CA-58 Kramer Junction Bypass

[Max Rockatansky]

^^^^^^^^
Unless you're going through the L.A. basin at night, there's little if any certainty that you'll be able to make the trip without encountering congestion.  If your trip starts anywhere south of O.C. or east of Pomona, the 395/58 combination or, as Max avers, CA 138/14 as an alternative (if you "backtrack" on Pearblossom Highway to avoid slogging through the east side of Palmdale) works reasonably well to get to the San Joaquin Valley.  And CA 99's a more interesting if marginally more time-consuming alternative to I-5 once in the valley (and, unless you're completely inured to fast food, a route with generally more variety in regards to places to take a break!).  Just wish there was some action toward a 395 upgrade -- but can completely understand Caltrans' desire to get 58 done first because of its role as a primary commercial corridor.

99 certainly keeps you more engaged than I-5 in San Joaquin Valley.  The traffic on 99 is thick enough to keep you going mentally and if you're into older roads there is plenty to see.  I have made the surface connection from 5 to 58 workable in the past, I would imagine that would only increase in desirability once the Centennial Corridor is finished. 

395 is awful no matter how you slice it, but at least it's short.  I've kind of found 215 to be rapidly becoming just as bad as 15 in the Riverside area which is a shame since it used to be a really quiet part of the bypass. 

[skluth]

I've kind of found 215 to be rapidly becoming just as bad as 15 in the Riverside area which is a shame since it used to be a really quiet part of the bypass.

I don't think I-215 is bad except for where it's concurrent with CA 60 where it often sucks. The merge at the south end can be bad too.

[sparker]

I've kind of found 215 to be rapidly becoming just as bad as 15 in the Riverside area which is a shame since it used to be a really quiet part of the bypass.

I don't think I-215 is bad except for where it's concurrent with CA 60 where it invariably sucks. The merge at the south end can be bad too.

FTFY.  215 was just starting to get as bad as 15 about the time I moved north in 2012.  Hopefully the improvements in San Bernardino have ameliorated it a bit.  However, the outsized growth of Perris, Menifee, and other areas south of Riverside have made that section just another suburban arterial subject to standard SoCal commuter woes. 

[Max Rockatansky]

I've kind of found 215 to be rapidly becoming just as bad as 15 in the Riverside area which is a shame since it used to be a really quiet part of the bypass.

I don't think I-215 is bad except for where it's concurrent with CA 60 where it invariably sucks. The merge at the south end can be bad too.

FTFY.  215 was just starting to get as bad as 15 about the time I moved north in 2012.  Hopefully the improvements in San Bernardino have ameliorated it a bit.  However, the outsized growth of Perris, Menifee, and other areas south of Riverside have made that section just another suburban arterial subject to standard SoCal commuter woes.

I worked in Menifee when it was known in Sun City.  Even back then the four lanes I-215 were woefully inadequate and only got worse from Moreno Valley northward.  I'm kind of curious to see how 215 has improved in the years since.  Back then the back way via 215, 15, 395 and 58 to San Joaquin Valley wasn't as we'll know.  Now that there are phone apps which live commute times it makes me wonder how many more people use the Metro Los Angeles bypass. 

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^
Before my relationship with my current GF developed, I dated a woman who lived out in Menifee (also a nurse -- I seem to have a "type"!) -- this was the late '90's, when that town was basically a bunch of individual tracts with a lot of land in between -- now, it's pretty much solid housing or commercial strips from the north end of Murietta up to CA 74 (so far nobody's slapped down housing in the San Jacinto River mudflats along 215 near Perris).  I would expect that by no later than 2030 there will be solid development from Moreno Valley all the way to the south end of Temecula.   

[ClassicHasClass]

Sometimes I mix it up slightly and take 138 instead of 58/395.

