Idea for I-40 extension to Bakersfield and maybe 101
Oscar Voss
NFARS wrote:
>
> Hmm...considering that CA 58 was originally planned to be part of I-40, I had
> an idea to make I-40 continue to at least I-5, even US 101:
>
[snip -- the part to Bakersfield is fine with me]
>
> Bakersfield to the Coast: Plan A calls for I-40 following CA 58 from Rosedale
> to San Luis Obispo. A new freeway will be built parallel to CA 58's current
> two lane road. Mckittrick will be bypassed; but the 4 lane freeway will go
> through California Valley, a small town off of CA 58. Somewhere east of Samta
> Margarita Lk. I-40 will then follow a small road leading up to the south shore,
> hitting Pozo. There it will then be extended to 101 in SLO, going through the
> forest.
I drove the winding SR 58 from Bakersfield to San Luis Obispo last
October. Plan A, which follows 58 halfway to SLO, would cut a freeway
through a lot of mountainous terrain -- which my topographic atlas
suggests is much more difficult than your Plan B route.
>
> Plan B calls for I-40 following US 466's old route. I-40 will go up CA 99 to
> Famoso, where it hits CA 46. The freeway will directly replace CA 46 to Paso
> Robles, except for some small sections connecting CA 41. The freeway will end
> at 101 in Paso Robles.
If there must be a new freeway to the San Luis Obispo area (which I
question -- see below), this is probably the best route.
>
> Plan C [snipped -- I have no opinion]
A more basic question -- why should I-40 go to the Central Coast area
around San Luis Obispo at all? US 101 already provides convenient
access from SLO to the Bay Area and Monterey to the north, and Santa
Barbara and LA to the southeast. The demand for travel between SLO and
the Central Valley (Bakersfield, Fresno, etc.) seems far more modest
(though I hear the Central Valley folks like to hit the beaches around
SLO to beat the summer heat). Moreover, the Central Coast doesn't have
that much population -- less than 300,000 for SLO County and Santa Maria
combined. I've done a lot of business in that area over the past year,
and I've never gotten the impression that the locals really need -- or
even want -- anything more than some widenings and safety upgrades
(which are about to be built) to the existing CA 46 route to the Central
Valley.
If you really want I-40 to run coast-to-coast, a much easier way to do
it is to extend it to I-5, multiplex I-40 with I-5 up to I-580, renumber
I-580 to I-40 up to the Bay Bridge, and multiplex I-40 with I-80 those
last few miles into San Francisco.
--
Oscar Voss, Arlington, Virginia
ov...@erols.com
NFARS
Hmm...considering that CA 58 was originally planned to be part of I-40, I had
an idea to make I-40 continue to at least I-5, even US 101:
Barstow to Bakersfield: Since most of CA 58 is starting to become a freeway or
expressway, except for the gap between US 395 and the freeway leading to
Barstow, this will be the most straightforward job. Overpasses will be
constructed on expressway portions, some roads will become 4-laner freeways,
and the town of Mojave will be bypassed. My plan here is to either make a
little freeway cutoff from North Edwards to just west of Mojave, or from North
Edwards to Monolith. The CA 58/US 395 junction will be replaced with a
cloverleaf or superinterchange...Maybe some roads could make Kramer Jct. a
little stop (with fast food, gas stations, whatever).
In Bakersfield, the CA 178 freeway will be extended to the currently CA 58 (in
this plan, it will become I-40) freeway somewhere in Edison, and will be
relabeled "I-340". I-40 will then go up CA 99 to the currently CA 178/CA 58
interchange.
Bakersfield to the Coast: Plan A calls for I-40 following CA 58 from Rosedale
to San Luis Obispo. A new freeway will be built parallel to CA 58's current
two lane road. Mckittrick will be bypassed; but the 4 lane freeway will go
through California Valley, a small town off of CA 58. Somewhere east of Samta
Margarita Lk. I-40 will then follow a small road leading up to the south shore,
hitting Pozo. There it will then be extended to 101 in SLO, going through the
forest.
