CA-58 and I-40

[Rothman]

It is also part of the chargeable mileage, and so dropping that mileage would mean that California would likely need to refund the Federal funds used to construct that segment. There is precedent for that: remember that was one of the discussions regarding the I-15 rerouting to the west: They thought they would have to refund the funds used to construct the LRN 43/LRN 31 freeway in San Bernardino, until it was realized that that freeway was funded before the 1956 Federal Act authorized funds. That's what allowed them to build the Route 31 freeway, which became I-15 to I-10, with 90% Federal Funding. The extension of I-15 S to I-8 (which is where that designation ends) was with additional mileage added to the Interstate system. Federal funding was used convert the Route 71 Freeway to interstate standards in the 1970s (US 395 and Route 103 had already been mostly upgraded). The mileage S of I-8 to I-5 -- the part still CA 15 -- is actually 125(b) non-chargeable mileage already, and can be resigned as I-15 once everything is up to Interstate standards and AASHTO signs off. My understanding is that there are some portions between I-8 and I-805 that are not up to spec yet (if that's different, I'd like to know to update my pages, and hopefully, before we record that episode of the podcast).

I was about to ask "since when do interstate decommissioning require refunding anything" only to then think "I wonder if this is why NYSDOT wants an act of Congress to move I-81".  Anyone know if anything needed to be refunded when I-895 was removed?

Heck no.  There is no refunding of construction funds to FHWA because of a removal (e.g., can say with certainty that didn't happen with I-895).  It's the loss of the 90% eligibility that's the only hurt.

[Plutonic Panda]

58 EAST
Las Vegas
Flagstaff

Or as CalTrans would say,

58 EAST
Baker
Needles

I vote for "other desert suburbs"

[SeriesE]

My two cents on the issue: In California, the Interstate shield is no longer an indicator of the roadway's quality. At best it just indicates that the road is a freeway. So yeah, I don't think it's worth spending the money to change the route number and apply for the Interstate 40 designation when it's good enough as-is.

There are plenty of Interstates in California which initially adhered to Interstate standards, but no longer is through "widenings" that added a lane by deleting the left shoulders and the lane widths to below the 12' standard.

[ClassicHasClass]

So far, the two sides of this argument I'm seeing are:

"there's no need to upgrade CA 58 to I-40"

vs.

"in that case, shields are irrelevant, make them all CA shields"

The latter reads like an emotional reaction which, ironically, reinforces the argument that converting CA 58 to I-40 is unnecessary.

Possibly the simplest solution would be to add Barstow as the control city for CA 58 East, particularly at the I-5 and CA 99 interchanges. Considering Bakersfield is the control for CA 58 West, it wouldn't hurt to have them complement each other. And if we're promoting CA 58 as a greater Los Angeles bypass, supplemental signs to the effect of "San Francisco Use CA 58 West" / "Las Vegas / Flagstaff / Use CA 58 East" could be beneficial.

But also, anyone traveling between I-5 and I-40 already know about CA 58 anyway.

In fact, signs at the Route 99 (and possibly I-5 interchanges) indicating "To I-40 and Barstow: Use Route 58 W" would probably be useful for travelers. In the other direction (i.e., in Barstow), control cities likely suffice, although a "To Bakersfield and I-5, use Route 58 E" probably would be useful.

If Rick Ankrom needs a new project, he could just stick a "TO I-5" on this: https://maps.app.goo.gl/258okfYksrNg7BEy7

[vdeane]

There were a few rationales for moving I-5, which are discussed on my I-5 page, based on discussions here from Sparker.

First, Route 99 pretty much carried local traffic, and at the time, had a lot of city interactions and undersized underpasses. Caltrans wanted to avoid that for through truck traffic.

Second, the existing road wouldn't work as well for the new 90% federal match. Better to use the match for a new roadway that would be faster for the trucks. I'm also sure that the routing through the west side of Sacramento kept a lot of truck traffic out of the main areas.