I do this too. The real trick is getting around Littlerock and Pearblossom to get to I-15. I usually go CA 138 -> Ave D -> Sierra Hwy -> Ave E -> 90th St East -> Ave J or O -> 170th St East -> CA 138. I haven't found a good way to get east of the no-pass section from Llano to CA 18 yet that doesn't involve a lot (more) messing around, though.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^^
Either the 138 or 395/58 options has its own "slog" section; for the former, it's the aforementioned "no pass" zone that essentially follows the ground topography (rolling up and down -- and prone to flash floods during rains) as well as the east side of Palmdale (which includes one of Caltrans' recent roundabouts).  For the latter, it's the section from Hesperia through Adelanto, which gets more and more congested with the constantly increasing amount of local housing.  One of the little "tricks" I learned while living out there for 3 years was (NB) to stay on I-15 to the D Street exit in Victorville (where CA 18 departs eastbound), and take it NW (on the portion that's part of Historic US 66) to Air Base Parkway, and then shoot west a few miles to US 395 at the north end of Adelanto.  You miss all the new 'burb development, and are out of town in about 5 minutes from turning onto 395.  That basic E-W route is close to where the proposed High Desert (toll) corridor will be located; its interchange with I-15 being about a mile north of Victorville.  Unless one gets caught up in I-15 weekend shit, it'll save about 10-15 minutes over using the south end of US 395.

[skluth]

^^^^^^^^^^
Either the 138 or 395/58 options has its own "slog" section; for the former, it's the aforementioned "no pass" zone that essentially follows the ground topography (rolling up and down -- and prone to flash floods during rains) as well as the east side of Palmdale (which includes one of Caltrans' recent roundabouts).  For the latter, it's the section from Hesperia through Adelanto, which gets more and more congested with the constantly increasing amount of local housing.  One of the little "tricks" I learned while living out there for 3 years was (NB) to stay on I-15 to the D Street exit in Victorville (where CA 18 departs eastbound), and take it NW (on the portion that's part of Historic US 66) to Air Base Parkway, and then shoot west a few miles to US 395 at the north end of Adelanto.  You miss all the new 'burb development, and are out of town in about 5 minutes from turning onto 395.  That basic E-W route is close to where the proposed High Desert (toll) corridor will be located; its interchange with I-15 being about a mile north of Victorville.  Unless one gets caught up in I-15 weekend shit, it'll save about 10-15 minutes over using the south end of US 395.

Nice tip on the US 395 option. I'll probably try that sometime. I may even go a bit further north along the old National Trails Highway to see a funky pizza parlor I've heard about in Oro Grande.

I haven't tried CA 138. I'm curious if it would be easier to go through Palmdale or to use CA 122 to CA 14 to Mojave. Any thoughts?

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^
Just don't look for any "CA 122" signage; that was a Google Maps addition that apparently wasn't vetted anywhere; Pearblossom Highway between CA 138 and CA 14 remains an unnumbered county road.  And it is one way to avoid the east side of Palmdale (unless you're jonesing for fast food -- then and only then stay on 138!), even though it requires a bit of backtracking.  Time-wise, you'll cut 5-10 minutes off a trip in either direction, since IIRC that section of Pearblossom has a speed limit at least 50 and possibly 65 close to CA 14. 

[Max Rockatansky]

^^^^^^^^
Just don't look for any "CA 122" signage; that was a Google Maps addition that apparently wasn't vetted anywhere; Pearblossom Highway between CA 138 and CA 14 remains an unnumbered county road.  And it is one way to avoid the east side of Palmdale (unless you're jonesing for fast food -- then and only then stay on 138!), even though it requires a bit of backtracking.  Time-wise, you'll cut 5-10 minutes off a trip in either direction, since IIRC that section of Pearblossom has a speed limit at least 50 and possibly 65 close to CA 14.

Speaking of CA 122 I plan on hitting on that on my way back from San Diego next week.  For some reason the map data online is really getting odd showing highways that never were or are long gone.  Unbuilt CA 179 has come up in conversation a couple times lately as another Google error.  I just noticed today that most phone incorrectly displays US 399 instead of CA 33 south of CA 166. 