Plan B calls for I-40 following US 466's old route. I-40 will go up CA 99 to
Famoso, where it hits CA 46. The freeway will directly replace CA 46 to Paso
Robles, except for some small sections connecting CA 41. The freeway will end
at 101 in Paso Robles.
Plan C calls for I-40 following CA 119 to Taft; Bakersfield will be bypassed by
I-40 going to Lamont and then following Hwy. 119. CA 58 to Bakersfield will be
called "I-140". I-40 will go south of Old River and Lk. Webb/Buena Vista Lake
up to Taft. The freeway will then go north of CA 166 from Taft, then replacing
CA 166 in the Los Padres Nat'l Forest. Finally, I-40 will go south of CA 166
to Santa Maria. A freeway, labeled "I-240" will then be built from a point
north of Cuyama and go south to Santa Barbara, serving that area.
I'd like to hear your opinions on these ideas, or your ideas on I-40.
Christopher
NF...@aol.com
--------------------------------------------------------------
Highway Definitions:
Embarcadero Freeway: "skwaius uglius"
I-99: "bureaocraceo idiocieo"
US 66: "highwaius glorifius"
Lincoln Hwy.: "highwaius originalus"
NFARS
There are two reasons:
1. Convienince for the occaisonal Bakersfield traveler...
2. Farmers...Old US 399 served Ventura and Bakersfield, Ventura being the
center point in this Central Coast highway. Currently they have to use the two
lane road to get to those areas...Plan C would adress this, but instead of
Ventura the main city will be the larger Santa Barbara.
>If you really want I-40 to run coast-to-coast, a much easier way to do
>it is to extend it to I-5, multiplex I-40 with I-5 up to I-580, renumber
>I-580 to I-40 up to the Bay Bridge, and multiplex I-40 with I-80 those
>last few miles into San Francisco.
>
>
That is not a good idea...it would make I-40 go north for a bit too long.
I-20/59 in Lousiana makes it go northeast, keeping both happy.
Casey Cooper
I think the idea for extending I-40 is about the most sensible Interstate
extension I've heard. On a map it is logical and legal as it could extend
due west along SR-58 and end at I-5 at Buttonwillow (the interchange of I-5
and SR-58) - option "A". This route does what an Interstate highway should
do: it bypasses Los Angeles and offers quick access along a straight line.
Having I-40 end at Barstow makes little sense; it's like having I-5 end at
Bakersfield instead of the Mexican Border (yes, I know I-5 does _not_ go to
Bakersfield, but I think you see where I'm going.)
Also, most of SR-58 will be or already is built to freeway standards. A new
interchange has been built in Barstow and a bypass will be built around
Mojave, the last town along SR-58 that doesn't have a freeway bypass. Most
of the route of SR-58 is along flat land which helps. On the surface this
looks ideal. But.....
After having expended considerable thought about this, I've come to the
conclusion that I have to agree with AASHO's reasoning for not approving
this route. SR-58 crosses the Tehachipis, the southern extension of the
Sierra Nevadas. Like its big brother, the Tehachipis are a rugged, steep and
precarious range that is not suitable for an Interstate standard highway.
The existing SR-58 freeway/expressway was built between 1960 and 1973 and is
not an Interstate standard road. It has steep grades, relatively sharp turns
and not much real estate available for the required expansion. The cost of
an upgrade is not justified in light of the returns. While this road is
steep and somewhat windy, it's adequate for the traffic it carries.
While I'd like to see SR-58 upgraded to I-40, I cannot see the real life
justification for it. The existing road works well (with the future upgrades
in mind) and in these penny pinching days, such a project can never be. In
the meantime, we get to settle for a new I-15 and I-40 interchange in
Barstow. Woo hoo!
Casey Cooper
ca...@gbcnet.com
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"I for one do not think the problem was that the band
was down. I think the problem may have been that there
was a Stonehenge monument that was in danger of being
crushed by a dwarf."
David St. Hubbins
from "This is Spinal Tap"
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Signalfan
I think that extension of the 210 (30) freeway from Glendora, Ca. to at least
the I-15 is in order. This freeway has been left on the back burner too long.
