CA-58 and I-40

[cahwyguy]

The point is these agencies have to periodically replace sign panel graphics on an ongoing basis anyway. The notion of adding an Interstate marker to these signs being a budget buster is ridiculous.

It's much more than that. First, a lot of the signs along 58 are still older button copy. You also have all the interchange signs and directional signage. All the postmiles paddles will require changing. All the bridge markers with postmiles require changing. Those are not insignificant costs, especially when they don't provide any significant benefit.

[Scott5114]

All the postmiles paddles will require changing. All the bridge markers with postmiles require changing.

All of those could be accomplished with overlays of a few square inches per panel. Those are all standard signs with standard dimensions (or they're supposed to be anyway) so you should be able to run off a few hundred stickers of the correct sizes for less than $1000. I imagine the labor cost would be the bulk of the cost there. Not free but definitely not the most expensive thing Caltrans has ever done.

That's assuming that Caltrans wouldn't be willing to do something like sign it as I-40 but leave the highway designated as SR 58 internally for postmile and other maintenance purposes until such time as all of that stuff is due for replacement anyway. Isn't there precedent for the signed route designation not matching the internal number in California?

[pderocco]

If the traffic count supports it, I'm all in favor of an interstate-quality highway between Barstow and Bakersfield. The problem is, it can't get a blue shield until and unless a) CA 99 gets a shield; or b) CA 58 gets built out all the way to I-5, which seems very unlikely.

Is that a reference to California's general reluctance to convert anything to an interstate (I-210 being the biggest example)? Or is there some national policy that discourages dangling interstates? It seems there are quite a few around, such as I-11, I-27, I-39, I-44, I-73.

[Road Hog]

If the traffic count supports it, I'm all in favor of an interstate-quality highway between Barstow and Bakersfield. The problem is, it can't get a blue shield until and unless a) CA 99 gets a shield; or b) CA 58 gets built out all the way to I-5, which seems very unlikely.

Is that a reference to California's general reluctance to convert anything to an interstate (I-210 being the biggest example)? Or is there some national policy that discourages dangling interstates? It seems there are quite a few around, such as I-11, I-27, I-39, I-44, I-73.

I'm just deferring to a standing AASHTO rule that interstates shouldn't be designated unless it terminates at another interstate or a US highway.

[pderocco]

If the traffic count supports it, I'm all in favor of an interstate-quality highway between Barstow and Bakersfield. The problem is, it can't get a blue shield until and unless a) CA 99 gets a shield; or b) CA 58 gets built out all the way to I-5, which seems very unlikely.

Is that a reference to California's general reluctance to convert anything to an interstate (I-210 being the biggest example)? Or is there some national policy that discourages dangling interstates? It seems there are quite a few around, such as I-11, I-27, I-39, I-44, I-73.

I'm just deferring to a standing AASHTO rule that interstates shouldn't be designated unless it terminates at another interstate or a US highway.

So I-40 could be pushed as far as Bakersfield if US-99 still existed. Oh well...

[cahwyguy]

All the postmiles paddles will require changing. All the bridge markers with postmiles require changing.

All of those could be accomplished with overlays of a few square inches per panel. Those are all standard signs with standard dimensions (or they're supposed to be anyway) so you should be able to run off a few hundred stickers of the correct sizes for less than $1000. I imagine the labor cost would be the bulk of the cost there. Not free but definitely not the most expensive thing Caltrans has ever done.

That's assuming that Caltrans wouldn't be willing to do something like sign it as I-40 but leave the highway designated as SR 58 internally for postmile and other maintenance purposes until such time as all of that stuff is due for replacement anyway. Isn't there precedent for the signed route designation not matching the internal number in California?

Having a different number than the signed number is the exception rather than the rule. I can think of only two cases (Route 51, Route 164). Maybe Route 259, but I think that is signed as Route 259 these days. Route 51 has it written into the legislation.

As for patches on the postmiles: I believe they replaced the paddles when they moved Route 7 to Route 710. Lastly, with respect to both postmiles and exit numbers: Remember that the change will also impact the existing I-40, as postmiles and exit numbers start at the southern or western end of the highway, and so every number on the current I-40 would need to change.