[mrsman]

^^^^^^^^
Just don't look for any "CA 122" signage; that was a Google Maps addition that apparently wasn't vetted anywhere; Pearblossom Highway between CA 138 and CA 14 remains an unnumbered county road.  And it is one way to avoid the east side of Palmdale (unless you're jonesing for fast food -- then and only then stay on 138!), even though it requires a bit of backtracking.  Time-wise, you'll cut 5-10 minutes off a trip in either direction, since IIRC that section of Pearblossom has a speed limit at least 50 and possibly 65 close to CA 14.

That's  a shame.  Certain connectors should be numbered to provide for ease of navigation.  And yes, good bypasses should be well-signed to help move the traffic along and not clog up commercial corridors.

And if a highway isn't state maintained, why not a well-signed county highway.  Pearblossom could easily be signed somthing akin to N-122 (or any available N number).

Another good candidate for signing would be the La Cienega connector between 405 in Inglewood and 10 in eastern Culver City.

[ClassicHasClass]

stay on I-15 to the D Street exit in Victorville (where CA 18 departs eastbound), and take it NW (on the portion that's part of Historic US 66) to Air Base Parkway, and then shoot west a few miles to US 395 at the north end of Adelanto.

I actually go a little further up: I take SBCo 66 into Helendale and cut over on Shadow Mtn Rd. This dumps you out about halfway through the no-pass.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^
Just don't look for any "CA 122" signage; that was a Google Maps addition that apparently wasn't vetted anywhere; Pearblossom Highway between CA 138 and CA 14 remains an unnumbered county road.  And it is one way to avoid the east side of Palmdale (unless you're jonesing for fast food -- then and only then stay on 138!), even though it requires a bit of backtracking.  Time-wise, you'll cut 5-10 minutes off a trip in either direction, since IIRC that section of Pearblossom has a speed limit at least 50 and possibly 65 close to CA 14.

That's  a shame.  Certain connectors should be numbered to provide for ease of navigation.  And yes, good bypasses should be well-signed to help move the traffic along and not clog up commercial corridors.

And if a highway isn't state maintained, why not a well-signed county highway.  Pearblossom could easily be signed somthing akin to N-122 (or any available N number).

Another good candidate for signing would be the La Cienega connector between 405 in Inglewood and 10 in eastern Culver City.

"N-122" on Pearblossom would be fine -- but L.A. County has essentially given up on signing county routes; much of the existing signage, dating from the '60's and early '70's, isn't being replaced when it ages out.  But at least it's not Tulare County, where everything not up in the mountains was deliberately removed about 18-20 years ago.  Nevertheless, some sort of "trailblazer" signage:  "TO CA 138 EAST" from CA 14 and "TO CA 14 SOUTH" from 138 might be at least a "baby step" regarding recognition of that stretch of county road as a major connector.     

[TheStranger]

^^^^^^^^
Just don't look for any "CA 122" signage; that was a Google Maps addition that apparently wasn't vetted anywhere; Pearblossom Highway between CA 138 and CA 14 remains an unnumbered county road.  And it is one way to avoid the east side of Palmdale (unless you're jonesing for fast food -- then and only then stay on 138!), even though it requires a bit of backtracking.  Time-wise, you'll cut 5-10 minutes off a trip in either direction, since IIRC that section of Pearblossom has a speed limit at least 50 and possibly 65 close to CA 14.

That's  a shame.  Certain connectors should be numbered to provide for ease of navigation.  And yes, good bypasses should be well-signed to help move the traffic along and not clog up commercial corridors.

And if a highway isn't state maintained, why not a well-signed county highway.  Pearblossom could easily be signed somthing akin to N-122 (or any available N number).

Another good candidate for signing would be the La Cienega connector between 405 in Inglewood and 10 in eastern Culver City.

