CA-99 Interstate corridor? (From Bakersfield to Stockton if not Sacramento)

[The Ghostbuster]

I expect all of CA 99 (from Wheeler Ridge to Sacramento) to be fully upgraded to Interstate Standards eventually. What I don't expect is an Interstate designation being applied to the corridor. Simple as that!

[Max Rockatansky]

If I had to guess I would imagine the last four lane section will be through Chowchilla.  The segment between 152 and the Merced County line has a pretty significant dip in traffic.  The northbound lanes still incorporate a rail underpass built near Chowchilla in 1930.

[vdeane]

Honestly, as much as I'm in the "this would be a good corridor for an interstate" camp, I'm mainly arguing here because I find the "we don't need any new interstate shields anywhere ever" crowd to be just as ridiculous as FritzOwl (and also the strawmen arguments that have been brought out).  Are the interstates not supposed to be the most significant/important routes in the country and connect the most significant/important places together to each other and the nation?  I mean, this view tells the whole story: three lanes of traffic go to the major cities of Bakersfield and Fresno (which would be on the interstate system were they in literally any other state), while two lanes travel through the middle of nowhere, with I-5 itself not even going to San Francisco (3dis are needed for that) and San Jose isn't even accessible by interstate at all coming from the south (looking at street view, it carries a surprisingly large amount of traffic for the desolate area it serves, and I can't help but wonder where the employment base for the necessary traveler services is).

From a systems connectivity POV, it might have been nice if I-5 had been put on CA 99 with spot upgrades on the non-freeway portion (like how interstates were slapped down on pre-existing routes elsewhere) and the new interstate mileage to create I-3 along US 101 way back when, but what's done is done.

But that often is the argument when it comes to CA 99.  Almost everyone who brings it up doesn't even understand the basics of the following:

-  What Interstate design standards are.
-  How State Highways in California are legislatively defined.
-  How the application process for non-chargeable Interstate designations work.

Usually the gist of these threads are something absent minded like "CA 99 should be I-9." 

It is true that interstate standards are subtle enough that most (even here) don't notice the difference and just assume any freeway is ready (hasn't worked that way since the 50s).  As for California's legislative definitions, that honestly strikes me as something that's caused issues for little (if any) benefit, and I don't like the idea that the interstates should have to be bent around to conform to the "lesser" system.  As for numbering, I'm somewhat agnostic on that; while I-9 would have synergy with the existing number, I-7 is also perfectly positioned, and I think I remember mention of renumbering CA 7 being easier than CA 9 (and while duplication is not ideal, having the same number on interstates and state routes and even US routes is done in other states and CA's system making that impossible would seem to me to be one of its problems).  This corridor makes me think that there would be utility in reviving suffixes for long corridors that are still related to the main corridor but aren't ideal as a 3di or another 2di for whatever reason, though I'd still want one route to be the mainline and the other a child route (like how NY does things).  Might be a fun idea to take to Fictional one of these days...

"Interstates" are not a synonym for "all important roads in the United States", nor should they be.  They are highways created under a specific highway program.  In my opinion, highways created under other programs probably shouldn't be called interstates.

San Francisco does have a 2di, I-80.  (Is it a tragedy that I-80's eastern end doesn't reach Manhattan?  No, because through traffic should be trying very hard to avoid Manhattan...)

Nonduplication of route numbers within California saves confusion, and makes simpler formatting of statewide tables of highway information.  I'm not sure why ANY state thinks it's a great idea to have route 90 and state route 90 in the same state.  If a state as big as California can manage without duplicating numbers, probably any other state could too.

In the 1950s-1960s, California badly needed more N-S Central Valley routes.  It was absolutely the right decision to build the new route where it could be built quickly along the west valley, where land was relatively easy to get, and it got through traffic between northern and southern California off of 99.  The incremental improvements to 99 took (are taking) many decades longer, and they needed more capacity ASAP.

California did propose 101 from L.A. to S.F. being an interstate at one point.  I'm not sure exactly why it was turned down, but it wasn't because no one ever asked.

While non-duplication is certainly preferred, the way CA has done things has also led to nonsensical things like I-238.  And as someone from the east coast, the idea that route numbers and shields would be assigned to denote who maintains a road and not to prioritize navigation is a foreign concept.  Especially so in the idea that the interstate system should be frozen to 1969, given that the interstates aren't just a shield - they're a functional classification of roadway.

[Max Rockatansky]

Hence why I mentioned I-99 in this thread and others.  All that would he required is the freeway meeting Interstate standards and muscling through a similar request akin I-238 through the FHWA and AASHTO.  AASHTO hasn't pushed back against anything California has wanted since the early 1930s.  Yeah sure, it doesn't make any navigational sense but does adhere to the rules set forth in the California State Highway system.  Besides the chaos and Monkey's Paw-like effect on the road fandom is the outcome we need.  Disorder in highway networks is way more interesting than order.

Of course 305 is available for use for a brand new Legislative Route.  It also ties into the already existing FHWA corridor hidden on US 50 in Sacramento and West Sacramento.

[english si]

I'm just surprised that 101 between LA-SF hardly ever comes up in these conversations.  There are way more safety issues and areas needing improvement with 101 versus 99.  The segment between Prunedale to Gilroy essentially is an expressway that has been pushed as far as it can without actually being a full freeway.

I agree - but I think why CA99 trumps US101 when it comes new N-S Interstate in California, is that US101 needs a lot more work and serves fewer people once out of the LA/SF Metro Areas, and so is more of a forlorn hope.

We have to remember that CA99 is a High Priority Corridor that is designated as a Future Interstate Highway, even if CalTrans have forgotten/don't care. US101 is neither of those things.

I suppose we all want one unlikely thing here and there...

Yes, mine is that you actually, for once in this thread, engage with what's being said rather than arguing with the people you made up in your head.

And as someone from the east coast, the idea that route numbers and shields would be assigned to denote who maintains a road and not to prioritize navigation is a foreign concept.

That's not what kkt was saying - that was Interstates were a certain project and that other routes that were done as part of other projects probably shouldn't have that name.

I would say 'straw man', but this is really 'steel man', where you make up a better argument than the one that you are meant to be addressing. Lots of places do this route numbering by who maintains it (it is foreign to me also, and I don't personally like it, not least because of the annoyance at having to deal with nonsense gaps like these when making travelmapping systems), but none trap a type of road classification to a specific network-creation project without accepting changes to that network (OK, Italy banned new Autostrade between 1975 and 2001, but they granted exceptions and it was about not wanting that type of road, rather than keeping the network the same).*

And, as we all know, there are no "federal highways" (other than NPS/NFS/BIA/etc) - the states (or tollway companies or counties/cities) maintain them. I guess we should be glad that Caltrans does actually sign Interstates and US routes with those shields, rather than miners shields - even if they will just sign new Interstates with state shields (eg they went to all the effort to upgrade and renumber CA30 to 210 and then signed it as CA210).


*Closest I can think of is Milton Keynes Grid Roads, whereby expansions beyond the original plans aren't included in the network. But 'grid road' is a standard (no frontages, etc), as well as a project. And later schemes like 'V12' Fen Street were done to different standards, even if it and Countess Way (an extension of H7 Chiffron Way) are pseudo-grid roads.

[Rothman]

I suppose we all want one unlikely thing here and there...

Yes, mine is that you actually, for once in this thread, engage with what's being said rather than arguing with the people you made up in your head.

Given that I can only go by what you write, perhaps you are suffering from a misperception of self.