News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

Westside Parkway & Centennial Corridor (CA 58 realignment, Bakersfield)

Started by bing101, January 07, 2014, 10:51:19 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

BakoCondors

Quote from: mgk920 on April 23, 2015, 12:16:36 PM
Quote from: Concrete Bob on April 20, 2015, 10:36:18 PM
The connection between the eastern end of the Westside Parkway at Truxton and the existing freeway section of SR 58 at the SR 99 interchange is known as the Centennial Corridor. 

If Caltrans' Project Fact Sheet for the Centennial Corridor project is adequate, look for the Westside Parkway to be connected to SR 58 and SR 99 by December 2018.

http://dot.ca.gov/dist6/environmental/projects/centennial/docs/centennial_project_fact_sheet.pdf

Once the Centennial Corridor is completed, I would expect the entire corridor (Centennial Corridor, Westside Parkway and Stockdale Highway to SR 43) to be signed as SR 58, and all the exits will be numbered as well.

Future I-40?  We shall see.

:nod:

It still kind of amazes me that Bakersfield is the only place in the state where CalTrans is still building new freeways.

Mike

We can thank former congressman Bill Thomas for that. On his way out of Washington in 2007, after nearly three decades of public service, he obtained a $630 million earmark for upgrading roads in Kern County.

I was bored at work one day and gave thought to the possibility of extending exit numbers along the CenCorr and WestPark out to I-5, using the existing 58/99 interchange (exit 110) and came up with this:



Westbound from 99/58 interchange
108   Mohawk Street
107   Coffee Road
105B Calloway Drive North
105A Calloway Drive South
103   Allen Road
101   Stockdale Hwy/Heath Road
97   CA-43 Enos Lane
93   Interstate 5




Eastbound from Interstate 5
97  CA-43 Enos Lane
101  Heath Road/Stockdale Hwy
103  Allen Road
105  Calloway Drive
106  Coffee Road
108A Mohawk Street
108B Truxtun Avenue

I was intentionally vague regarding the Coffee Road exit. It's a really long exit.

The real confusion regarding exit numbering may come if the decision is made to extend Interstate 40 to the west throwing all the existing numbers on I-40 and CA-58 out of whack.


kkt

Quote from: TheStranger on April 23, 2015, 03:28:06 PM
Quote from: kkt on April 23, 2015, 02:32:47 PM
There are still a few sections of 101 in  Marin County that have side roads enter without a full exit.
Will the construction work on 101 south of Petaluma address the at-grades through the narrows?

I don't know, I haven't kept up with it.  I'd suspect they're separate projects, though.


andy3175

Drove the eastbound parkway two weeks ago. The highway is paved concrete (even the shoulders, which surprised me). Exit signs have blank spaces left for exit numbers. I saw at least one reassurance marker "East Westside Parkway." Here are some pictures:

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10153554987232948.1073741845.181045197947&type=3

Regards,
Andy

www.aaroads.com

Occidental Tourist

Quote from: andy3175 on July 31, 2015, 01:30:19 AMHere are some pictures:

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10153554987232948.1073741845.181045197947&type=3


What's the deal with the interchange sequence sign in the center median?  I thought Caltrans policy was to move those signs to the outside of the roadway and uniformly leave center median gantries for HOV-related signage only.

emory

Quote from: Occidental Tourist on July 31, 2015, 02:47:54 PM
Quote from: andy3175 on July 31, 2015, 01:30:19 AMHere are some pictures:

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10153554987232948.1073741845.181045197947&type=3


What's the deal with the interchange sequence sign in the center median?  I thought Caltrans policy was to move those signs to the outside of the roadway and uniformly leave center median gantries for HOV-related signage only.

The last time they replaced the signs on I-405 down here, they kept them in the median.

Henry

One day, I really hope they fill in the gaps east to Barstow. Then we can discuss I-40 being closer to a true coast-to-coast Interstate.
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

roadfro

Quote from: emory on August 03, 2015, 01:50:27 AM
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on July 31, 2015, 02:47:54 PM
Quote from: andy3175 on July 31, 2015, 01:30:19 AMHere are some pictures:

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10153554987232948.1073741845.181045197947&type=3


What's the deal with the interchange sequence sign in the center median?  I thought Caltrans policy was to move those signs to the outside of the roadway and uniformly leave center median gantries for HOV-related signage only.

The last time they replaced the signs on I-405 down here, they kept them in the median.

The national MUTCD always shows interchange sequence signs in the median. I'm not aware of any jurisdiction with policy for locating such signs on the outside.

What would make sense is if Caltrans moves the interchange sequence signs to the outside in cases where there is a buffer-separated or barrier-separated HOV/HOT lane... but that is not the case here.
Roadfro - AARoads Pacific Southwest moderator since 2010, Nevada roadgeek since 1983.

ARMOURERERIC


Occidental Tourist

Quote from: roadfro on August 03, 2015, 09:59:12 PM
The national MUTCD always shows interchange sequence signs in the median. I'm not aware of any jurisdiction with policy for locating such signs on the outside.