"N-122" on Pearblossom would be fine -- but L.A. County has essentially given up on signing county routes; much of the existing signage, dating from the '60's and early '70's, isn't being replaced when it ages out.  But at least it's not Tulare County, where everything not up in the mountains was deliberately removed about 18-20 years ago.  Nevertheless, some sort of "trailblazer" signage:  "TO CA 138 EAST" from CA 14 and "TO CA 14 SOUTH" from 138 might be at least a "baby step" regarding recognition of that stretch of county road as a major connector.     

I've brought up on the forum for years, but it still seems to ring true: California's philosophy for state highway signage seems to be more geared towards "marking where CalTrans maintains a road" rather than providing cohesive, well-marked routes for navigation.

[mrsman]

^^^^^^^^
Just don't look for any "CA 122" signage; that was a Google Maps addition that apparently wasn't vetted anywhere; Pearblossom Highway between CA 138 and CA 14 remains an unnumbered county road.  And it is one way to avoid the east side of Palmdale (unless you're jonesing for fast food -- then and only then stay on 138!), even though it requires a bit of backtracking.  Time-wise, you'll cut 5-10 minutes off a trip in either direction, since IIRC that section of Pearblossom has a speed limit at least 50 and possibly 65 close to CA 14.

That's  a shame.  Certain connectors should be numbered to provide for ease of navigation.  And yes, good bypasses should be well-signed to help move the traffic along and not clog up commercial corridors.

And if a highway isn't state maintained, why not a well-signed county highway.  Pearblossom could easily be signed somthing akin to N-122 (or any available N number).

Another good candidate for signing would be the La Cienega connector between 405 in Inglewood and 10 in eastern Culver City.

"N-122" on Pearblossom would be fine -- but L.A. County has essentially given up on signing county routes; much of the existing signage, dating from the '60's and early '70's, isn't being replaced when it ages out.  But at least it's not Tulare County, where everything not up in the mountains was deliberately removed about 18-20 years ago.  Nevertheless, some sort of "trailblazer" signage:  "TO CA 138 EAST" from CA 14 and "TO CA 14 SOUTH" from 138 might be at least a "baby step" regarding recognition of that stretch of county road as a major connector.     

I've brought up on the forum for years, but it still seems to ring true: California's philosophy for state highway signage seems to be more geared towards "marking where CalTrans maintains a road" rather than providing cohesive, well-marked routes for navigation.

Very true. 

Doing some GSV scouting of the area, it seems that traffic coming westbound on 138 is directed to continue straight for Palmdale, but make a left to go to L.A.  Thus, traffic trying to bypass L.A. to reach 14 north or I-5 north would not normally think to take Pearblossom.  So I would recommend (based on sparker's earlier post that Pearblossom has better traffic and fewer businesses and signals) that trafffic to CA-14 north should be directed to Pearblossom as well, even though it is further, to avoid Palmdale's business district.

It also seems that there should be right turn arrows that are complementary to the left turn arrows.  The right turn to stay on Pearblossom is heavy, there is a dedicated signal phase for the left turn, there is a dedicated right turn lane, and u-turns are prohibited.  To the extent that this saves people from the necessity of coming to a full stop while making a right turn during the complementary left turn phase, this should be done.

[TheStranger]

Doing some GSV scouting of the area, it seems that traffic coming westbound on 138 is directed to continue straight for Palmdale, but make a left to go to L.A.  Thus, traffic trying to bypass L.A. to reach 14 north or I-5 north would not normally think to take Pearblossom.  So I would recommend (based on sparker's earlier post that Pearblossom has better traffic and fewer businesses and signals) that trafffic to CA-14 north should be directed to Pearblossom as well, even though it is further, to avoid Palmdale's business district.

Looking on Google Maps, Avenue S between Route 138 and Route 14 seems to have much fewer businesses than the Route 138/Palmdale Boulevard east-west corridor; that might be a viable alternate for traffic heading to Route 14 north without having to do the back-tracking that taking Pearblossom would require (as Pearblossom switches to a southwest trajectory from Barrel Springs Road to 14).