I feel like that describes a lot of the more urbanized area of the country, yet most states kept the interstates through downtown and preferred to grandfather mileage in so they could get other interstates done sooner - and much of the exceptions involve the old long-distance toll roads (which were themselves grandfathered in).  The only other example I can think of a state doing something similar to California is Kansas with I-35, where they built a free bypass of the Kansas Turnpike and Topeka rather than make the whole Kansas Turnpike I-35.

[Scott5114]

So far, the two sides of this argument I'm seeing are:

"there's no need to upgrade CA 58 to I-40"

vs.

"in that case, shields are irrelevant, make them all CA shields"

The latter reads like an emotional reaction which, ironically, reinforces the argument that converting CA 58 to I-40 is unnecessary.

As far as I can tell there's no way to construct a logical argument for why the existing Interstate signing is necessary while new additions to the system are not, and the "read my lips, no new Interstates" crowd is refusing to attempt to do so other than saying "it's unnecessary" and "signs cost money" (the latter being irrelevant because signs have to be periodically replaced regardless).

[cahwyguy]

My dude, your information is horrifically obsolete.  23 USC 139 now refers to Efficient Environmental Reviews, just as one example: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=%28title:23%20section:139%20edition:prelim%29.  Interstate Completion funds went the way of the dodo decades ago.  Time to move into the 21st Century!

My information came from the Caltrans Interstate History document. It may indeed be out of date, and I welcome corrections as to what today's terminology is. Please point me to the correct information (or email me some corrections at faigin -at cahighways.org) and I'll get the pages updated.

So, I took some time and did some research. I'm not going to paste everything that will be on the updated page, because you've already accused me of being too verbose    .

The key sources I found were:
The Caltrans Highway Design Manual on Funding, 8/8/2025: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/design/documents/chp0040---a11y.pdf
CRS Report R47922, "The Highway Funding Formula: History and Current Status Under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act", 2/15/2024: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R47922

The key distinction these days appears to be whether the route is in the National Highway System ( see https://hepgis-usdot.hub.arcgis.com/pages/national-highway-system ), and whether the route is designated an Interstate. Given that interstate construction is essentially completed, the old chargeable/non-chargeable distinction is gone. States, however, can't just designate things. Here's what I think are the key paragraphs from the Caltrans manual:

In 1995, the Secretary of Transportation proposed a National Highway System (NHS) consisting of approximately 160,000 miles across the United States. The NHS consists of all Interstate routes, a large percentage of urban and rural principal arterials, the defense Strategic Highway Network, strategic highway network connectors, and intermodal connectors. The Interstate Highway System is a part of the NHS, but retains its separate identity. As a condition of funding for Federal-aid highway projects, Federal law prohibits State departments of transportation from adding any point of access to or from the Interstate System without the approval of the Secretary of Transportation and all new or modified points of access must be approved by FHWA and developed in accordance with federal laws and regulations as specified in 23 U.S.C. 109 and 111, 23 C.F.R. 624 and 625.4, and 49 C.F.R. 1.48(b)(1). Revenue from the Federal gas and other motor-vehicle user taxes was credited to the Highway Trust Fund to pay the Federal share of Interstate and all other Federal-aid highway projects. In this way, the Act guaranteed construction of all segments on a "pay-as-you-go" basis, where the program is self-financing without contributing to the Federal budget deficit.

The maximum share of project cost that may be funded with Federal-aid highway funds (the "Federal share") varies based upon the Federal-aid program from which the project receives funding. In some cases, the Federal share is also adjusted based on related statutory provisions. The typical federal share under the sliding scale is 91.57 percent on Interstate projects and 88.53 percent on non-Interstate projects for federally eligible roads. Certain specified types of projects, mostly targeting safety improvements, are eligible to receive a Federal share of 100 percent. A toll project under 23 U.S.C. 129 is eligible for a maximum Federal share of 80 percent  (regardless of whether the project would have qualified for a higher Federal share if advanced as a non-toll facility). 

So, if I'm reading all of this right, and to tie this back to the original discussion: If Caltrans wanted to change the number on Route 58 to I-40, a number of things would have to happen:

• 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.

Reading through this and writing up the process: I'm still not sure the cost will be worth the effort. It certainly wouldn't be as instantaneous as some folks on this forum think it would be.

