CA-58 and I-40

[DTComposer]

There are some exceptions to the rule: For example, what is now I-880 was originally CA 17 because (until 1982) there was an I-880 in Sacramento; it is now part of a rerouted I-80, where the original alignment is a Business loop.

And the Nimitz Freeway was not added to the Interstate system until 1984 (around the same time as 710); the 80/old 880 switch only occurred due to the cancellation of a realigned/upgraded I-80 routing through North Sacramento in 1979. 

There was at least a two year period (1982-1984) where 880 was not in use in California.

To clarify a bit more: I-880 was CA-17 not because 880 was in use somewhere else; it was CA-17 because it had been since 1937, and other than the portion in San Jose that was briefly part of I-280/680, was not even submitted for inclusion in the Interstate system until the 1980s. (Compare this with the Long Beach-Pasadena corridor, which was submitted with the very first batch of Interstate submissions in 1947, although it wasn't approved.)

CA-15 and CA-905 are signed as such because they have already been submitted and accepted into the Interstate system as 139(b) mileage once they are completed to Interstate standards (as has the portion of route 710 south of CA-1).

CA-110 (the Arroyo Seco Parkway (nee Pasadena Freeway) portion) was not submitted for inclusion when the Harbor Freeway portion was; the number of the whole route was changed from 11 to 110 so there would be navigational continuity. And because of the historical nature of the route, it will likely never be upgraded to Interstate standard.

CA-210 has not been submitted for inclusion as yet, so far as I have read.

[TheStranger]

To clarify a bit more: I-880 was CA-17 not because 880 was in use somewhere else; it was CA-17 because it had been since 1937, and other than the portion in San Jose that was briefly part of I-280/680, was not even submitted for inclusion in the Interstate system until the 1980s. (Compare this with the Long Beach-Pasadena corridor, which was submitted with the very first batch of Interstate submissions in 1947, although it wasn't approved.)

Thanks for adding that: I was going to say something similar but wanted to keep my response succinct rather than getting too lengthy. 

Also, 17 was not just the Nimitz Freeway north of San Jose; it also covered today's 580 between the MacArthur Maze and San Rafael (which became an interstate corridor at the same time the Nimitz received its 880 shields, though 580 in Richmond was not complete until the early 1990s).

CA-210 has not been submitted for inclusion as yet, so far as I have read.

From CAHighways:

Removing interstate status from the former routing between (former) Route 30 and Route 10 (current Route 57), and transferring it to routing from Route 57 to Route 10 in Redlands was submitted to AASHTO in 1998, deferred, resubmitted in 1999, and then withdrawn.

Sounds awfully similar to the saga that Arkansas has had with I-49 over the years.

[andy3175]

CA-15 and CA-905 are signed as such because they have already been submitted and accepted into the Interstate system as 139(b) mileage once they are completed to Interstate standards (as has the portion of route 710 south of CA-1).

I have seen something similar to this but am wondering where you found this to be the case. Was there approval by FHWA to add these routes as 139(b) mileage? Was this done by some kind of FHWA ruling? I did see something from SANDAG about SR 905 from a late 1990s brochure but nothing more since then.

Regards,
Andy

[DTComposer]

CA-15 and CA-905 are signed as such because they have already been submitted and accepted into the Interstate system as 139(b) mileage once they are completed to Interstate standards (as has the portion of route 710 south of CA-1).

I have seen something similar to this but am wondering where you found this to be the case. Was there approval by FHWA to add these routes as 139(b) mileage? Was this done by some kind of FHWA ruling? I did see something from SANDAG about SR 905 from a late 1990s brochure but nothing more since then.

Regards,
Andy

Admittedly, I can only find reference on Dan Faigin's site, which indicates that approval for all three routes as 139(b) mileage was given in October of 1984, but can not find anything on an initial dig through the FHWA site.

[flowmotion]

If the plan is to eventually call CA 58 Interstate 40, I'd rather they not waste tax dollars on a new set of signs which will only be thrown away.

While Caltrans continues to upgrade sections of CA-58, as far as I know, there's no actual "plan" to eliminate all of the remaining grade crossings and apply for an Interstate number.