[Inyomono395]

Although I enjoy talking about anything road related I think we're getting a little off topic. Can we please keep this conversation about the Kramer Junction bypass. Sorry if I'm being a stick in the mud

Safe travels my friends

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^^
If the CA 58 Kramer bypass is being done -- and opened -- in phases per usual Caltrans practice, the initial interim routing would likely look like this:  for CA 58 west, it would enter Kramer Corner on the current alignment, turn north on US 395, which crosses the BNSF main line at grade a few hundred feet north of the junction, then segue back onto the new 58 freeway via either a left turn or a right loop, depending upon whether the overpass is completed.  For 58 east, it would exit the freeway, turn south for about 1/4 mile on US 395 -- again crossing the BNSF tracks -- and then hang a left to return to the original CA 58 alignment.  Assuming BNSF will be running their trains as usual during this period, Kramer Corners, always a PITA chokepoint, will be functioning much worse for a while (even if the signals are reset to optimize thru CA 58 movement).  Neither facility, 58 or 395, will function even adequately during this timeframe, which could be several months if not approaching a year or so.  I'd fully expect to see backups on at least 3 approaches -- save SB 395, which never had all that much to begin with; these delays could add as much as 15-20 minutes to the trip.  During that time it just may be a reasonable idea to detour over CA 138 and up CA 14 for traffic between the Inland Empire and Bakersfield. 

And, yes, I've personally witnessed traffic backing up on EB 58 all the way to and sometimes past the current RR crossing 3 miles west of Kramer, and about a mile and a half to the east -- with the current/historic alignment.  When it worsens for a period that junction will be one to be avoided if possible.  Traffic to and from I-15 to Vegas and eastward I-40 won't have a lot of choice here; but for the several months that the Kramer "jog" will be in place, traffic to and from Cajon can select an alternative, which will likely be CA 138.  It'll take a commercial driver one nasty trip through Kramer to say "enough of this shit, I'm using an alternative route!"  (or something even more pithy!).

[myosh_tino]

^^^^^^^^^^
If the CA 58 Kramer bypass is being done -- and opened -- in phases per usual Caltrans practice, the initial interim routing would likely look like this:  for CA 58 west, it would enter Kramer Corner on the current alignment, turn north on US 395, which crosses the BNSF main line at grade a few hundred feet north of the junction, then segue back onto the new 58 freeway via either a left turn or a right loop, depending upon whether the overpass is completed.  For 58 east, it would exit the freeway, turn south for about 1/4 mile on US 395 -- again crossing the BNSF tracks -- and then hang a left to return to the original CA 58 alignment.  Assuming BNSF will be running their trains as usual during this period, Kramer Corners, always a PITA chokepoint, will be functioning much worse for a while (even if the signals are reset to optimize thru CA 58 movement).  Neither facility, 58 or 395, will function even adequately during this timeframe, which could be several months if not approaching a year or so.  I'd fully expect to see backups on at least 3 approaches -- save SB 395, which never had all that much to begin with; these delays could add as much as 15-20 minutes to the trip.  During that time it just may be a reasonable idea to detour over CA 138 and up CA 14 for traffic between the Inland Empire and Bakersfield.

Sorry but that doesn't make any sense to me (opening the Kramer Junction bypass in "phases").  The backup for eastbound 58 will be monumental due to the need to make a left from 395 south back onto the old road.  The only solution would be to extend the left-turn signal's green time which would cause substantial backups on northbound 395.

I think this bypass will open the same way as the Hinkley Bypass.  One (or both) directions will open with some slight jogging being done at both ends of the bypass to allow construction crews to make the final connections between the old and new highways.