Most of the right-of- way is obtained, and the graded hills for the bridge
approaches at the I-15 are all ready in place- standing silently right now.
The I-10 to the south is overcrowded and this extension would greatly relieve
the congestion that spills onto Foothill Blvd. SR 30 should then be renamed
I-210 and the section of present I- 210 between SR30 and I-10 would revert
back to SR57 (which is what it originally was supposed to be).
<BR>
John Rietveld (aka: Signalfan)<BR>
Check out my Signal and Roadsign website at http://www.geocities.com/Cape
Canaveral/Launchpad/1552/signalfan.html
Mark F
sign...@aol.com (Signalfan) wrote:
>I think that extension of the 210 (30) freeway from Glendora, Ca. to at least
>the I-15 is in order. This freeway has been left on the back burner too long.
>Most of the right-of- way is obtained, and the graded hills for the bridge
>approaches at the I-15 are all ready in place- standing silently right now.
>The I-10 to the south is overcrowded and this extension would greatly relieve
>the congestion that spills onto Foothill Blvd. SR 30 should then be renamed
>I-210 and the section of present I- 210 between SR30 and I-10 would revert
>back to SR57 (which is what it originally was supposed to be).
In my opinion, all of SR 30 should be renumbered to I-210 once it is
finished. Check out:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist07/rte30/index.htm
for details on the construction of this freeway
Mark Furqueron
http://users.deltanet.com/~mkpl/road.htm
Maryszch
An I-40 extension from Barstow to Bakersfield would work. They could:
a) Make a Barstow Bypass
b) Make Ca-58 an interstate
c) Reroute I-40 to Bakersfield and truncate it at Ca-99, leaving I-40 and Ca-58
a dual superfication
Mike Ballard
I don't mean to be picky but it is spelled "TehachApi" not "TehachIpi". I would
agree with Casey, we've driven that freeway before and it is very not
Interstate. A lot of upgrading would be necessary before I-40.
In article <6c3d19$d36$1...@ha1.rdc1.occa.home.com>, ca...@gbcnet.com says...
--
Mike Ballard
mapm...@smartlink.net
Geologist, Cyclist, Highway Historian, Railroad Fan, Road Map Collector.
Santa Clarita, California, United States of America
Virtual Tours of US 6 and US 99 are at :
http://www.smartlink.net/~mapmaker/highway.htm
Visit the Santa Clarita Resources Page at :
http://www.smartlink.net/~mapmaker
History, Geology, Highway, and Local Bicycling Information
Signalfan
I don't mean to be picky, but check your grammar....;)
<BR>> I would agree with Casey, we've driven that freeway before and it is very
not <BR>
>Interstate. A lot of upgrading would be necessary before I-40.<BR>
><BR>
Oscar Voss
Mike Ballard wrote:
>
> I would
> agree with Casey, we've driven that freeway before and it is very not
>
> >
> >I think the idea for extending I-40 is about the most sensible Interstate
> >extension I've heard.
[snip many good reasons why]
> >But.....
> >
> >After having expended considerable thought about this, I've come to the
> >conclusion that I have to agree with AASHO's reasoning for not approving
> >this route. SR-58 crosses the Tehachipis, the southern extension of the
> >Sierra Nevadas. Like its big brother, the Tehachipis are a rugged, steep and
> >precarious range that is not suitable for an Interstate standard highway.
> >The existing SR-58 freeway/expressway was built between 1960 and 1973 and is
> >not an Interstate standard road. It has steep grades, relatively sharp turns
> >and not much real estate available for the required expansion. The cost of
> >an upgrade is not justified in light of the returns. While this road is
> >steep and somewhat windy, it's adequate for the traffic it carries.
> >
> >While I'd like to see SR-58 upgraded to I-40, I cannot see the real life
> >justification for it. The existing road works well (with the future upgrades
> >in mind) and in these penny pinching days, such a project can never be. In
> >the meantime, we get to settle for a new I-15 and I-40 interchange in
> >Barstow. Woo hoo!