Note that none of this prevents upgrading the highway itself to improve throughput, make it Interstate standard in terms of engineering requirements, etc. I'm just talking the effort to change the number.

[kkt]

We don't often get a lot of activity on this board from folks outside the Southwest.   However, every time something related to possibly making CA 99 or CA 58 an Interstate it becomes all the rage.  Considering how many awesome roads we have in California in Nevada I don't know whether not to find that amusing or disappointing. 

Just different people want different things of an awesome road.  If you're a trucker or casual tourist, you might want them to be interstates.  For others, a twisty mountain road with an AADT you could count on the fingers of one hand might be just the ticket.

[Max Rockatansky]

We don't often get a lot of activity on this board from folks outside the Southwest.   However, every time something related to possibly making CA 99 or CA 58 an Interstate it becomes all the rage.  Considering how many awesome roads we have in California in Nevada I don't know whether not to find that amusing or disappointing. 

Just different people want different things of an awesome road.  If you're a trucker or casual tourist, you might want them to be interstates.  For others, a twisty mountain road with an AADT you could count on the fingers of one hand might be just the ticket.

I'm mostly referencing what goes on in this hobby.  I wouldn't lump many hobby regulars in the same league as "casual tourists."

[Rothman]

My dude, your information is horrifically obsolete.  23 USC 139 now refers to Efficient Environmental Reviews, just as one example: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=%28title:23%20section:139%20edition:prelim%29.  Interstate Completion funds went the way of the dodo decades ago.  Time to move into the 21st Century!

My information came from the Caltrans Interstate History document. It may indeed be out of date, and I welcome corrections as to what today's terminology is. Please point me to the correct information (or email me some corrections at faigin -at cahighways.org) and I'll get the pages updated.

So, I took some time and did some research. I'm not going to paste everything that will be on the updated page, because you've already accused me of being too verbose    .

The key sources I found were:
The Caltrans Highway Design Manual on Funding, 8/8/2025: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/design/documents/chp0040---a11y.pdf
CRS Report R47922, "The Highway Funding Formula: History and Current Status Under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act", 2/15/2024: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R47922

The key distinction these days appears to be whether the route is in the National Highway System ( see https://hepgis-usdot.hub.arcgis.com/pages/national-highway-system ), and whether the route is designated an Interstate. Given that interstate construction is essentially completed, the old chargeable/non-chargeable distinction is gone. States, however, can't just designate things. Here's what I think are the key paragraphs from the Caltrans manual:

In 1995, the Secretary of Transportation proposed a National Highway System (NHS) consisting of approximately 160,000 miles across the United States. The NHS consists of all Interstate routes, a large percentage of urban and rural principal arterials, the defense Strategic Highway Network, strategic highway network connectors, and intermodal connectors. The Interstate Highway System is a part of the NHS, but retains its separate identity. As a condition of funding for Federal-aid highway projects, Federal law prohibits State departments of transportation from adding any point of access to or from the Interstate System without the approval of the Secretary of Transportation and all new or modified points of access must be approved by FHWA and developed in accordance with federal laws and regulations as specified in 23 U.S.C. 109 and 111, 23 C.F.R. 624 and 625.4, and 49 C.F.R. 1.48(b)(1). Revenue from the Federal gas and other motor-vehicle user taxes was credited to the Highway Trust Fund to pay the Federal share of Interstate and all other Federal-aid highway projects. In this way, the Act guaranteed construction of all segments on a "pay-as-you-go" basis, where the program is self-financing without contributing to the Federal budget deficit.

The maximum share of project cost that may be funded with Federal-aid highway funds (the "Federal share") varies based upon the Federal-aid program from which the project receives funding. In some cases, the Federal share is also adjusted based on related statutory provisions. The typical federal share under the sliding scale is 91.57 percent on Interstate projects and 88.53 percent on non-Interstate projects for federally eligible roads. Certain specified types of projects, mostly targeting safety improvements, are eligible to receive a Federal share of 100 percent. A toll project under 23 U.S.C. 129 is eligible for a maximum Federal share of 80 percent  (regardless of whether the project would have qualified for a higher Federal share if advanced as a non-toll facility). 