FWIW, I got a chance to see how this project was progressing back in March in person.  From what I could see, it looked like construction crews were preparing to shift 58 traffic onto the new westbound lanes from the railroad overcrossing east to the existing 4-lane expressway.  This would allow them to construct the new eastbound lanes on top of the existing highway.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^^
If the CA 58 Kramer bypass is being done -- and opened -- in phases per usual Caltrans practice, the initial interim routing would likely look like this:  for CA 58 west, it would enter Kramer Corner on the current alignment, turn north on US 395, which crosses the BNSF main line at grade a few hundred feet north of the junction, then segue back onto the new 58 freeway via either a left turn or a right loop, depending upon whether the overpass is completed.  For 58 east, it would exit the freeway, turn south for about 1/4 mile on US 395 -- again crossing the BNSF tracks -- and then hang a left to return to the original CA 58 alignment.  Assuming BNSF will be running their trains as usual during this period, Kramer Corners, always a PITA chokepoint, will be functioning much worse for a while (even if the signals are reset to optimize thru CA 58 movement).  Neither facility, 58 or 395, will function even adequately during this timeframe, which could be several months if not approaching a year or so.  I'd fully expect to see backups on at least 3 approaches -- save SB 395, which never had all that much to begin with; these delays could add as much as 15-20 minutes to the trip.  During that time it just may be a reasonable idea to detour over CA 138 and up CA 14 for traffic between the Inland Empire and Bakersfield.

Sorry but that doesn't make any sense to me (opening the Kramer Junction bypass in "phases").  The backup for eastbound 58 will be monumental due to the need to make a left from 395 south back onto the old road.  The only solution would be to extend the left-turn signal's green time which would cause substantial backups on northbound 395.

I think this bypass will open the same way as the Hinkley Bypass.  One (or both) directions will open with some slight jogging being done at both ends of the bypass to allow construction crews to make the final connections between the old and new highways.

FWIW, I got a chance to see how this project was progressing back in March in person.  From what I could see, it looked like construction crews were preparing to shift 58 traffic onto the new westbound lanes from the railroad overcrossing east to the existing 4-lane expressway.  This would allow them to construct the new eastbound lanes on top of the existing highway.

Hey -- if Caltrans goes counter to their historic practice and opens the entire bypass at once, then I for one would be (a) surprised and (b) relieved.  But from what I saw when I went through there on New Years' Eve, the construction on the section west of 395 was much further along than east from there (paving being underway); the subsequent accounts posted indicated that the eastern part of the bypass, including the bridge over the RR tracks and existing CA 58 was in its initial phases and was, time-wise, lagging behind the western portion.  At the time it looked to me like the only thing lacking for either new carriageway just east of where it cut into the existing Boron freeway section were shoulders; the concrete lanes themselves had been already laid down. 

The "shoo-fly" lanes connecting the old original alignment to the freeway are narrow and seemed quite dangerous in December -- and it's almost 4 months later; it would seem that Caltrans would want to reroute traffic on the completed segment a.s.a.p. if for no other reason than to remove that traffic from the decidedly substandard connection.   That prompted my speculation -- rooted in agency practice dating back to the Division of Highways -- that the segment west of US 395 would be carrying traffic prior to the remainder of the corridor's completion; trading temporary inconvenience at Kramer for safety a few miles to the west.  But the only alternative would be to rebuild the temporary connector so it would function much as before construction began.   But perhaps the project is on an expedited schedule so as to minimize the delay of the eastern portion's opening (certainly not unheard of but not the usual S.O.P.), in which case, that short US 395 portion would be relieved of having to carry any through 58 traffic.

If anyone has any information regarding D8's plans and/or schedules for opening all or part of the bypass to traffic, please share it with us.     

[ClassicHasClass]

Was just there today on business to the Bay Area. The problem right now is US 395 is almost all no-pass from Adelanto to CA 58 except for the passing lane section around PM 27 due to the widening project they've been doing. The section over the "mini pass" also has an extended one-lane segment. I sat in stopped traffic for almost ten minutes waiting for the other direction to go through, behind several semis. If this is still going on when the CA 58 construction gets going in earnest, it's going to be hell.

