renumbering wasn't public service; it was merely to simplify internal paperwork!  The one SLR whose number was directly transferred over to the new post-'64 network was 58; it superseded SSR 178 from Santa Margarita to Bakersfield and US 466 from there to I-15 at Barstow (the old SLR 58 also included all of I-40 within California).       

[jakeroot]

It just seems to me to be the weirdest recommissioning ever.  The only reason I could think was to get more people to drive on I-5, but it wasn't finished yet.

I don't believe Oregon completely decommissioned US-99 until 1972 (when -99, 99E, and -99W became OR-). I'm pretty sure the 5 was completed throughout most of Oregon by then, but I could be wrong.

Granted, you could also just be talking about just California (judging by the chosen regional board), but you haven't specified otherwise.

[Quillz]

It just seems to me to be the weirdest recommissioning ever.  The only reason I could think was to get more people to drive on I-5, but it wasn't finished yet.

I also wish US-99 had not gone away, but given that a large portion of it was simply replaced by I-5, you can see why California chose to retire the number.

A better question is why the most significant section of US-99 within the Central Valley was downloaded to CA-99. And it seems the answer is mainly due to the state route shields being white-on-green, which Caltrans did various studies on and found it offered improved legibility than black-on-white shields. (At least, under certain conditions). That seems to be the only real reason, as that portion of US-99 would have still meant the current definition of a US highway (minimum 300 miles, or crosses state borders).

[sparker]

Having traveled both US 99 and CA 99 during incidents of "valley fog" (aka "tule fog"), I can personally attest to the fact that the white-on-green state shields are indeed easier to spot than the old black-on-white US shields.  Actually, the US shields at the time of the switch (late '66) weren't bright white, but an "eggshell" or pale beige color (likely due to aging or oxidation) -- making them even more difficult to see during foggy periods.

[jakeroot]

A better question is why the most significant section of US-99 within the Central Valley was downloaded to CA-99. And it seems the answer is mainly due to the state route shields being white-on-green, which Caltrans did various studies on and found it offered improved legibility than black-on-white shields.

If US-99 hadn't been decommissioned, at Wheeler Ridge, far too many people would have been confused as to which route to take (both are historically important "interstate" routes). Not a problem today, but it would have been for a long time, because a ton of travellers were used to taking US-99 to go between states (before I-5 existed). If US-99 still "physically" existed in all three states, then by all means, they could have kept it, but because only California really kept significant portions, it made more sense to downgrade it to state highway status.

[Quillz]

Having traveled both US 99 and CA 99 during incidents of "valley fog" (aka "tule fog"), I can personally attest to the fact that the white-on-green state shields are indeed easier to spot than the old black-on-white US shields.  Actually, the US shields at the time of the switch (late '66) weren't bright white, but an "eggshell" or pale beige color (likely due to aging or oxidation) -- making them even more difficult to see during foggy periods.

I wonder if modern black-and-white signage is more viewable from a distance than green-on-white signage, given that the MUTCD mandates black-on-white for virtually all typical signage (and the vast majority of states use it for their highway shields, California being a rare exception). Whatever material is being used today does seem to remain bright and reflective much longer than the old porcelain enamel.

[sparker]

I would say that that is indeed the case -- the newly-installed US 101 shields on the reconstructed section of the Bayshore Freeway between Mountain View and Redwood City are the brightest-white Caltrans US shields I've seen since the last porcelain series in the '50's -- and these are definitely fully reflective.  I remember seeing the first bright-white porcelain US 6 and US 99 shields along the first section of the Golden State freeway to be opened in 1957 near my hometown of Glendale -- complete with button copy on the numbers.  They were replaced with off-white reflective shields about five years later when I-5 shields were added to the mix.     

[TheStranger]

If US-99 hadn't been decommissioned, at Wheeler Ridge, far too many people would have been confused as to which route to take (both are historically important "interstate" routes). Not a problem today, but it would have been for a long time, because a ton of travellers were used to taking US-99 to go between states (before I-5 existed). If US-99 still "physically" existed in all three states, then by all means, they could have kept it, but because only California really kept significant portions, it made more sense to downgrade it to state highway status.

Having said that, while another former long-distance US route US 91 does go through multiple states as comparison, it is pretty much a route entirely closely parallel with I-15 in its remnant state, where 99 at least was and is still a major corridor for the 400 mile portion that I-5 didn't replace in California.

[jakeroot]

If US-99 hadn't been decommissioned, at Wheeler Ridge, far too many people would have been confused as to which route to take (both are historically important "interstate" routes). Not a problem today, but it would have been for a long time, because a ton of travellers were used to taking US-99 to go between states (before I-5 existed). If US-99 still "physically" existed in all three states, then by all means, they could have kept it, but because only California really kept significant portions, it made more sense to downgrade it to state highway status.

Having said that, while another former long-distance US route US 91 does go through multiple states as comparison, it is pretty much a route entirely closely parallel with I-15 in its remnant state, where 99 at least was and is still a major corridor for the 400 mile portion that I-5 didn't replace in California.

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