Extending I-40 is certainly high on the roadgeek fictional highway wishlist, but it could be decades before it even would be considered.

[myosh_tino]

If the plan is to eventually call CA 58 Interstate 40, I'd rather they not waste tax dollars on a new set of signs which will only be thrown away.

While Caltrans continues to upgrade sections of CA-58, as far as I know, there's no actual "plan" to eliminate all of the remaining grade crossings and apply for an Interstate number.

Extending I-40 is certainly high on the roadgeek fictional highway wishlist, but it could be decades before it even would be considered.

To be quite honest, I don't I-40 will *ever* get extended to Bakersfield via CA-58.  IIRC, the plans for the two bypasses (Hinkley and Kramer Junction) call for a bypass built to expressway standards, not freeway standards meaning that while interchanges are planned, Caltrans may not limit access to the roadway by adjacent property owners.

The extension of I-40 west to Bakersfield will also mean that Caltrans will have to renumber all exits along the current I-40 because the western terminus would move 120 or so miles to the west.

[andy3175]

IIRC, the plans for the two bypasses (Hinkley and Kramer Junction) call for a bypass built to expressway standards, not freeway standards meaning that while interchanges are planned, Caltrans may not limit access to the roadway by adjacent property owners.

It appears as if a final alternative for the Kramer Junction Bypass has not yet been decided: http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist8/projects/san_bernardino/sr58/kramerjunction/

Alternatives Under Consideration
Four build alternatives (Alternatives 1, 1A, 2, and 3) and a no-build alternative (Alternative 4) are under consideration, but a preferred alternative has not been identified. Each of the build alternatives would realign and widen a 13.3‐mile segment of State Route 58 (SR‐58) from 0.4 miles west of the Kern County/San Bernardino County line to a point that is approximately 7.5 miles east of U.S. Route 395 (US‐395) from a two‐lane conventional highway to a four‐lane expressway; and construct a railroad grade separation and an interchange at the SR‐58/US‐395 Junction.

Typical cross sections of the proposed SR‐58 facility under each of the build alternatives would consist of an approximately 400‐foot right‐of‐way, 100‐foot median, 10‐foot outside shoulders, and 5‐ foot inside shoulders. The 0.3‐mile segment of US‐395 adjacent to SR‐58 would be widened from two lanes to four lanes plus a left‐turn lane. Lanes would be 12 feet wide with 8‐foot outside shoulders on a proposed 100‐foot right‐of‐way. Dual crossing structures (one for eastbound vehicles and the other for westbound vehicles) would grade‐separate mainline SR‐58 traffic from US‐395 and would be 151 feet in length and have a total height of 30 feet. The interchange ramps from SR‐58 would have a single merge/diverge lane that transitions to two 12‐foot lanes at the connection to US‐395. Stop signs would be installed at the termini of off‐ramps. An additional set of dual crossing structures would grade‐separate mainline SR‐58 traffic from the BNSF railroad line and would have a maximum length of 611 feet and a height of 21.5 feet.

Unique features of the alternatives under consideration are as follows:

Alternative 1 would be located to the north of the existing SR‐58 and would involve the construction and operation of four diamond ramps at US‐395. TheSR‐58 crossing structures over the BNSF railroad line would be located 2.5 miles to the east of Kramer Junction. Implementation of Alternative 1 would meet the project's purpose and need.

Alternative 1A would be located to the north of the existing SR‐58 and would involve the construction and operation of a spread diamond intersection at US‐395. The SR‐58 crossing structures over the BNSF railroad line would be located 2.5 miles tothe east of Kramer Junction. Implementation of Alternative 1A would meet the project's purpose and need.

Alternative 2 would be located adjacent to the existing SR‐58 and would involve the construction and operation of four diamond ramps at US‐395. The SR‐58 crossing structures over the BNSF railroad line would be located 3.9 miles to the west of Kramer Junction. Implementation of Alternative 2 would meet the project's purpose and need.

Alternative 3 would be located to the north of the existing SR‐58 and would involve the construction and operation of four diamond ramps at US‐395. The SR‐58 crossing structures over the BNSF railroad line would be located 2.6 miles to the west of Kramer Junction. Implementation of Alternative 3 would meet the project's purpose and need.