But I still haven't heard any actual benefits of changing the signs, other than completeness. Upgrades to the Bakersfield to Barstow section can happen without making it I-40, based on actual need and the desires of the county transportation commissions. I believe we're at the limit of chargeable interstate miles (if that distinction is still a thing), and non-chargeable miles don't come with any real benefits other than signage. There aren't new distinct routes being constructed.

So: There are costs. No real benefits. They will do the study. They probably will not change the designation of the highway.

[ElishaGOtis]

All the postmiles paddles will require changing. All the bridge markers with postmiles require changing.

All of those could be accomplished with overlays of a few square inches per panel. Those are all standard signs with standard dimensions (or they're supposed to be anyway) so you should be able to run off a few hundred stickers of the correct sizes for less than $1000. I imagine the labor cost would be the bulk of the cost there. Not free but definitely not the most expensive thing Caltrans has ever done.

That's assuming that Caltrans wouldn't be willing to do something like sign it as I-40 but leave the highway designated as SR 58 internally for postmile and other maintenance purposes until such time as all of that stuff is due for replacement anyway. Isn't there precedent for the signed route designation not matching the internal number in California?

Having a different number than the signed number is the exception rather than the rule. I can think of only two cases (Route 51, Route 164). Maybe Route 259, but I think that is signed as Route 259 these days. Route 51 has it written into the legislation.

As for patches on the postmiles: I believe they replaced the paddles when they moved Route 7 to Route 710. Lastly, with respect to both postmiles and exit numbers: Remember that the change will also impact the existing I-40, as postmiles and exit numbers start at the southern or western end of the highway, and so every number on the current I-40 would need to change.

But I still haven't heard any actual benefits of changing the signs, other than completeness. Upgrades to the Bakersfield to Barstow section can happen without making it I-40, based on actual need and the desires of the county transportation commissions. I believe we're at the limit of chargeable interstate miles (if that distinction is still a thing), and non-chargeable miles don't come with any real benefits other than signage. There aren't new distinct routes being constructed.

So: There are costs. No real benefits. They will do the study. They probably will not change the designation of the highway.

Wasn't I-40 internally designated as SR-58 for a while? Obviously not anymore but I could have sworn it was for a brief period.

[Max Rockatansky]

All the postmiles paddles will require changing. All the bridge markers with postmiles require changing.

All of those could be accomplished with overlays of a few square inches per panel. Those are all standard signs with standard dimensions (or they're supposed to be anyway) so you should be able to run off a few hundred stickers of the correct sizes for less than $1000. I imagine the labor cost would be the bulk of the cost there. Not free but definitely not the most expensive thing Caltrans has ever done.

That's assuming that Caltrans wouldn't be willing to do something like sign it as I-40 but leave the highway designated as SR 58 internally for postmile and other maintenance purposes until such time as all of that stuff is due for replacement anyway. Isn't there precedent for the signed route designation not matching the internal number in California?

Having a different number than the signed number is the exception rather than the rule. I can think of only two cases (Route 51, Route 164). Maybe Route 259, but I think that is signed as Route 259 these days. Route 51 has it written into the legislation.

As for patches on the postmiles: I believe they replaced the paddles when they moved Route 7 to Route 710. Lastly, with respect to both postmiles and exit numbers: Remember that the change will also impact the existing I-40, as postmiles and exit numbers start at the southern or western end of the highway, and so every number on the current I-40 would need to change.

But I still haven't heard any actual benefits of changing the signs, other than completeness. Upgrades to the Bakersfield to Barstow section can happen without making it I-40, based on actual need and the desires of the county transportation commissions. I believe we're at the limit of chargeable interstate miles (if that distinction is still a thing), and non-chargeable miles don't come with any real benefits other than signage. There aren't new distinct routes being constructed.

So: There are costs. No real benefits. They will do the study. They probably will not change the designation of the highway.

Wasn't I-40 internally designated as SR-58 for a while? Obviously not anymore but I could have sworn it was for a brief period.

Before 1964 what was US 66 and early parts of I-40 east of Barstow were Legislative Route Number 58.  LRN 58 extended all way west to Santa Margarita along US 466 and CA 178.

[cahwyguy]

All the postmiles paddles will require changing. All the bridge markers with postmiles require changing.

All of those could be accomplished with overlays of a few square inches per panel. Those are all standard signs with standard dimensions (or they're supposed to be anyway) so you should be able to run off a few hundred stickers of the correct sizes for less than $1000. I imagine the labor cost would be the bulk of the cost there. Not free but definitely not the most expensive thing Caltrans has ever done.

