CA-58 and I-40

[TheStranger]

leifvanderwall:  California hasn't had any truly long multiplexes since 1964, and having I-40 continue south down I-15 to Ontario would result in a 54-mile corouting, something that would be unlikely for this state these days.  (Plus, I-210/Route 210 and I-15 are already complete for the most part as a freeway route, while Route 58 could honestly use the interstate funding to hasten its upgrade.)

I can't imagine Route 58 west of I-5 ever being upgraded to freeway either, just the segment from Buttonwillow to Barstow.

[leifvanderwall]

uh... Rules can change.

[Scott5114]

Why would they change their longstanding policy just for the sake of allowing a 54 mile concurrency to replace a perfectly good 3di? Especially considering the fact that the CA-58 corridor could use a freeway, and as Jake mentioned, that corridor could be used as a shortcut to the Bay Area from the Southwest...

[TheStranger]

leifvanderwall: The longest co-routing in California since 1964 has been a partially signed 68 mile multiplex of US 101 and Route 1 between Oxnard and Gaviota (though interrupted by a short segment of Route 1 that uses former US 101 alignment along the coast); but for Interstate routes, the coroutings are extremely short (I-580 and I-80 for approximately 5 miles in Berkeley; I-5 and I-10 for about 2 miles in downtown Los Angeles). 

There's really no reason to have I-40 leave its straight line path to continue down two existing Interstates (I-210 and I-15) for signage purposes only, when the additional funding for an upgrade of an major state route (its importance hinted at by its past life as US 466) could be available via such an extension.

[myosh_tino]

I am thinking that an extension of the CA-58 freeway to I-5 may not be necessary for the extension of I-40 along CA-58.  California is in the process of upgrading all of CA-99 to Interstate standard from I-5 near the Grapevine to Stockton (maybe Sacramento) with the hopes of getting designated as an Interstate (probably I-7, maybe I-9).  If that were to happen and all the upgrades on CA-58 are completed (Kramer Junction bypass, Hinkley bypass, CA-233 intersection, etc) then why not just terminate I-40 at future I-7/I-9 in Bakersfield. 

From a signage point of view, this would make more sense because Bakersfield would become a control city for I-40.  If I-40 were to be extended to I-5, what would the control city be west of Bakersfield?  I-5?  Buttonwillow?  San Francisco?  Sacramento?

[agentsteel53]

From a signage point of view, this would make more sense because Bakersfield would become a control city for I-40.  If I-40 were to be extended to I-5, what would the control city be west of Bakersfield?  I-5?  Buttonwillow?  San Francisco?  Sacramento?

San Francisco would make the most sense.  A lot of drivers would take 40 to 5 to 580.  San Francisco is already an I-5 control city, with San Francisco/Sacramento destination signs all over the Central Valley.

Sacramento - the most direct route would be 99, so drivers would turn north on Bakersfield.

Buttonwillow - well, it's slightly larger than Delaware Water Gap...

[TheStranger]

From a signage point of view, this would make more sense because Bakersfield would become a control city for I-40.  If I-40 were to be extended to I-5, what would the control city be west of Bakersfield?  I-5?  Buttonwillow?  San Francisco?  Sacramento?

San Francisco would make the most sense.  A lot of drivers would take 40 to 5 to 580.  San Francisco is already an I-5 control city, with San Francisco/Sacramento destination signs all over the Central Valley.

I-205 and Route 120 both have SF as a control city for much the same reason, though neither route gets close to there.  (Same with I-505)

Buttonwillow - well, it's slightly larger than Delaware Water Gap...

Hey, Needles is used as an I-40 control city the other direction (probably because the next major city would be Flagstaff in any case)...

[leifvanderwall]

I don't have a problem with where I-40 ends, I just think the highway's status would be much bigger if it did end in the LA area. I-40 is one of our longest Interstates; I guess Bakersfield which has a population of almost 300,000 could use it. Anybody think California 14 should be a x40 designation?

[myosh_tino]

I don't have a problem with where I-40 ends, I just think the highway's status would be much bigger if it did end in the LA area. I-40 is one of our longest Interstates; I guess Bakersfield which has a population of almost 300,000 could use it. Anybody think California 14 should be a x40 designation?