Alternative 4 would not involve any changes to the existing SR-58 facility and would not meet the project's purpose and need.

The EIR is available at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist8/projects/san_bernardino/sr58/kramerjunction/pdf/SR58-Kramer_DEIR-EIS_June_2013_CD.pdf (44 MB)

Regards,
Andy

[myosh_tino]

Thanks for refreshing my memory Andy.

Alternatives Under Consideration
Four build alternatives (Alternatives 1, 1A, 2, and 3) and a no-build alternative (Alternative 4) are under consideration, but a preferred alternative has not been identified. Each of the build alternatives would realign and widen a 13.3‐mile segment of State Route 58 (SR‐58) from 0.4 miles west of the Kern County/San Bernardino County line to a point that is approximately 7.5 miles east of U.S. Route 395 (US‐395) from a two‐lane conventional highway to a four‐lane expressway; and construct a railroad grade separation and an interchange at the SR‐58/US‐395 Junction.

Judging by the highlighted statement in the above quote it looks like my recollection is correct (unless the no-build alternative is selected).  The Kramer Junction bypass will be an expressway rather than a freeway and thus cannot become a westward extension of I-40 unless further upgrades are made.

Further more, I got this description of the Hinkley Bypass from the Caltrans' website...

The California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) plans to widen and realign a portion of State Route 58 (SR-58) from a two-lane conventional highway to a four-lane expressway, extending from approximately 2.4 miles west of Hidden River Road to approximately 0.7 mile east of Lenwood Road, near the unincorporated Community of Hinkley, in San Bernardino County. The expressway would include: 12-foot standard traveled way lanes; 10-foot standard shoulder widths; and a 78-foot-wide median.

Once again, the bypass will be an expressway rather than a freeway making the upgrade of CA-58 to I-40 highly unlikely.

[andy3175]

Once again, the bypass will be an expressway rather than a freeway making the upgrade of CA-58 to I-40 highly unlikely.

I agree with all you've written, as the EIR does state expressway with partial access control. The alignment, however, may dictate the number of partial access controlled intersections, as a passageway through Kramers Junction rather than around it might increase the opportunity for non-interchange access points. Having said that, I don't view this project as the end point for how SR 58 will be developed. The expressway alignment will likely have limited development along it (especially if it stays north of Kramers and away from the existing development at that signalized intersection). And given that many expressways statewide have converted to freeway standards over time (not in the initial upgrade, but in subsequent projects) that I think SR 58 could become freeway standards someday, just not initially. I think the reason why Caltrans is focusing on the expressway is just so they can get the needed grade separations with the railroad and US 395. The average person driving through the area won't notice the lack of access control at secondary roads (note how SR 58 is between Boron and Mojave for comparison - there are several uncontrolled access points, but they aren't as noticeable as Kramers Junction is). But I don't think this will preclude a freeway conversion further down the line. Caltrans builds expressways nowadays to allow for easy upgrading ... unlike certain other expressways from decades ago.

Regards,
Andy

[andy3175]

Updates on the Centennial Corridor:

http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist6/environmental/projects/centennial/EnvironmentalDocuments.html

The environmental documents for the Centennial Corridor are now posted online.

http://www.bakersfieldnow.com/news/local/Centennial-Corridor-EIR-EIS-available-for-public-viewing-258662291

The Centennial Corridor is designed to connect Highway 58 at Real Road with the Westside Parkway. The endgame is to connect Hwy. 58 on the east with Interstate 5 on the west, giving motorists a faster way to cross through the city. But, to do so, the path of the Centennial Corridor would take out numerous homes in the Westpark neighborhood.

For years, neighbors opposed to the project have done battle with the government to keep the corridor from going through their neighborhood or being forced to eventually sell their homes.

Earlier this year, the city secured $165 million from the federal government to start early acquisition of properties that stand in the path of the preferred path of the Centennial Corridor.