The 2-lane temporary segment between Kramer Jct and the current freeway terminus at Boron has been revised somewhat so it doesn't have the awkward shooflies it had last month. It's still slow, but not much slower than it was before.

Unrelated, but as part of the same trip, took CA 46 from CA 99 to US 101. There's a couple nice full-speed dual carriageway segments in Kern and SLO counties, though the CA 41/46 co-routing could use an upgrade.

[sparker]

Was just there today on business to the Bay Area. The problem right now is US 395 is almost all no-pass from Adelanto to CA 58 except for the passing lane section around PM 27 due to the widening project they've been doing. The section over the "mini pass" also has an extended one-lane segment. I sat in stopped traffic for almost ten minutes waiting for the other direction to go through, behind several semis. If this is still going on when the CA 58 construction gets going in earnest, it's going to be hell.

The 2-lane temporary segment between Kramer Jct and the current freeway terminus at Boron has been revised somewhat so it doesn't have the awkward shooflies it had last month. It's still slow, but not much slower than it was before.

Unrelated, but as part of the same trip, took CA 46 from CA 99 to US 101. There's a couple nice full-speed dual carriageway segments in Kern and SLO counties, though the CA 41/46 co-routing could use an upgrade.

It's likely that the heavily-trafficked US 395 segment south of Kramer will remain as is, with a few "spot" improvements, for at least several funding cycles.  D8 has "blown their wad", disbursement-wise, with the CA 58 improvement package, the last segment of which is the Kramer bypass and its east & west approaches.  The goal is to remove any and all signalized intersections between I-15 and CA 99, with this particular project actually fulfilling that.  However, looming on the horizon is the toll lane project on I-15 between CA 91/Corona and CA 60/Ontario; that will be the single expenditure that will dominate the district over the next few cycles (work on the Kramer bypass was put off until the I-15/215 Devore interchange revamping was in its last phases).  This is typical of District 8; unless a special funding pool is created for a specific activity (which is what is apparently intended for the High Desert Corridor), it's all the district can do to support one major project at a time given their funding allocation.  And both San Bernardino and the western part of Riverside County -- the populated section -- comprise D8, so there's a lot of constant pressure from various entities and parties in the region regarding what will be built where!  Although the High Desert is seeing substantial growth in both gross population and business facilities (relatively cheap land), areas to the south in the Perris-Hemet-Murietta area are also growing by leaps & bounds; the competition for infrastructure $$$ is very keen.  Projects such as a significant expansion of US 395, particularly the problematic Adelanto-Kramer segment, will have to queue up along with such things as the CA 79 Hemet-area bypass, any Coachella Valley improvements, or CA 60 upgrades near Beaumont.   

[395fun2drive]

Another YT video. Driver is heading westbound from Hinkley bypass and cuts off the video at the left turn before Kramer Junction. 58 is on the new westbound lanes until 1/2 mile before the left turn.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfjLgN_DLHk

There is a dog barking in the video, you may want to turn the volume down.

[sparker]

Another YT video. Driver is heading westbound from Hinkley bypass and cuts off the video at the left turn before Kramer Junction. 58 is on the new westbound lanes until 1/2 mile before the left turn.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfjLgN_DLHk

There is a dog barking in the video, you may want to turn the volume down.

Obviously, the gentleman making the video has no idea what we forum members find boring.  Wish he could have added the last few minutes into Kramer and pointed the camera north to catch the construction east of the junction.  But it does give us some idea how far along the project is -- at least as of the time of the video this last April.  Chances are I'll be down in the area in November or December; maybe I'll be able to get some still shots on the return trip (planning to detour through Barstow to check out the Hinkley bypass + new construction).  In any case, nice to get an advance view of what to expect.  At least the dog stopped barking after a couple of minutes!

[mgk920]

^^
Definitely worthy, IMHO, of upgrading to be a full interstate.

Mike