That's assuming that Caltrans wouldn't be willing to do something like sign it as I-40 but leave the highway designated as SR 58 internally for postmile and other maintenance purposes until such time as all of that stuff is due for replacement anyway. Isn't there precedent for the signed route designation not matching the internal number in California?

Having a different number than the signed number is the exception rather than the rule. I can think of only two cases (Route 51, Route 164). Maybe Route 259, but I think that is signed as Route 259 these days. Route 51 has it written into the legislation.

As for patches on the postmiles: I believe they replaced the paddles when they moved Route 7 to Route 710. Lastly, with respect to both postmiles and exit numbers: Remember that the change will also impact the existing I-40, as postmiles and exit numbers start at the southern or western end of the highway, and so every number on the current I-40 would need to change.

But I still haven't heard any actual benefits of changing the signs, other than completeness. Upgrades to the Bakersfield to Barstow section can happen without making it I-40, based on actual need and the desires of the county transportation commissions. I believe we're at the limit of chargeable interstate miles (if that distinction is still a thing), and non-chargeable miles don't come with any real benefits other than signage. There aren't new distinct routes being constructed.

So: There are costs. No real benefits. They will do the study. They probably will not change the designation of the highway.

Wasn't I-40 internally designated as SR-58 for a while? Obviously not anymore but I could have sworn it was for a brief period.

Before 1964 what was US 66 and early parts of I-40 east of Barstow were Legislative Route Number 58.  LRN 58 extended all way west to Santa Margarita along US 466 and CA 178.

And to amplify that: Before 1964, the legislative numbers differed from the signed numbers. After 1964, the "one number, one route" aligned them, so what was I-40 became legislatively Route 40 (and, by coincidence only, Route 58 took over former legislative route 58). I-15 took over former Legislative Route 77, which had been signed as US 91 and US 466 N of Barstow.

[FredAkbar]

From a construction/budgetary standpoint, the biggest obstacle for extending I-40 to Barstow is the not-freeway portion from Tehachapi to the CA-223 intersection near Bealville. The highway geometry might be pass-able and the shoulders look wide enough. The problem is all the at-grade dirt road connections and other miscellaneous roadside pull-offs.

They are already adding a climbing line in that section so maybe they will make some of these other improvements, at the same time. But I'm not sure exactly where the climbing line is planned to start and end.

[jdbx]

All the postmiles paddles will require changing. All the bridge markers with postmiles require changing.

All of those could be accomplished with overlays of a few square inches per panel. Those are all standard signs with standard dimensions (or they're supposed to be anyway) so you should be able to run off a few hundred stickers of the correct sizes for less than $1000. I imagine the labor cost would be the bulk of the cost there. Not free but definitely not the most expensive thing Caltrans has ever done.

That's assuming that Caltrans wouldn't be willing to do something like sign it as I-40 but leave the highway designated as SR 58 internally for postmile and other maintenance purposes until such time as all of that stuff is due for replacement anyway. Isn't there precedent for the signed route designation not matching the internal number in California?

Having a different number than the signed number is the exception rather than the rule. I can think of only two cases (Route 51, Route 164). Maybe Route 259, but I think that is signed as Route 259 these days. Route 51 has it written into the legislation.

As for patches on the postmiles: I believe they replaced the paddles when they moved Route 7 to Route 710. Lastly, with respect to both postmiles and exit numbers: Remember that the change will also impact the existing I-40, as postmiles and exit numbers start at the southern or western end of the highway, and so every number on the current I-40 would need to change.

But I still haven't heard any actual benefits of changing the signs, other than completeness. Upgrades to the Bakersfield to Barstow section can happen without making it I-40, based on actual need and the desires of the county transportation commissions. I believe we're at the limit of chargeable interstate miles (if that distinction is still a thing), and non-chargeable miles don't come with any real benefits other than signage. There aren't new distinct routes being constructed.

So: There are costs. No real benefits. They will do the study. They probably will not change the designation of the highway.

Agreed.  Changing the number is a silly exercise at this point. The real soution: try to remove as many at-grades as possible, add climbing lanes where warranted over the Tehachapis, and complete the expressway between Bakersfield and I-5, and call it a day.  Can I please collect the consulting fees now?