Officials plan to go with "Alternative B," among possible Centennial Corridor routes. That would take an extension of Highway 58 west from Highway 99 for about one-half mile along the south side of Stockdale Highway before turning northwest and connecting to the Westside Parkway just east of Mohawk Street.

http://www.turnto23.com/news/local-news/study-centennial-corridor-route-through-westpark-least-damaging-to-southwest-bakersfield-050914?autoplay=true

CalTrans released its draft of the Environmental Impact Review for the proposed Centennial Corridor, and alternate routes.

CalTrans said plan "B," the route through the Westpark neighborhood is the best one because it avoids park land and historical properties.

This route would disrupt 121 businesses and 310 homes.

Every route would affect the Swainson's hawk and kit fox dens, according to the study.

The report said every proposed route would increase pollution and require the loss of homes, businesses and vegetation, impacting Southwest Bakersfield.

http://www.bakersfieldcalifornian.com/local/x1042370722/Caltrans-Alternative-B-still-best-Centennial-path

With its release Friday of the project's draft Environmental Impact Report, [Caltrans] the state transportation agency found Alternative B would improve traffic throughout metropolitan Bakersfield -- but as currently planned would require the demolition of 200 single-family homes, 110 multiple-family structures and 121 commercial buildings.

Previously, the freeway alternative through southwest Bakersfield was thought to require the demolition of more than 199 single-family homes, 16 multiple-family structures and 36 businesses.

Currently, Caltrans also estimates Alternative B would require 293 full parcel acquisitions, 129 partial parcel acquisitions -- and could displace an estimated 961 people.

The EIR's release -- 15 months late because working with state and federal agencies took longer than expected -- expands earlier demolition numbers by nearly 50 percent.

However, a Caltrans officials said those figures could come down once the EIR is approved.

Alternative B's recommended path would have "adverse effects to the character of ... southwest Bakersfield and (the) Westpark neighborhood," which it would bisect, the EIR says.

It also would raise noise levels above the generally acceptable 62-70 decibel range in 484 outdoor areas, which Cox-Kovacevich said can be mitigated with soundwalls and landscaping.

With the entire state in the grips of a drought, Caltrans is considering moving to Arizona-style hardscape for future freeways. Centennial Corridor, though, would get actual, albeit drought-resistant, landscaping.

Caltrans has considered Alternatives A and C to be unfeasible since December 2012.

Alternative A, a connector southwest of Alternative B, would affect Rancho Vista Historic District. Alternative C, a connector slightly to the northeast of B, would impact Saunders Park.

Both the park and the historic district are protected under Federal Highway Administration guidelines.

Alternative A would demolish the most structures, and at $691 million in right-of-way and construction costs is the most expensive.

Alternative C has the fewest demolitions, but at $665.5 million for right-of-way and construction is the second most expensive proposal.

If either is moved to avoid historic houses or the park, it effectively becomes Alternative B, the cheapest choice at $570 million for right-of-way and design -- although Cox-Kovacevich said it wasn't picked for its cost.

[kkt]

Thanks for the update.

[mgk920]

^^

Very interesting.  When was the last time when such a large chunk of a fairly recently built-out, intact and stable neighborhood was acquired for building a new highway or other major infrastructure project?

When is the expected start of construction for that section?

Mike

[myosh_tino]

I have mixed feelings about this project.  While I would personally benefit from the new freeway when I make my trips to Vegas from the S.F. Bay Area, I'm not in favor of plowing through an established neighborhood to plunk down a new freeway that would displace almost 1,000 people. 

[Zeffy]

While I would personally benefit from the new freeway when I make my trips to Vegas from the S.F. Bay Area, I'm not in favor of plowing through an established neighborhood to plunk down a new freeway that would displace almost 1,000 people. 

Freeways are a double-edged sword: They facilitate transportation and allow heavy traffic volumes to move from point A to point B much faster than conventional roads, but at the cost of millions and billions of dollars as well as displacing hundreds of families.

I don't know much about the area, but my opinion is if it's "needed" then it should be built - but I agree with myosh_tino saying that demolishing an entire neighborhood of homes is not okay.

[kkt]

It's deeply regrettable that Bakersfield didn't plan for a freeway connection there.  it should have been obvious by the 1950s that it would be needed, and back then it could have been built at the edge of the urbanized area for peanuts.  if you can't build it, at least reserve the ROW.

