News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

California Highway Headlines for May 2017

Started by cahwyguy, May 29, 2017, 03:28:02 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

cahwyguy

As I'm working on my highway pages over the holiday weekend, I posted the May headlines at little early. Have fun. They're at
http://cahighways.org/wordpress/?p=13013

Now I'm going to review this forum for posts since the start of the year to see what information is worth grabbing (with attribution, of course).
Daniel - California Highway Guy ● Highway Site: http://www.cahighways.org/ ●  Blog: http://blog.cahighways.org/ ● Podcast (CA Route by Route): http://caroutebyroute.org/ ● Follow California Highways on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/cahighways


Max Rockatansky

You know...I've always been surprised that so many people take 46 from Bakersfield when 58 is a pretty viable alternative for non-commercial traffic.  I've heard nothing but complaint about 58 over the years but the road is actually pretty tame west of I-5 compared to some mountainous routes.  Either way, the upgrades being completed on 46 can't really come soon enough with all problems that typically happen there.  Even 198/25 is probably just good for someone cutting over to Monterey or the Bay Area.




cahwyguy

Although on the updates to 46, I'm surprised they aren't considering a roundabout for the 41/46 problematic junction. Reading about the improvements it made down in La Jolla and on Route 190, it seems a good solution for the 41/46 join.

PS to Max: You're one of the folks I'm targeting with the other post I made. I'm quasi-migraine today, and so just didn't pick up on all the good material you had. If you have particular updates you think I need to make to my pages, please email them along and I'll do what I can to get them in.

Daniel
Daniel - California Highway Guy ● Highway Site: http://www.cahighways.org/ ●  Blog: http://blog.cahighways.org/ ● Podcast (CA Route by Route): http://caroutebyroute.org/ ● Follow California Highways on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/cahighways

Max Rockatansky

Quote from: cahwyguy on May 29, 2017, 07:00:44 PM
Although on the updates to 46, I'm surprised they aren't considering a roundabout for the 41/46 problematic junction. Reading about the improvements it made down in La Jolla and on Route 190, it seems a good solution for the 41/46 join.

PS to Max: You're one of the folks I'm targeting with the other post I made. I'm quasi-migraine today, and so just didn't pick up on all the good material you had. If you have particular updates you think I need to make to my pages, please email them along and I'll do what I can to get them in.

Daniel

That junction is never fun, especially trying to merge west on the multiplex with CA 46 on southbound CA 41.  Really there could be a pretty reasonable argument to make the entirety of 46 between US 101 and CA 99 a full expressway given the volumes of traffic the route gets.  Even a roundabout at a major junctions would be a big step up, I really like what Caltrans did with Lacey Blvd and CA 43 since it had trucks in mind with the apron design.

I'll look over the stuff I've posted this year over the next week.  I want to say off hand the most substantial state route stuff I've probably dug into was probably all the alignment shifts of CA 41 and CA 198 in San Joaquin Valley.  I've been doing a lot of Signed County Routes this year as well...one thing I can say for sure off the top of my head is that I'm almost positive J37 is the only that IS actually signed in Tulare County.  I'll shoot you an email once I give everything a good look at this year versus what is on Cahighways already.

sparker

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 29, 2017, 07:16:50 PM
Quote from: cahwyguy on May 29, 2017, 07:00:44 PM
Although on the updates to 46, I'm surprised they aren't considering a roundabout for the 41/46 problematic junction. Reading about the improvements it made down in La Jolla and on Route 190, it seems a good solution for the 41/46 join.

PS to Max: You're one of the folks I'm targeting with the other post I made. I'm quasi-migraine today, and so just didn't pick up on all the good material you had. If you have particular updates you think I need to make to my pages, please email them along and I'll do what I can to get them in.

Daniel

That junction is never fun, especially trying to merge west on the multiplex with CA 46 on southbound CA 41.  Really there could be a pretty reasonable argument to make the entirety of 46 between US 101 and CA 99 a full expressway given the volumes of traffic the route gets.  Even a roundabout at a major junctions would be a big step up, I really like what Caltrans did with Lacey Blvd and CA 43 since it had trucks in mind with the apron design.

I'll look over the stuff I've posted this year over the next week.  I want to say off hand the most substantial state route stuff I've probably dug into was probably all the alignment shifts of CA 41 and CA 198 in San Joaquin Valley.  I've been doing a lot of Signed County Routes this year as well...one thing I can say for sure off the top of my head is that I'm almost positive J37 is the only that IS actually signed in Tulare County.  I'll shoot you an email once I give everything a good look at this year versus what is on Cahighways already.

I always thought the 41/46 junction could use some sort of directional flyover; the traffic counts likely warrant such an upgrade.  Since both routes (46 particularly) see heavy commercial/truck traffic, a roundabout might be problematic.  IMO, those are best reserved for facility intersections where there is a low level of through commercial traffic -- the 154/246 roundabout near Solvang works due to most of the traffic being local and recreational (and the occasional "shortcutter" from nearby US 101; trucks remain on the main artery for the most part).  However, both 41 and 46 are interregional connectors; deploying some sort of higher-speed connection would likely take care of matters for some time to come.

Max Rockatansky

It would probably be easier to put a flyover ramp in if the 46 expressway is ever developed as far east as Cholame.  Personally I'd much prefer to see a full expressway to at least 33 if not I-5.

sparker

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 30, 2017, 10:58:45 PM
It would probably be easier to put a flyover ramp in if the 46 expressway is ever developed as far east as Cholame.  Personally I'd much prefer to see a full expressway to at least 33 if not I-5.

You're preaching to the choir here, Max!  A divided expressway from I-5 to US 101 (and personally I'd like to see the last couple of miles east of 101 in Paso bypassed by a new-alignment freeway) would go a long way in enhancing access to the upper Salinas Valley metro area (Paso, Atascadero, Templeton, etc.), which is one of the fastest-growing areas of the state. 

           



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.