CA-58 and I-40

[Scott5114]

So with all the above in mind, what is so compelling about CA 58 (and hypothetical I-40) specifically to out of state folks?  Maybe there is something I don't see given said highway is something I'm exposed to frequently?

I think it bothers people that an x0 Interstate doesn't make it all the way across the grid to I-5. I-20, I-30, and I-45 bother people too, except that there's no obvious way to extend 20 or 30 and 45 would depend on Oklahoma. But 40 has a logical extension point with a mostly-suitable road in place.

[vdeane]

• Caltrans would have to get Congress to agree on the inclusion of the route in the Interstate System.
• Congress might defer to AASHTO first, and so AASHTO approval would be required
• Caltrans would have to work with the state legislature to author and pass a bill changing the Streets and Highways code definition of Route 40 and Route 58
• Caltrans would have to get a STIP or SHOPP project created to fund re-signage of the route, and get that funding through the CTC. This would likely require support of the regional transportation planning organizations in the affected counties, who would need to see the project as a priority when compared to the other projects in their geographic area of responsibility.
• If the CTC approved amending the SHOPP or STIP, funding sources for the signage project would need to be found, and the project would need to go through the usual PA&ED and PS&E process before signage could occur. I would imagine CEQA review would be perfunctory, although there might be engineering costs on signage development as part of budgeting.
• The CTC might well defer the signage project until near the end of lifetime for existing signage, in order to reduce costs to normal signage replacement. If this is the case, there might be a long delay as the signage in the Centennial Corridor in Bakersfield is relatively new.
• One might think "greenout" might work for signage and reduce costs. However, greenout works better on the porcelain on steel button copy signage. I'm not sure how well it works on retroreflective surfaces.

Yeah, this is a much more involved process than happens in most states.  The minimum version of it would be (assuming the road already meets interstate standards):
-Petition AASHTO for the interstate number
-Ask FHWA to approve it
-Sign it via a work order contract and adjust mile markers and exit numbers as needed

I'm not sure why the idea that Congress needs to approve new interstate designations is getting more and more widespread.  I assume it's because many states have been having their congressmen do just that and then others assume it's required.

A lot of those other steps make me feel like having route numbers defined by legislative acts isn't a great idea.  The whole CTC thing also strikes me as an extra complication - in most states, funding is determined by the DOT and the MPOs (where applicable).

Other states also use greenout a lot.  It's how Massachusetts changed its exit numbers to mile-based, for example.  Although it can lead to a frankensign effect if the sheeting is really old, but I think most states would agree that the cost to replace a sign just to avoid the frankensign effect isn't worth it.

So with all the above in mind, what is so compelling about CA 58 (and hypothetical I-40) specifically to out of state folks?  Maybe there is something I don't see given said highway is something I'm exposed to frequently?

I think it's the "potential interstate corridor" effect.  I mostly don't pay attention to state routes outside of the northeast and some adjacent areas, but I pay attention to interstates most everywhere.  I imagine many others are similar.

[ClassicHasClass]

I'll just refer back to what I said Reply #219.  I'm not really getting how a feasibility study grant generates the most activity this board has had in months. 

Would you rather talk about the merits of the Key Bridge rebuild?

You're a mean, mean, mean, mean, mean, mean man.

[Max Rockatansky]

I forget, has Caltrans even asked AASHTO for a US Route or Interstate alteration since 1996?  They got shot down pretty hard for extending I-210 well before CA 30/CA 210 was rebuilt.  The stance seems for the past thirty years seems to have been to ignore AASHTO.  I do get some amusement that suddenly segments of 710 and 8 which actually aren't Interstate are being signed as such.

[Max Rockatansky]

I'll just refer back to what I said Reply #219.  I'm not really getting how a feasibility study grant generates the most activity this board has had in months. 

Would you rather talk about the merits of the Key Bridge rebuild?

You're a mean, mean, mean, mean, mean, mean man.

Me personally, I think that I rather talk about Flat Illinois again versus anything related to the merits of the Key Bridge. 

[Plutonic Panda]

So with all the above in mind, what is so compelling about CA 58 (and hypothetical I-40) specifically to out of state folks?  Maybe there is something I don't see given said highway is something I'm exposed to frequently?