[TheStranger]

it should have been obvious by the 1950s that it would be needed

Not necessarily.  I-5 was still proposed along the 99 corridor between Sacramento and Wheeler Ridge for much of that decade.

[myosh_tino]

it should have been obvious by the 1950s that it would be needed

Not necessarily.  I-5 was still proposed along the 99 corridor between Sacramento and Wheeler Ridge for much of that decade.

Good point!  Construction on the Central Valley portion of I-5 didn't start until the early 1960's and the portion from CA-152 to CA-99 didn't open to traffic until 1972.  I'm pretty sure by that time, it was far too late to acquire right-of-way for a future freeway extending west from the 99/58 interchange to I-5.

[kkt]

it should have been obvious by the 1950s that it would be needed

Not necessarily.  I-5 was still proposed along the 99 corridor between Sacramento and Wheeler Ridge for much of that decade.

You're right.  Though even so, you'd want a freeway or expressway connecting to the coast from Bakersfield.

[DTComposer]

it should have been obvious by the 1950s that it would be needed

Not necessarily.  I-5 was still proposed along the 99 corridor between Sacramento and Wheeler Ridge for much of that decade.

You're right.  Though even so, you'd want a freeway or expressway connecting to the coast from Bakersfield.

I would think US-466 (today's CA-46) was and would have been the preferred route to the coast, had CA-99 ended up as I-5.

[kkt]

it should have been obvious by the 1950s that it would be needed

Not necessarily.  I-5 was still proposed along the 99 corridor between Sacramento and Wheeler Ridge for much of that decade.

You're right.  Though even so, you'd want a freeway or expressway connecting to the coast from Bakersfield.

I would think US-466 (today's CA-46) was and would have been the preferred route to the coast, had CA-99 ended up as I-5.

Yes, but even then 99 was crowded and it would be better to route westbound traffic directly west rather than north first.

[Brandon]

it should have been obvious by the 1950s that it would be needed

Not necessarily.  I-5 was still proposed along the 99 corridor between Sacramento and Wheeler Ridge for much of that decade.

You're right.  Though even so, you'd want a freeway or expressway connecting to the coast from Bakersfield.

I would think US-466 (today's CA-46) was and would have been the preferred route to the coast, had CA-99 ended up as I-5.

Yes, but even then 99 was crowded and it would be better to route westbound traffic directly west rather than north first.

Basically, the current I-5 is really more of an "I-205" for the Central Valley.

[TheStranger]

Basically, the current I-5 is really more of an "I-205" for the Central Valley.

In that light, it's interesting that California twice used Interstate funds to create long mainline new-terrain route bypasses (5 from Wheeler Ridge to Tracy, 15 from Corona to Devore) in a short period of time, instead of keeping the designation on their originally proposed corridors that are in the process of being upgraded to full freeway standards (99) or have since been upgraded (historic 395/15E, current 215). 

The 78/22 situation in Allentown/Bethlehem seems to be one of the few parallels to this phenomenon, and that was more an issue of being unable to come up with a viable way to connect the New Jersey section of I-78 with the Lehigh Valley Thruway.

[kkt]

Basically, the current I-5 is really more of an "I-205" for the Central Valley.

In that light, it's interesting that California twice used Interstate funds to create long mainline new-terrain route bypasses (5 from Wheeler Ridge to Tracy, 15 from Corona to Devore) in a short period of time, instead of keeping the designation on their originally proposed corridors that are in the process of being upgraded to full freeway standards (99) or have since been upgraded (historic 395/15E, current 215). 

It's a reasonable decision.  Build I-5 up the west valley, where land is cheap and it's easy to get a right of way suitable for a 70 mph speed limit.  Upgrading 99 has been a slow process, involving lots of utility and overpass relocation and closure of side streets and substandard entrances and exits.

Hm, maybe it would have made more sense if I-5 in the west valley had been part of I-580 and 99 turned into I-5.

[nexus73]

Bring back US 99!

Rick

[kkt]

Bring back US 99!

Why stop there?  Get rid of interstate numbers, restore the U.S. numbers, and rely on people seeing the thick lines on the map to find freeways.