[Max Rockatansky]

All the postmiles paddles will require changing. All the bridge markers with postmiles require changing.

All of those could be accomplished with overlays of a few square inches per panel. Those are all standard signs with standard dimensions (or they're supposed to be anyway) so you should be able to run off a few hundred stickers of the correct sizes for less than $1000. I imagine the labor cost would be the bulk of the cost there. Not free but definitely not the most expensive thing Caltrans has ever done.

That's assuming that Caltrans wouldn't be willing to do something like sign it as I-40 but leave the highway designated as SR 58 internally for postmile and other maintenance purposes until such time as all of that stuff is due for replacement anyway. Isn't there precedent for the signed route designation not matching the internal number in California?

Having a different number than the signed number is the exception rather than the rule. I can think of only two cases (Route 51, Route 164). Maybe Route 259, but I think that is signed as Route 259 these days. Route 51 has it written into the legislation.

As for patches on the postmiles: I believe they replaced the paddles when they moved Route 7 to Route 710. Lastly, with respect to both postmiles and exit numbers: Remember that the change will also impact the existing I-40, as postmiles and exit numbers start at the southern or western end of the highway, and so every number on the current I-40 would need to change.

But I still haven't heard any actual benefits of changing the signs, other than completeness. Upgrades to the Bakersfield to Barstow section can happen without making it I-40, based on actual need and the desires of the county transportation commissions. I believe we're at the limit of chargeable interstate miles (if that distinction is still a thing), and non-chargeable miles don't come with any real benefits other than signage. There aren't new distinct routes being constructed.

So: There are costs. No real benefits. They will do the study. They probably will not change the designation of the highway.

Agreed.  Changing the number is a silly exercise at this point. The real soution: try to remove as many at-grades as possible, add climbing lanes where warranted over the Tehachapis, and complete the expressway between Bakersfield and I-5, and call it a day.  Can I please collect the consulting fees now?

No, every dirt driveway in California City needs a full interchange!  It would also look really neat on a map to have I-40 go to I-5.

[gonealookin]

No, every dirt driveway in California City needs a full interchange!  It would also look really neat on a map to have I-40 go to I-5.

I do think SR 58/California City Boulevard could stand a grade separation.  I wonder how many crashes there have been at that intersection.

[Max Rockatansky]

No, every dirt driveway in California City needs a full interchange!  It would also look really neat on a map to have I-40 go to I-5.

I do think SR 58/California City Boulevard could stand a grade separation.  I wonder how many crashes there have been at that intersection.

That particular segment has a lot of similar intersections.  If I recall correctly it was one of the first four lane expressway segments on 58 in the Mojave.  It would probably need a complete rebuilding to just bring the lanes and shoulders up to modern standards.

[FredAkbar]

No, every dirt driveway in California City needs a full interchange!  It would also look really neat on a map to have I-40 go to I-5.

Not good enough. I-40 needs to be extended all the way to Santa Margarita.

[FredAkbar]

No, every dirt driveway in California City needs a full interchange!  It would also look really neat on a map to have I-40 go to I-5.

I do think SR 58/California City Boulevard could stand a grade separation.  I wonder how many crashes there have been at that intersection.

That particular segment has a lot of similar intersections.  If I recall correctly it was one of the first four lane expressway segments on 58 in the Mojave.  It would probably need a complete rebuilding to just bring the lanes and shoulders up to modern standards.

It's notable because that's where the higher speed limit (70 instead of 65) begins when you're going east, after you pass that intersection. But if there are other intersections remaining west of it, then they probably wouldn't extend the 70 section any further.

[Scott5114]

No, every dirt driveway in California City needs a full interchange!  It would also look really neat on a map to have I-40 go to I-5.

Not good enough. I-40 needs to be extended all the way to Santa Margarita.

TWICE

[Bobby5280]

It's much more than that. First, a lot of the signs along 58 are still older button copy. You also have all the interchange signs and directional signage. All the postmiles paddles will require changing. All the bridge markers with postmiles require changing. Those are not insignificant costs, especially when they don't provide any significant benefit.

The old button copy signs can't last forever. Many of the ones that are still in service look like shit. Generally, I don't like Caltrans' highway sign design practices, but that's a whole other topic. Caltrans does have a habit of doing patch jobs on old signs. I don't see the problem of patching an I-40 shield in place of a CA-58 spade on a big green sign.