So, if I'm reading all of this right, and to tie this back to the original discussion: If Caltrans wanted to change the number on Route 58 to I-40, a number of things would have to happen:

• 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.

Reading through this and writing up the process: I'm still not sure the cost will be worth the effort. It certainly wouldn't be as instantaneous as some folks on this forum think it would be.

Well, AASHTO first and then possibly Congress depending on the situation, but that is how a State "just designates things."  States desire more Interstate mileage, so they go through the process.  Think of the I-81 Viaduct Project, where it's been noted on here that construction has taken priority while the route numbering changes are just to expected to come along as the process plays out.  The process isn't considered an obstacle; the DOT just goes through the steps to do so and the cogs turn when they do. FHWA can even step in and help make sure the process moves forward at the federal level. Heck, NC has it down pat now and they don't have CA's level of resources.

Other than that, I trust you know California's state processes, as arcane as they seem to be (I mean, if another State sets up processes to shoot themselves in the foot, who am I to object?).  In NY, NYSDOT retains STIP rights for any federal-aid project not specifically within an MPO's MPA.  Signage of an Interstate would fall into that category.  Finding funding for such would be relatively easy.  No extra "transportation commission" to sign off on it, thankfully.

You're still forgetting the broader federal-aid system, though, which represents a mammoth amount of where federal funding is spent.  Not sure why you keep focusing on the NHS and missing the broader picture.  Then again, better bone up on the most recent federal transportation bill (IIJA/BIL) and its fund sources before this fall, though, when the new whatever bill will take over. 

Anyway, there really aren't that many core federal apportionments (although we're talking the big bucks here):  CMAQ, STBG and its various flavors (Flex, Large Urban, Medium Urban, Small Urban, Off-System Bridge...), NHPP and HSIP pretty much round them up.  Bridge Formula Program and Carbon Reduction are newer kids on the block.  Then you have the Transportation Alternatives Program, which in NY operates like a grant program to its municipalities and counties and whatever other entities; not sure how other states administer those funds.  All of these fund sources have their own eligibilities.  FHWA's website has a bunch of fact sheets on each of them, which have very unfortunately been diminished in quality since DOGE came around.

IIJA/BIL also had a ton of silly and new discretionary grant programs, which have been the new federal administration's favorite target (e.g., the recent $2B in bike/ped grants revoked)...and, although I disagree with the current administration's meat cleaver tactics, have to say when all that funding was tied up in grants initially, I had to agree with a consultant who came my way and said, "This is a consultant subsidy bill."  After all, DOTs couldn't keep up or have the expertise necessary to keep up with all those applications in-house...

Anyway, just showing that federal funding through FHWA is even broader than what you've found.  Headed off on a trip tomorrow and this was a good valve release.

(personal opinion emphasized)

[cahwyguy]

You're still forgetting the broader federal-aid system, though, which represents a mammoth amount of where federal funding is spent.  Not sure why you keep focusing on the NHS and missing the broader picture.  Then again, better bone up on the most recent federal transportation bill (IIJA/BIL) and its fund sources before this fall, though, when the new whatever bill will take over. 

Mainly because that's what came up on my searches. If you have some pointers to pages that describe the broader Federal Aid System well, I'll be glad to read through them. I thought the Caltrans Design Manual seemed to summarize them well.

[Rothman]

You're still forgetting the broader federal-aid system, though, which represents a mammoth amount of where federal funding is spent.  Not sure why you keep focusing on the NHS and missing the broader picture.  Then again, better bone up on the most recent federal transportation bill (IIJA/BIL) and its fund sources before this fall, though, when the new whatever bill will take over. 

Mainly because that's what came up on my searches. If you have some pointers to pages that describe the broader Federal Aid System well, I'll be glad to read through them. I thought the Caltrans Design Manual seemed to summarize them well.

You need to broaden your mind beyond California's own documentation and enter Federaland:

Everything starts with functional classification...

https://www.dot.ny.gov/gisapps/functional-class-maps

" All of the classifications are Federal Aid eligible except three: Urban Local, Rural Minor Collector, and Rural Local (codes 19, 08, and 09, respectively)"  There's the FAS in a nutshell.