I respectfully disagree with Mike and Casey. Basically, I don't think
SR 58 through the Tehachapis falls so short of Interstate standards that
the entire proposed extension should be rejected unless the mountain
stretches are substantially upgraded (which I agree is probably not
worth the expense).
I've been on SR 58 through the Tehachapis east of Bakersfield a few
times (most recently last October). I agree it is curvier and steeper
than your usual mountain Interstate, and if it were being built from
scratch I'd be tempted to blow up a few more hills to reduce the
horizontal and vertical curves. But I think (as an amateur traffic
engineer, so take this with a grain of salt) that it's reasonably close
to Interstate standards except for a few at-grade intersections that
could easily be replaced with overpasses, and I should think it would
qualify for any "grandfathering" of close-but-not-quite-Interstate-
standard road into the Interstate system. (Does anyone know what the
relevant standards are for "grandfathering" miles? Certainly a lot of
crappy pre-1956 roads on the Eastern Seaboard found their way into the
Interstate system.) BTW, SR 58 is straighter than the just-constructed
US 23/future I-26 in Tennessee near the North Carolina state line, which
is one of the twistiest rural freeways I've ever driven, and was
designed and signed for only 50 mph.
Two other points:
1. Most of the proposed I-40 extension would be over level terrain,
what's there looks like it's up to Interstate standard, and what remains
to be built can be easily built to Interstate standard. So any issues
about Interstate qualification apply to only part of the route.
2. Part of the point of the I-40 redesignation is to encourage
drivers travelling between the Southwest and central/northern California
to give the L.A. smog bowl and its "any time, day or night" congestion a
wide berth, by "certifying" SR 58 as a good-quality freeway
alternative. I don't think it would greatly mislead or upset motorists
to tell them that SR 58 between Barstow and Bakersfield is basically an
Interstate-quality highway (once it's all freeway), even if a minority
of the newly-added miles aren't quite up to snuff.
Robert Benkelman
> >
> > Hmm...considering that CA 58 was originally planned to be part of I-40, I had
> > an idea to make I-40 continue to at least I-5, even US 101:
> >
> >
> > to San Luis Obispo. A new freeway will be built parallel to CA 58's current
> > two lane road. Mckittrick will be bypassed; but the 4 lane freeway will go
> > through California Valley, a small town off of CA 58. Somewhere east of Samta
> > Margarita Lk. I-40 will then follow a small road leading up to the south shore,
> > hitting Pozo. There it will then be extended to 101 in SLO, going through the
> > forest.
> October. Plan A, which follows 58 halfway to SLO, would cut a freeway
> through a lot of mountainous terrain -- which my topographic atlas
> suggests is much more difficult than your Plan B route.
> >
> > Famoso, where it hits CA 46. The freeway will directly replace CA 46 to Paso
> > Robles, except for some small sections connecting CA 41. The freeway will end
> > at 101 in Paso Robles.
> question -- see below), this is probably the best route.
> >
> > Plan C [snipped -- I have no opinion]
> A more basic question -- why should I-40 go to the Central Coast area
> around San Luis Obispo at all? US 101 already provides convenient
> access from SLO to the Bay Area and Monterey to the north, and Santa
> Barbara and LA to the southeast. The demand for travel between SLO and
> the Central Valley (Bakersfield, Fresno, etc.) seems far more modest
> (though I hear the Central Valley folks like to hit the beaches around
> SLO to beat the summer heat). Moreover, the Central Coast doesn't have
> that much population -- less than 300,000 for SLO County and Santa Maria
> combined. I've done a lot of business in that area over the past year,
> and I've never gotten the impression that the locals really need -- or
> even want -- anything more than some widenings and safety upgrades
> (which are about to be built) to the existing CA 46 route to the Central
> Valley.
> it is to extend it to I-5, multiplex I-40 with I-5 up to I-580, renumber
> I-580 to I-40 up to the Bay Bridge, and multiplex I-40 with I-80 those
> last few miles into San Francisco.