If I-40 is extended to Bakersfield, CA-14 could be an x40 interstate but it will NOT be I-140 because CA-140 already exists and is one of the main routes to Yosemite.  Remember, route duplication is not allowed in the California highway system.  Also, Caltrans would have to build a bypass around the east side of Mojave.

[mapman]

Converting CA 14 into an I-x40 is an intriguing idea.  I don't know if the freeway sections are currently interstate-compliant, though.

You're right, I-140 wouldn't work, but I-340 would.  (Or maybe I-540?)

I think that a bypass of Mojave will eventually happen, as recreation traffic between Southern California and the eastern Sierras continues to increase.

[TheStranger]

Converting CA 14 into an I-x40 is an intriguing idea.  I don't know if the freeway sections are currently interstate-compliant, though.

You're right, I-140 wouldn't work, but I-340 would.  (Or maybe I-540?)

I think that a bypass of Mojave will eventually happen, as recreation traffic between Southern California and the eastern Sierras continues to increase.

"I-540" actually is an intriguing number choice - I've always felt that I-505 and I-580 received that first digit (instead of, say, I-380 and I-305 which were both available at the time) because both routes used to be part of what was the I-5W loop; so in that sense, just as 580 connects both I-5 and I-80, I-540 does the same for I-5 and I-40.

Conjecture on my part...but it does seem that after an initial batch of 3dis (280, 480, 680, 205, 405, 605, 805, 210), the numbering for California's 3di routes became less based on what was immediately available in the sequence (580 coming up before 380 was assigned, 505 before 305 was used, 905 before 705 has even been used, 110 and 710 seeming to inherit their numbers from their state route forebears 11 and 7 respectively).

[mapman]

There is a certain logic to picking 3di's based upon either a previous route number or what routes it would connect to.  That's especially true in modern times, where highways have become such a major part of everyday life and lexicon.  Having some sort of route continuity within a region can ease the confusion of a route renumbering.

[Bickendan]

I-5 and I-10 for about 2 miles in downtown Los Angeles). 

IIRC (and without looking at cahighways.org to verify), the I-5/10 duplex is only in the field; I-10 does not by legislative definition duplex with I-5 and is in fact discontinuous to itself, with a gap along the US 101 portion of the Santa Ana Freeway (and note there is no movements between the Santa Monica - excuse me, Rosa Parks Freeway and US 101). The segment of the San Bernardino Freeway between US 101 and I-5 is unsigned I-10.

[TheStranger]

I-5 and I-10 for about 2 miles in downtown Los Angeles). 

IIRC (and without looking at cahighways.org to verify), the I-5/10 duplex is only in the field; I-10 does not by legislative definition duplex with I-5 and is in fact discontinuous to itself, with a gap along the US 101 portion of the Santa Ana Freeway (and note there is no movements between the Santa Monica - excuse me, Rosa Parks Freeway and US 101). The segment of the San Bernardino Freeway between US 101 and I-5 is unsigned I-10.

No co-routing is acknowledged in any of the legislative definitions of routes (except, unintentionally, the unsigned co-routing of Route 271 way up north); pretty much whether two routes or more are co-routed is based entirely on signage (or lack thereof).

[agentsteel53]

what is 271 co-routed with?  101?

[TheStranger]

what is 271 co-routed with?  101?

that would be my assumption, as (going from what I've read - I have never been to that part of the state) 271 is defined as a single-segment route, but has two seperate segments (Cummings-Leggett and Piercy-Cooks Valley) joined by a portion of 101, and a snippet of Route 1.  271 itself is a former routing of 101...

[andy3175]

CA 271 is one of several routes that have two separate legs but are not signed in between the two legs. Another example is CA 193, which connects CA 65 and I-80 and also connects CA 49 with Georgetown then travels south to Placerville. It seems some secondary state highways are not signed with concurrent routes, but longer major routes are well-signed. One of the longest such concurrencies (shared alignments) between two highways is CA 108 and CA 120 west of Sonora. I was surprised to see that CA 113 is signed on its shared alignment with I-80, considering CA 113 south of Dixon is a secondary state route.

