Topic: Upgrading CA 99 (Read 14825 times)

geoking111 · « **on:** February 09, 2009, 09:37:11 PM »

What number should CA 99 get if it is upgraded to interstate standards?

V'Ger · « **Reply #1 on:** February 09, 2009, 10:38:39 PM »

Stay the same!

mapman · « **Reply #2 on:** February 10, 2009, 01:20:38 AM »

If it had to change, I think I-7 would be best, from a logistics perspective. California doesn't allow duplication between interstate and non-interstate highways, so either CA 7 or CA 9 would have to be renumbered. CA 7 would be the easiest number to replace, since it's simply a short connection between I-8 and Mexico. CA 9 is a major two-lane highway through the Santa Cruz Mountains and San Lorenzo Valley, and would gain a lot of opposition if changed to another number. A change from CA 9 would also disrupt many properties, many of which use the highway in their addresses (such as 5010 Highway 9).

DukeOfURL · « **Reply #3 on:** February 10, 2009, 04:22:15 AM »

Quote from: geoking111 on February 09, 2009, 09:37:11 PM

What number should CA 99 get if it is upgraded to interstate standards?

It would never happen, it's too near and similar to I-5. Besides, an Interstate has to span at least 2 states. (Except the ones in Hawaii)

DAL764 · « **Reply #4 on:** February 10, 2009, 10:15:19 AM »

I'd go with I-7, just because it would be the most logical interstate number.

Quote from: DukeOfURL on February 10, 2009, 04:22:15 AM

Besides, an Interstate has to span at least 2 states. (Except the ones in Hawaii)

Do I-4 in Florida, I-12 in Lousiana, I-16 in Georgia, I-43 in Wisconsin and I-97 in Maryland know that

?

DrZoidberg · « **Reply #5 on:** February 10, 2009, 10:29:40 AM »

Quote

California doesn't allow duplication between interstate and non-interstate highways

Really? That seems odd to me, considering I-15 continues as CA-15, I-110 continues as CA-110....is this something new?

John · « **Reply #6 on:** February 10, 2009, 10:54:18 AM »

But, those highways are/were going to be upgraded to interstates, and therefore their CA route #s are duplicates to provide continuity until they become/became interstates.

DrZoidberg · « **Reply #7 on:** February 10, 2009, 11:27:33 AM »

Ah, I see. Thank you for clarifying that.

FreewayDan · « **Reply #8 on:** February 10, 2009, 02:45:47 PM »

Quote from: mapman on February 10, 2009, 01:20:38 AM

If it had to change, I think I-7 would be best, from a logistics perspective. California doesn't allow duplication between interstate and non-interstate highways, so either CA 7 or CA 9 would have to be renumbered. CA 7 would be the easiest number to replace, since it's simply a short connection between I-8 and Mexico. CA 9 is a major two-lane highway through the Santa Cruz Mountains and San Lorenzo Valley, and would gain a lot of opposition if changed to another number. A change from CA 9 would also disrupt many properties, many of which use the highway in their addresses (such as 5010 Highway 9).

CA 7 could easily be replaced with an realignment/extension of CA 115. Or, if the road is upgraded to a freeway, it can be I-308.

V'Ger · « **Reply #9 on:** February 10, 2009, 03:12:21 PM »

Wow, any -08 designation defintely sounds strange to me.

TheStranger · « **Reply #10 on:** February 10, 2009, 04:02:28 PM »

Quote from: John on February 10, 2009, 10:54:18 AM

But, those highways are/were going to be upgraded to interstates, and therefore their CA route #s are duplicates to provide continuity until they become/became interstates.

CA 110 north of the Four-Level interchange, the Pasadena Freeway, is not slated to ever become an interstate (due to substandard early-era design). I've always felt though that for naming continuity, the interstate should cover all of the Harbor Freeway (and southbound signage from US 101 to I-10 makes it seem that that's the case at times).

