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

[Rothman]

Changing all the signs would require spending money, and wouldn't be solving any problems.  In fact it would create confusion.  By all means continue the functional upgrades.  But changing the number is a makework project at best.  (Wooo!  We're drivin' on an Interstate now! said no one ever.)

If I were CalTrans, I'd want as much 90% federal reimbursement as I could get a hold of.

I was under the impression that the 90% match days were over.

Your impression was quite incorrect.

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure-investment-and-jobs-act/fedshare_fact_sheet.cfm

What happened was going back to MAP-21, Interstate specific core federal programs really ceased to exist.  So, the 90% is not extra apportionment.  Interstate projects now compete with every other federal-aid project out there directly (or at least they have for the last 12 years or so).

[pderocco]

(Wooo!  We're drivin' on an Interstate now! said no one ever.)

I'm sure there are quite a few of us on this forum who actually do feel that way.

I feel the opposite. Making something into an interstate usually coincides with it being drained of most of its character.

[Max Rockatansky]

(Wooo!  We're drivin' on an Interstate now! said no one ever.)

I'm sure there are quite a few of us on this forum who actually do feel that way.

I feel the opposite. Making something into an interstate usually coincides with it being drained of most of its character.

There is a significant portion of the hobby who strive for that very lifeless homogenized Interstate character.  Call it what you want, be it something like Fritzowling or Grid Perfectionism it all really is the same thing. 

[pderocco]

(Wooo!  We're drivin' on an Interstate now! said no one ever.)

I'm sure there are quite a few of us on this forum who actually do feel that way.

I feel the opposite. Making something into an interstate usually coincides with it being drained of most of its character.

There is a significant portion of the hobby who strive for that very lifeless homogenized Interstate character.  Call it what you want, be it something like Fritzowling or Grid Perfectionism it all really is the same thing. 

Yep, that's why I'm perfectly happy with I-40 ending in Barstow. I rather like the 58 freeway/expressway. I feel like I'm somewhere instead of nowhere.

[Max Rockatansky]

(Wooo!  We're drivin' on an Interstate now! said no one ever.)

I'm sure there are quite a few of us on this forum who actually do feel that way.

I feel the opposite. Making something into an interstate usually coincides with it being drained of most of its character.

There is a significant portion of the hobby who strive for that very lifeless homogenized Interstate character.  Call it what you want, be it something like Fritzowling or Grid Perfectionism it all really is the same thing. 

Yep, that's why I'm perfectly happy with I-40 ending in Barstow. I rather like the 58 freeway/expressway. I feel like I'm somewhere instead of nowhere.

Off forum I made it my personal mission to obliterate the assumptive notion that there was some sort of manifest destiny to extend I-40 to Bakersfield.  Doesn't hurt that I come armed with knowledge of the last application the Division of Highways made for chargeable mileage in that corridor was circa 1968.

[LilianaUwU]

Fictional.

[The Ghostbuster]

Making CA 99 an Interstate and extending Interstate 40 west of CA 58 are beating two dead horses. Since neither is going to happen, maybe we should stop discussing it.

[Max Rockatansky]

Fictional.

This was addressed by several of us prior to Reply #16.  Personally, I feel like as though the cancers of grid perfectionism and wanting to make everything an Interstate are both issues in the hobby worth confronting.  This topic got rebuked hard when it was new with actual historic context about why things developed to what they are now.  For some reason it is getting rebuked again after the forum came back online.

[vdeane]

I mean, if your perception of the interstate system is this, then yeah, upgrading routes probably feels pointless.  Not so much if it's this.

[Max Rockatansky]

I don't think most people screaming for grid perfect Interstates and fictional corridor adds are often out adding miles to Travel Maps.

[vdeane]

I don't think most people screaming for grid perfect Interstates and fictional corridor adds are often out adding miles to Travel Maps.

I was referring to the spider web covering the nation, the coverage of the system, the ability to get from point to point without leaving the system, etc.  But then, I'm also not assuming grid perfectionism as the underlying motive behind people arguing for interstate extensions, either (although it does drive its far share of fictional proposals).

[Rothman]

Have to say I've been disappointed in some numbering of newer Interstates (e.g., NC's I-87).  As official proposals are approved for designation, I do prefer them to fit in the grid.

But no, I'm not going to be ranting about some section of highway that "should" be Interstate such-and-such just to fit the grid.

[Max Rockatansky]

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." 

[Rothman]

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." 