What would make sense is if Caltrans moves the interchange sequence signs to the outside in cases where there is a buffer-separated or barrier-separated HOV/HOT lane... but that is not the case here.

The California MUTCD also requires that interchange sequence signs be in the median (Section 2E.40-09).  But I've seen a bunch of instances where Districts 07 and 12 have been pulling interchange sequence signs from median overhead sign gantries, installing outside shoulder sign gantries, installing the new interchange sequence signs there, and then pulling down the median gantries, leaving the median gantries empty, or repurposing median gantries for HOV lane signs.

Here's an example.  They pulled the sign off the median post and installed a new one behind the soundwall on the right on a new gantry.  There are lots of these on the Artesia Freeway.  When they've done this, in some instances they leave the median gantry empty.  In one instance they installed a Carpool Lane sign in its place.  In another instance they left both the old interchange sequence sign in place on the median gantry and installed a new shoulder sign gantry in the same location with another interchange sequence sign on it. 

Here's another example.  When they widened the 22 freeway, they did not replace the existing median gantry and instead put a gantry on the outside shoulder.  Although almost all of the interchange sequence signs on the pre-construction 22 were in the median, I cannot offhand recall a single instance where they put the interchange sequence sign back in the median after reconstruction.

If anyone knows why they did this/are doing this in violation of their own guidelines, I'd love to hear the explanation.

roadfro

Quote from: Occidental Tourist on August 04, 2015, 08:02:40 PM
The California MUTCD also requires that interchange sequence signs be in the median (Section 2E.40-09).  But I've seen a bunch of instances where Districts 07 and 12 have been pulling interchange sequence signs from median overhead sign gantries, installing outside shoulder sign gantries, installing the new interchange sequence signs there, and then pulling down the median gantries, leaving the median gantries empty, or repurposing median gantries for HOV lane signs.

Here's an example.  They pulled the sign off the median post and installed a new one behind the soundwall on the right on a new gantry.  There are lots of these on the Artesia Freeway.  When they've done this, in some instances they leave the median gantry empty.  In one instance they installed a Carpool Lane sign in its place.  In another instance they left both the old interchange sequence sign in place on the median gantry and installed a new shoulder sign gantry in the same location with another interchange sequence sign on it. 

Here's another example.  When they widened the 22 freeway, they did not replace the existing median gantry and instead put a gantry on the outside shoulder.  Although almost all of the interchange sequence signs on the pre-construction 22 were in the median, I cannot offhand recall a single instance where they put the interchange sequence sign back in the median after reconstruction.

If anyone knows why they did this/are doing this in violation of their own guidelines, I'd love to hear the explanation.

Actually, the line in the California MUTCD you've referenced is a guidance statement–thus, the practice is recommended but not required. That is the exact same statement from the national MUTCD.


The first one it looks like there is an HOV lane with designated entry/exit points (even though there is no separation), so maybe that lends some support to that thought.

The second doesn't involve an HOV lane. Interesting here is that this example is a butterfly gantry style (typical median mounted) instead of a cantilevered style.
Roadfro - AARoads Pacific Southwest moderator since 2010, Nevada roadgeek since 1983.

Kniwt

Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 07, 2014, 12:00:38 PM
the exit numbers are currently patched over, but I saw what looked to say "44".  did I mistake a "114" (approximate distance to end of CA-58) or is there a truncation planned?

Drove this eastbound yesterday right before sunset, so the light was shining brightly onto the patched-over exits. And the weird thing? They ALL said "Exit 44," at least the three consecutive exits after I began to notice something strange. No pictures, alas.

The Ghostbuster

Will the Westside Parkway connect with SR 99 within our lifetimes?

kkt


The Ghostbuster


noelbotevera

It's going to be seven months till I turn 12. Certainly in my lifetime, and hopefully salvage this roadgeek forum.

JNorton

Not a comment but a question about Bakersfield area highway history. Does anyone know why from the get-go SR 58 wasn't planned to continue straight through to I-5? It seems so obvious.

kkt

Quote from: JNorton on September 20, 2015, 08:01:41 PM
Not a comment but a question about Bakersfield area highway history. Does anyone know why from the get-go SR 58 wasn't planned to continue straight through to I-5? It seems so obvious.

CA 99 and CA 58 were there way before the interstates.  By the time I-5's route was settled on the westside, there were already subdivisions in Bakersfield blocking the obvious path for CA 58 to continue west.

TheStranger

Quote from: kkt on September 21, 2015, 12:02:30 PM
Quote from: JNorton on September 20, 2015, 08:01:41 PM
Not a comment but a question about Bakersfield area highway history. Does anyone know why from the get-go SR 58 wasn't planned to continue straight through to I-5? It seems so obvious.

CA 99 and CA 58 were there way before the interstates.  By the time I-5's route was settled on the westside, there were already subdivisions in Bakersfield blocking the obvious path for CA 58 to continue west.


Looking at HistoricAerials' 1968 view of Bakersfield, there aren't that many houses west of where then-future 58 ends (past 99) - if anything, the existing Route 58 freeway east of 99 obliterated subdivisions that existed at the time.