Andy

[TheStranger]

CA 271 is one of several routes that have two separate legs but are not signed in between the two legs. Another example is CA 193, which connects CA 65 and I-80 and also connects CA 49 with Georgetown then travels south to Placerville.

Route 16 through Sacramento is probably the longest of those types of gaps, though originally that break in signage/routing didn't exist (with Route 16 following Capitol Avenue/Capitol Mall for years); when the freeways were constructed, the gap only existed between the I Street Bridge in downtown to today's Exit 9 off of US 50.  When Route 16 between Woodland and the I Street Bridge was turned to local maintenance, the gap widened significantly and there is no signage at either end of each gap to indicate how to get to the next respective segment...

[Grzrd]

I am thinking that an extension of the CA-58 freeway to I-5 may not be necessary for the extension of I-40 along CA-58.  California is in the process of upgrading all of CA-99 to Interstate standard from I-5 near the Grapevine to Stockton (maybe Sacramento) with the hopes of getting designated as an Interstate (probably I-7, maybe I-9).  If that were to happen and all the upgrades on CA-58 are completed (Kramer Junction bypass, Hinkley bypass, CA-233 intersection, etc) then why not just terminate I-40 at future I-7/I-9 in Bakersfield. 

From a signage point of view, this would make more sense because Bakersfield would become a control city for I-40.  If I-40 were to be extended to I-5, what would the control city be west of Bakersfield?  I-5?  Buttonwillow?  San Francisco?  Sacramento?

I live in Georgia and have always wondered why I-40 had not been extended (at least) to I-5.  No recent posts on this thread. Any recent noteworthy developments?

[KEK Inc.]

Eh, it could be signed as future I-40, but 5 corners (US-395 jct) and some places in the mountains are going to require some upgrades.  I find it interesting that CA-58 is the only highway in the state that uses MUTCD mile markers.  Generally, California uses its own mile marker system that resets by county, but you have to pull off the road and use an electron microscope to read it.

Couldn't be any worse than the stretch of I-5 north of Yreka.  Last time I was down that way in 2002, the divider between the two sides of the freeway was just paint--no barriers, no physical barriers.

There would be a certain logic with having I-40 go all the way to I-5, but at least the way I perceive things, there are certain California state routes that kind of just have a reputation for being "big deals" on par with US Highways or Interstates as it is.  I'd say CA-58 is in that boat.  I'd also throw CA-89 into the mix as well--it's a sensical way to get to Reno from Medford/Ashland area.

-Alex (Tarkus)

I drove that a week ago and I can vouch that there's jersey barriers, but I know what you meant.  I went 80 up that hill between CA-3 and CA-96.  I travel between Portland and the Bay Area quite frequently, and I believe they retrofitted I-5 north of Weed back in '06. 

The Siskyou Summit is barely Interstate legal...  It's way too steep, and the runaway truck ramps are placed in retarded places that are steeper than the actual road.

[agentsteel53]

I think now the only freeway in CA with the paved, barrierless median is some sections of US-101 up north.

[KEK Inc.]

I think now the only freeway in CA with the paved, barrierless median is some sections of US-101 up north.

For the time being, I-5 through Red Bluff has no median barrier due to construction (don't know if that counts).  I'm also not sure about CA-70 east of Yuba City. 

[agentsteel53]

I drove 70 a few months ago and didn't notice the absence of a barrier.

[Quillz]

I believe the idea behind CalTRANS turning all of CA-58 between Bakersfield and Barstow a freeway is so that one day it will become a westward extension of I-40. Now, I'm curious if CA-58 will be truncated to Bakersfield or if it will remain concurrent with I-40.

[KEK Inc.]

I believe the idea behind CalTRANS turning all of CA-58 between Bakersfield and Barstow a freeway is so that one day it will become a westward extension of I-40. Now, I'm curious if CA-58 will be truncated to Bakersfield or if it will remain concurrent with I-40.

Ideally, I think they would want I-40 to end at an Interstate highway (I-5).  Of course, CA-99 is proposed to be an Interstate (I-9), so I-40 ending there wouldn't be too bad (and they could run it concurrent with CA-99 to I-5 if they really wanted to).