To be honest, the whole "chargeable"/"non-chargeable" thing in California seems overly complicated to me given how federal funding has been handled since MAP-21.  You either have Interstate mileage recognized by FHWA  for 90% reimbursement or you don't (and, in my neck of the woods, NYC has shielded Interstates that are ineligible due to the timing and means of their designation many, many moons ago).

Short of it, if California wanted to go through the bother of getting CA 99 designated I-whatever and putting all sorts of money towards it (NY 17/I-86 on steroids), I wouldn't see a problem with it, especially to chase the 90% reimbursement for future maintenance.

But, yeah, just saying it should be I-whatever because it's a line on a map is silly.

[english si]

But, yeah, just saying it should be I-whatever because it's a line on a map is silly.

That is silly, yes. However I don't think people are wanting this route to be Interstate just for that (despite the fact that there are a lot of interstates that are have little other reason to have been built, save for that purpose).

They want it to be Interstate because it's
1) a busy road
2) with a lot of truck traffic
3) serving several major cities
and therefore it makes little sense for it to not be upgraded to the highest class of road - both in standards, and in designation.

If those aren't sufficient reasons to legitimately want something to be interstate, I don't know what is!

Some of the stuff the 'we don't need Interstate shields everywhere' brigade are saying is undermining the argument by poo-pooing any proposal for a new interstate and straw manning why people might want interstate designations and ends up sounding like the argument has fallen off the other side of the horse and become 'we don't need new Interstate shields anywhere'.

[Rothman]

But, yeah, just saying it should be I-whatever because it's a line on a map is silly.

That is silly, yes. However I don't think people are wanting this route to be Interstate just for that (despite the fact that there are a lot of interstates that are have little other reason to have been built, save for that purpose).

They want it to be Interstate because it's
1) a busy road
2) with a lot of truck traffic
3) serving several major cities
and therefore it makes little sense for it to not be upgraded to the highest class of road - both in standards, and in designation

Well, somebody didn't understand Max's post or mine on the cons of Interstate designation.

CA 99 functions quite well as is without the designation, so I'm not persuaded by the idea that it should be upgraded just because of its significance or importance.

[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...

[Max Rockatansky]

Amusingly it would probably be easier to maintain the legislative definition of Route 99 and add a stipulation to traffic code that it must be signed as I-5E.  We have precedent for that working with CA 194 being signed as I-15E. 

[mgk920]

Like most others in here, I am perfectly fine with CA 99 being the 'local' route and I-5 being the signed ('preferred') route for overhead through traffic.

Mike

[english si]

Well, somebody didn't understand Max's post or mine on the cons of Interstate designation.

Another straw man. I wasn't discussing whether or not it should be made interstate, but whether or not it was silly to want it made interstate.

CA 99 functions quite well as is without the designation, so I'm not persuaded by the idea that it should be upgraded just because of its significance or importance.

You may not be persuaded, but there's quite clearly pros to upgrading that people can legitimately view as outweighing the cons.

Especially as the ones you list are either things that
1) provide useful safety improvements that, whether the road ends up with blue-shields-or-not, should be looked into to see if they are worth the money anyway (there's an actual legitimate con - cost of getting the road to meet interstate standards)
2) administrative/legislative barriers that just come across as an excuse to not put blue shields up.

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)

The like button is gone, but literally this.

This isn't a FritzOwl/NCDOT-esque 'interstates everywhere' proposal. The incredulity should be on this route not having already been upgraded to an interstate, not those proposing it should be. This isn't I-777.

[formulanone]

But, yeah, just saying it should be I-whatever because it's a line on a map is silly.

That is silly, yes. However I don't think people are wanting this route to be Interstate just for that (despite the fact that there are a lot of interstates that are have little other reason to have been built, save for that purpose).

They want it to be Interstate because it's
1) a busy road
2) with a lot of truck traffic
3) serving several major cities
and therefore it makes little sense for it to not be upgraded to the highest class of road - both in standards, and in designation.

If those aren't sufficient reasons to legitimately want something to be interstate, I don't know what is!

Some of the stuff the 'we don't need Interstate shields everywhere' brigade are saying is undermining the argument by poo-pooing any proposal for a new interstate and straw manning why people might want interstate designations and ends up sounding like the argument has fallen off the other side of the horse and become 'we don't need new Interstate shields anywhere'.

I guess the like button went away but I can still frame good posts like this, even if the "upgrade chances" for CA 99 are slim.