Chris Sampang

kkt

From http://www.bakersfield.com/news/2008/01/27/highway-58-s-dead-end-issue-may-come-alive.html

QuoteBakersfield leaders didn't plan to dead-end a freeway at a shopping center.

The length of Highway 58 that connects to Highway 99 and South Real Road was opened grandly on Sept. 3, 1976.

Plans existed to continue the freeway, but there was nearly a mile of new neighborhood between the route's end and open earth that would have given the freeway a clear run west.

State politics and local waffling conspired to end the route where it stood.

Gov. Jerry Brown appointed a new transportation director, Adriana Gianturco, in 1976, and together they killed funding for new freeways in the state.

"She implemented his policy -- which was to de-emphasize highway work and put more stock in mass transit," said LaRochelle, who wasn't around but who has researched the period.

Former city of Bakersfield Public Works Director Dale Hawley, who died in 2005, and his friend, former Kern County public works boss Dale Mills, were there.

In an interview in 2001, the pair talked about why Highway 58 was never given the westward extension it was always intended to have.

The state tried to plan an extension, Hawley said, but it never made it to a public hearing.

Without a plan and without funding, quiet pressure from developers resulted in plans that allowed more homes and businesses to be built, blocking Highway 58's path west, the pair said.

"Public pressure kept 58 dead-ended in Real Road," Mills said.

So you could blame Brown.  Mass transit options may be fine for big cities but pretty much a nonstarter in autocentric sprawl like Bakersfield.

Or you could blame leaders of the early 1970s.  If they'd built a beltway around the urbanized area instead of ramming through it, it would probably have been done long ago.

mrsman

Quote from: kkt on September 21, 2015, 04:31:41 PM
From http://www.bakersfield.com/news/2008/01/27/highway-58-s-dead-end-issue-may-come-alive.html

QuoteBakersfield leaders didn't plan to dead-end a freeway at a shopping center.

The length of Highway 58 that connects to Highway 99 and South Real Road was opened grandly on Sept. 3, 1976.

Plans existed to continue the freeway, but there was nearly a mile of new neighborhood between the route's end and open earth that would have given the freeway a clear run west.

State politics and local waffling conspired to end the route where it stood.

Gov. Jerry Brown appointed a new transportation director, Adriana Gianturco, in 1976, and together they killed funding for new freeways in the state.

"She implemented his policy -- which was to de-emphasize highway work and put more stock in mass transit," said LaRochelle, who wasn't around but who has researched the period.

Former city of Bakersfield Public Works Director Dale Hawley, who died in 2005, and his friend, former Kern County public works boss Dale Mills, were there.

In an interview in 2001, the pair talked about why Highway 58 was never given the westward extension it was always intended to have.

The state tried to plan an extension, Hawley said, but it never made it to a public hearing.

Without a plan and without funding, quiet pressure from developers resulted in plans that allowed more homes and businesses to be built, blocking Highway 58's path west, the pair said.

"Public pressure kept 58 dead-ended in Real Road," Mills said.

So you could blame Brown.  Mass transit options may be fine for big cities but pretty much a nonstarter in autocentric sprawl like Bakersfield.

Or you could blame leaders of the early 1970s.  If they'd built a beltway around the urbanized area instead of ramming through it, it would probably have been done long ago.

I blame all the government officials for not securing the right of way from development in the first place. 

Henry

Quote from: kkt on September 15, 2015, 06:11:54 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 15, 2015, 05:39:49 PM
Will the Westside Parkway connect with SR 99 within our lifetimes?

I dunno.  I'm 52, how old are you?

45, and I will turn 46 in April. Total shot in the dark.
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

TheStranger

The shopping center at the west end of the existing Route 58 freeway (just past 99) has been purchased as part of right-of-way acquisition for the Centennial Corridor segment:
http://kvpr.org/post/bakersfield-buy-wild-west-shopping-center-centennial-corridor-freeway

http://www.kerngoldenempire.com/news/city-talking-about-buying-shopping-center-so-it-can-knock-it-down-and-connect-a-freeway has a handy map of the right of way involved.
Chris Sampang

kkt

$7.9 million? pretty cheap for a shopping center, even for Bakersfield, isn't it?

Henry

I take it back. Hopefully the dead-end issue can be resolved within several years, with the shopping center being the obvious first step. At the risk of dividing neighborhoods, more property acquisition will have to be undertaken first, and I see a long fight between residents and the city.
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

myosh_tino

Quote from: Henry on October 21, 2015, 12:24:06 PM
At the risk of dividing neighborhoods, more property acquisition will have to be undertaken first, and I see a long fight between residents and the city.

Same here.

I don't see how the city is going to plop a 6-lane freeway through an established neighborhood without a ton of legal challenges from the residents.  It's also going to impact a number of businesses located on the north side of California Ave including a medial center, office complexes and retail shops.
Quote from: golden eagle
If I owned a dam and decided to donate it to charity, would I be giving a dam? I'm sure that might be a first because no one really gives a dam.



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.