Post-mounted reassurance signs get replaced frequently. If weather/age doesn't get them after so and such many years other factors will. Vehicles hit/run over them. People steal them.

I wish the situation wasn't like that. Here in Lawton we used to have some really good I-44 reassurance post signs going thru Fort Sill and Medicine Park. They had 36" size I-44 shields with three 24" US highway markers below. Those soon got replaced by post signs where all the markers were 24" in size.

A bunch of those highway route signs are mass produced rather than just a few at a time.

They are already adding a climbing line in that section so maybe they will make some of these other improvements, at the same time. But I'm not sure exactly where the climbing line is planned to start and end.

A climbing lane for trucks would be good, just as long as the lane doesn't cannibalize an existing shoulder in the process.

The biggest issue is all the dirt roads connecting to the main lanes of CA-58. A bunch of those dirt road driveways are service roads for the double-track rail lane nearby. Dirt/gravel roads run next to the rail line most of the way thru Tehachapi Pass. So it's not 100% necessary for other dirt road spurs to be connecting directly into CA-58. Those dirt road connections into CA-58 appear to be there out of convenience rather than necessity.

Also, many of these railroad service vehicles have "hi-rail" setups. So if the dirt road dead ends at a creek the service truck driver can engage the hi rail system and drive across the railroad bridge instead. Of course he has to get on the horn and let dispatch know what he's doing.

I think BNSF & UP could improve the service roads next to that major rail corridor so their service vehicles don't have to rely so much on using CA-58.

The other problem is dirt roads connecting into recreational areas or private property. There's a variety of solutions for that. Short segments of frontage roads next to CA-58 and additional dirt/gravel access roads away from CA-58 could allow a bunch of those dirt road connections into the main highway to be removed.

Nearly 21,000 vehicles per day use CA-58 thru Tehachapi Pass, close to 8,000 of those vehicles are commercial trucks. Those AADT numbers are higher than traffic counts on rural portions of many other Interstate highways. Due to the curvy nature of that portion of CA-58 I think it poses a danger to have dirt roads connecting into what is a fairly significant highway. No one is coming off a dirt road and getting up to full travel speed on CA-58 immediately.

[Max Rockatansky]

I've actually never seen a work truck using any of those dirt shoulders on the eastbound lanes to access the Union Pacific Railroad.  I'm sure that the shoulders do get used by UP trucks but it isn't a significant number.  The shoulders are generally pretty wide and any vehicle emerging from them is going to be able to take their time getting onto 58.

This feels like a solution in search of a non-existent problem.  The Union Pacific isn't going to front the money for Caltrans to build interchange to access every railroad tunnel.  The CTC will never sign off on allocating the money for sure a conversion on their own.

Since some of you are big on AADT figures go have a look at what is up with US 101 in the Prunedale area.  That has the actual dangerous dirt roads fronting the highway.  Nobody is asking for an Interstate quality rebuild out there. 

[cl94]

For anyone who thinks that this study means that I-40 will be extended, I present three counter-examples: Route 15, Route 210, and Route 905. California is certainly in no rush to designate the non-I portions of those as Interstates despite all being "future Interstate corridors."

Oh, and the 99 Interstate conversion that seems to resurface in the hobby every once in a while. That's likely never happening, even though I expect all of it south of Sacramento to meet modern standards within my lifetime.

(personal opinion strongly emphasized)

[pderocco]

For anyone who thinks that this study means that I-40 will be extended, I present three counter-examples: Route 15, Route 210, and Route 905. California is certainly in no rush to designate the non-I portions of those as Interstates despite all being "future Interstate corridors."

Oh, and the 99 Interstate conversion that seems to resurface in the hobby every once in a while. That's likely never happening, even though I expect all of it south of Sacramento to meet modern standards within my lifetime.

(personal opinion strongly emphasized)

They could call it I-99. There's precedent for that.

[pderocco]

I do think SR 58/California City Boulevard could stand a grade separation.  I wonder how many crashes there have been at that intersection.

I doubt it's very high. It's flat, and the median is wide enough that CC Blvd traffic can make a left turn in two steps, unlike Bealville Rd. That's where I'd expect to see accidents.