[cl94]

Regarding the CTC, that is the biggest obstacle here, and it's an obstacle other states do not have. Without getting too political or opinionated here, the CTC is known for, um, certain opinions about how funds should be spent. Those opinions frequently differ greatly from those of Caltrans, the MPOs, RTPAs, and county/local governments, especially when it comes to roadway improvements. The locals can want it as much as they want, but doesn't mean the appointed bureaucrats at the CTC will care.

I also do not see the CTC signing onto something that could be a volume generator, as a few in this thread have suggested a renumbering could be.

(personal opinion strongly emphaiszed)

[cahwyguy]

You're still forgetting the broader federal-aid system, though, which represents a mammoth amount of where federal funding is spent.  Not sure why you keep focusing on the NHS and missing the broader picture.  Then again, better bone up on the most recent federal transportation bill (IIJA/BIL) and its fund sources before this fall, though, when the new whatever bill will take over. 

Mainly because that's what came up on my searches. If you have some pointers to pages that describe the broader Federal Aid System well, I'll be glad to read through them. I thought the Caltrans Design Manual seemed to summarize them well.

You need to broaden your mind beyond California's own documentation and enter Federaland:

Everything starts with functional classification...

https://www.dot.ny.gov/gisapps/functional-class-maps

" All of the classifications are Federal Aid eligible except three: Urban Local, Rural Minor Collector, and Rural Local (codes 19, 08, and 09, respectively)"  There's the FAS in a nutshell.

Fine. I see the functional classifications. A few questions:

(1) Where is the description of how the functional classifications map into Federal Aid allocations, or allocations from the specific Federal programs?

(2) What entity makes the functional classification determination? In particular, the distinction between "Interstate" and "Other Freeway/Expressway"?

For reference, I did find this page from Caltrans that shows functional classifications for state highways:
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/research-innovation-system-information/office-of-data-services-and-technology/functional-classification

ETA: The Caltrans page is quite interesting when you drill down and see how and where Route 58 is currently classified, which is quite relevant to this discussion.

[cahwyguy]

Regarding the CTC, that is the biggest obstacle here, and it's an obstacle other states do not have. Without getting too political or opinionated here, the CTC is known for, um, certain opinions about how funds should be spent. Those opinions frequently differ greatly from those of Caltrans, the MPOs, RTPAs, and county/local governments, especially when it comes to roadway improvements. The locals can want it as much as they want, but doesn't mean the appointed bureaucrats at the CTC will care.

As someone who reads through the minutes of the CTC meetings, it is rare that the CTC fails to approve something that makes it onto the agenda. The issue may be more the policies of the CTC, which tend to be dictated by the legislature (I know the whole VMT thing is legislative direction), the staff of the CTC in determining what gets brought to the board as a whole, and Caltrans ("the Department"), which is the entity that is bringing things to the CTC.

Projects that are volume generators are typically killed due to CEQA, which requires consideration of VMT as part of the environmental impact. The CTC typically rubber-stamps the recommendations of CEQA analysis. I can think of two times where they didn't: The managed lanes on I-80, and the managed lanes on I-15. In both cases, the issue was that the CTC felt Caltrans was trying to sneak in widening under the guise of "aux lanes", which don't count as widening under CEQA. The CTC commissioners (primarily one of them, who has since left the commission) felt that aux lanes were just back-door widening.

[NE2]

ETA: The Caltrans page is quite interesting when you drill down and see how and where Route 58 is currently classified, which is quite relevant to this discussion.

This is a good example of how HFCS doesn't always translate properly to real world importance. Perhaps in another decade the classifications will be updated, but for now it doesn't match the current reality.

For the record:
*minor arterial I-5 to Coffee Road (the old alignment on Rosedale Highway is other principal arterial)
*other principal arterial Coffee Road to Truxtun Avenue
*NOT INCLUDED Truxtun Avenue to SR 99
*other freeway or expressway SR 99 to US 395
*other principal arterial US 395 to I-15