Alps · « **Reply #11 on:** March 14, 2009, 07:32:28 PM »

I-9, but I have no clue how to answer polls in the forum.

mrivera1 · « **Reply #12 on:** April 27, 2009, 10:20:22 PM »

Just for clarification...just because the name is Interstate...doesn't mean it has to be an inter-state route. Interstate is just the name for the type of route (i.e. the standards, the funding, etc.) and is there to justify its existence vs. a state route. Look at all the Interstates that are simply bypasses and spurs that stay in the same general metro area, and as said, other Interstates that exist within the confines of one state. Interstate is just a name.

Revive 755 · « **Reply #13 on:** April 27, 2009, 10:33:11 PM »

Make CA 99 I-5, and current I-5 an I-3. Replace I-580 as I-503, and I-238 with I-203.

Unless there will be the need for any even three digit routes along CA 99, then go with I-7.

74/171FAN · « **Reply #14 on:** April 28, 2009, 03:56:46 PM »

As I've mentioned in another thread, bring back US 99

Chris · « **Reply #15 on:** April 28, 2009, 03:59:32 PM »

Quote

CA 110 north of the Four-Level interchange, the Pasadena Freeway, is not slated to ever become an interstate (due to substandard early-era design).

I've checked that out on Google Streetview a while ago, it had some 5 mph exits

rebel049 · « **Reply #16 on:** April 29, 2009, 08:19:20 AM »

Those aren't exits, those are right hand turns.

Bryant5493 · « **Reply #17 on:** April 29, 2009, 10:14:25 AM »

This was the route that got covered with tule fog and caused a multi-car accident, right?

Be well,

Bryant

mrivera1 · « **Reply #18 on:** April 29, 2009, 02:59:24 PM »

Once the whole of CA-99 from I-5 to the Sacramento area was upgraded, couldn't CA-99 receive a designation as I-705? Although 99 reunites with I-5, unfortunately, I-205, I-405, I-605, and I-805 are used up. I-705 is the last open X05 route number in California (unless you use 4 numbers, but I'll save that argument for the I-238 thread). Save the I-3, I-7, and I-9 for other routes that aren't alternates to major interstates.

WillWeaverRVA · « **Reply #19 on:** April 29, 2009, 03:04:31 PM »

CA 99 does serve some large populated areas (namely Fresno), and those cities would likely object to a 3di as opposed to a main route. Besides, there are still numbers available between CA 99 and I-15 (there isn't an I-11 or I-13).

Fcexpress80 · « **Reply #20 on:** April 29, 2009, 06:50:22 PM »

My vote would be for I-7. From south to north, it would rejoin I-5 at Sacramento or further north at Red Bluff. Cosigned with I-5 to Weed, CA. Then continues north along the US-97 corridor through Klamath Falls and Bend. Continues northwest along the US-26 corridor to Portland, OR.

I-9 would be a future interstate from Hermiston, OR to Wenatchee, WA which would utilize the current misnamed I-82 corridor with a northern extension.

I-11 would link Las Vegas, NV with Reno, NV and extend north to Boise, ID and possibly Spokane, WA, primarily along the US-95 corridor.

V'Ger · « **Reply #21 on:** April 29, 2009, 07:06:59 PM »

I don't see them cosigning two interstates for 90 miles.

mightyace · « **Reply #22 on:** April 29, 2009, 07:40:09 PM »

Quote from: voyager on April 29, 2009, 07:06:59 PM

I don't see them cosigning two interstates for 90 miles.

You mean like I-20 & I-59 in Mississippi and Alabama?

Or, I-80 and I-90 that multiplex for approx. 300 miles in Indiana and Ohio?

V'Ger · « **Reply #23 on:** April 29, 2009, 07:53:30 PM »

California is much different.

mrivera1 · « **Reply #24 on:** April 29, 2009, 08:46:15 PM »

I agree with Voyager. Caltrans HATES cosigning routes. They do as least often as they can.

News:

Poll

What number should CA 99 receive if it approved by AASHTO as an interstate between Grapevine and Sacramento (or Stockton)?

Author Topic: Upgrading CA 99 (Read 14825 times)