I think it bothers people that an x0 Interstate doesn't make it all the way across the grid to I-5. I-20, I-30, and I-45 bother people too, except that there's no obvious way to extend 20 or 30 and 45 would depend on Oklahoma. But 40 has a logical extension point with a mostly-suitable road in place.

What bothers me that Tulsa doesn't really have any primary interstate that goes through it without a toll. That really pisses me off.

[Plutonic Panda]

I'll just refer back to what I said Reply #219.  I'm not really getting how a feasibility study grant generates the most activity this board has had in months. 

Would you rather talk about the merits of the Key Bridge rebuild?

You're a mean, mean, mean, mean, mean, mean man.

I don't understand. Why are you being so mean?

[stevashe]

I'll just refer back to what I said Reply #219.  I'm not really getting how a feasibility study grant generates the most activity this board has had in months. 

That's an easy question to answer: It's the first time an I-40 extension has been mentioned in any official capacity outside the roadgeek hobby. Not really surprising that this would spur discussion when there was already so much discourse when an extension was entirely fictional before (even if it is still 99% fictional).

[Max Rockatansky]

I'll just refer back to what I said Reply #219.  I'm not really getting how a feasibility study grant generates the most activity this board has had in months. 

That's an easy question to answer: It's the first time an I-40 extension has been mentioned in any official capacity outside the roadgeek hobby. Not really surprising that this would spur discussion when there was already so much discourse when an extension was entirely fictional before (even if it is still 99% fictional).

Part of the issue was that someone was running around for years indicating it was manifest destiny.  The Wikipedia page on CA 58 even had the corridor between Bakersfield-Barstow as a future Interstate.  Said article lacked a citation and was eventually corrected.  Off forum that perception that I-40 was going to be extended was pervasive until recently. 

[cahwyguy]

A lot of those other steps make me feel like having route numbers defined by legislative acts isn't a great idea.  The whole CTC thing also strikes me as an extra complication - in most states, funding is determined by the DOT and the MPOs (where applicable).

That may be the case. I often point out to people that most of our laws come from the fact that people abused something, and then legislatures put in laws to stop that abuse.

In this case, historically, the Department of Highways likely abused their funding authority. The legislature created the California Highway Commission (CHC), now the CTC, to be in charge of approving funding and changes. So, with the exception of emergency repairs and such, Caltrans can't just go off and spend the money or change the road system. They need the approval of the watchdog CTC to make the changes. The CTC also is the one that determines from which of the allocated funding pots (known to folks that deal with state and federal budges as "color of money") the improvements are paid with.

Yes, it is an extra step. But this is why governmental processes are often slower and cost more than folks expect: All of the steps that have been added to prevent government from wasting taxpayer money (which end up preventing abuse, but cost taxpayer money). There are reasons -- generally good reasons -- why government projects cost more. Alas (as we've seen with current administrations), when unconstrained (or when the laws aren't enforced), self-interest wins out and people find ways to abuse the system. Then more laws are put into place to prevent the abuse. But people are creative and figure out new ways to abuse the system. Lather, rinse, repeat.

[SeriesE]

I think it bothers people that an x0 Interstate doesn't make it all the way across the grid to I-5. I-20, I-30, and I-45 bother people too, except that there's no obvious way to extend 20 or 30 and 45 would depend on Oklahoma. But 40 has a logical extension point with a mostly-suitable road in place.

Neither does I-70

[Max Rockatansky]

I think it bothers people that an x0 Interstate doesn't make it all the way across the grid to I-5. I-20, I-30, and I-45 bother people too, except that there's no obvious way to extend 20 or 30 and 45 would depend on Oklahoma. But 40 has a logical extension point with a mostly-suitable road in place.

Neither does I-70

Wasn't for a lack of trying (absurd as it was).

https://www.gribblenation.org/2017/07/california-state-203-road-that-could.html?m=1

[cahwyguy]

As for PP's second point that "Caltrans should be in charge of improving the roads and changing the roads that is the fundamental purpose of why they exist.". Caltrans is. However, they aren't in charge of the funding and allocation thereof. That's the CTC. From the "About the CTC" page:

The Commission is responsible for programming and allocating funds for the construction of highway, passenger rail, transit and active transportation improvements throughout California. The Commission also advises and assists the Secretary of the California State Transportation Agency and the Legislature in formulating and evaluating state policies and plans for California's transportation programs. The Commission is also an active participant in the initiation and development of State and Federal legislation that seeks to secure financial stability for the State's transportation needs.