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: Max Rockatansky on February 01, 2017, 12:13:11 AM
I'm going to disagree on 204 being completely useless.  That is a handy little connector to get from the 178 freeway up to 99 bypassing downtown if you are heading north especially....then again it might not be the worst thing ever if it was absorbed into 178.

Wholeheartedly agree with Max on this. CalTrans thought enough of 204's importance in funneling traffic out of downtown and its link with Olive Drive (exit 28), the main street to the burgeoning northwest communities, that they added dedicated lanes on both directions of 99 between 204 and Olive so that traffic making the northwest-to-downtown trip and vice-versa, wouldn't have to merge with mainline 99 traffic. A side consequence of this is that 204 at F Street where the freeway ends has become a bit of a bottleneck at morning rush. Maybe a short freeway connection between existing 178 and 99 along Golden State (204) wouldn't be a bad idea.


BakoCondors

Quote from: sparker on February 01, 2017, 12:03:54 AM
Quote from: BakoCondors on January 31, 2017, 11:22:50 PM
Quote from: sparker on November 22, 2016, 09:49:14 PMAt least they'll have the CA 178 sign remaining on the Rosedale BGS; I don't see that highway being rerouted away from its present downtown alignment anytime soon (if someone has info to the contrary, please speak up).

New signage went up on NB 99 last March that eliminated the 178 shield from the BGS at Rosedale/24th. CalTrans relinquished the portion of 178 between M Street and the 99 back in 2011, though there is still signage on both 23rd & 24th Streets linking to the 178 Crosstown Fwy.


So does that leave CA 178 hanging in downtown -- or is a reroute (perhaps along CA 204/Biz 99 north to CA 99) in the works?  I can't see Caltrans not indicating access to the 178 freeway from somewhere along either CA 99 or CA 58 -- and CA 204 is one of the more useless routes in the state system.  Again, more info, please! :confused:

There is new signage on SB 99 indicating the preferred route to freeway 178 is 204. I'll snap a pic of that and post it here soon. There's also a curious anomaly at the SB 99/204 transition that I've never seen anywhere. Might be worthy of a separate post. A 'freeway entrance' sign on a freeway. I'll let the moderators decide.




sparker

Let me clarify my statement about CA 204 being a "useless" route -- since it's multiplexed with Business 99 its entire length, it essentially functions as just that -- a business loop.  However, since I see the CA 178 trailblazer signage from SB 99 indicating 204 as the connector, maybe it does have value as an individual route -- now!  But is there any corresponding trailblazer signage for CA 178 northbound on CA 99?  CA 184 and its southern county extension notwithstanding, it would seem that there would be sufficient traffic movement from 99 north to 178 east that would warrant such signage somewhere -- maybe on the access to 204 south from 99 north?  If anyone local has pix of such signage, please post it.....thanks!

AsphaltPlanet

... Maybe getting off topic for this thread... but was there ever a plan to extend Route 178 to Route 99?  It's trajectory through Downtown makes me think not, but it also doesn't seem too logical to have an orphaned freeway route, considering 178 actually goes somewhere east of Bakersfield.
AsphaltPlanet.ca  Youtube -- Opinions expressed reflect the viewpoints of others.

Max Rockatansky

Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on February 05, 2017, 09:15:21 AM
... Maybe getting off topic for this thread... but was there ever a plan to extend Route 178 to Route 99?  It's trajectory through Downtown makes me think not, but it also doesn't seem too logical to have an orphaned freeway route, considering 178 actually goes somewhere east of Bakersfield.

Yes and it is fairly recent:

http://www.cahighways.org/177-184.html

But considering CA 204 was once part of US 99 it would seem to make sense that the freeway end there given that Bakersfield only had about 56,000 people in 1960.

BakoCondors

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 05, 2017, 10:02:14 AM
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on February 05, 2017, 09:15:21 AM
... Maybe getting off topic for this thread... but was there ever a plan to extend Route 178 to Route 99?  It's trajectory through Downtown makes me think not, but it also doesn't seem too logical to have an orphaned freeway route, considering 178 actually goes somewhere east of Bakersfield.

Yes and it is fairly recent:

http://www.cahighways.org/177-184.html

But considering CA 204 was once part of US 99 it would seem to make sense that the freeway end there given that Bakersfield only had about 56,000 people in 1960.

The Centennial Corridor is what's currently being cleared to connect the Westside Pkwy to Hwy 58. Reading the info on CAHighways is the first time I've seen mention of Centennial connecting to 178, though on a boring day at work I augmented a Google Map of the area showing just that, though I envisioned it going though the Westchester neighborhood (which would never in a million years happen given their current tooth-and-nail fight with the city on the 24th St widening project). This sounds like a rehash of the old Bakersfield 2010 General Plan from 1990, which never really got off the ground and have been revised a few times. I'll have to hit the vertical files of the Beale library to do some research. I am intrigued at the prospect.

Another wrinkle to consider: the much-ballyhooed High Speed Rail project is planned to go through the same area as this 178 extension CA Highways mentions.

BakoCondors

Quote from: sparker on February 05, 2017, 05:36:40 AM
Let me clarify my statement about CA 204 being a "useless" route -- since it's multiplexed with Business 99 its entire length, it essentially functions as just that -- a business loop.  However, since I see the CA 178 trailblazer signage from SB 99 indicating 204 as the connector, maybe it does have value as an individual route -- now!  But is there any corresponding trailblazer signage for CA 178 northbound on CA 99?  CA 184 and its southern county extension notwithstanding, it would seem that there would be sufficient traffic movement from 99 north to 178 east that would warrant such signage somewhere -- maybe on the access to 204 south from 99 north?  If anyone local has pix of such signage, please post it.....thanks!

On northbound 99, not anymore. Before that new sign went up last March, the older one had both 58 and 178 shields on it. I am assuming the relinquishment made CalTrans decide to remove 178. There is one southbound sign that still has 178 on it, but the rest of the signs southbound have been removed while construction is ongoing on the exit ramp from 99 South at Rosedale/24th St. The temporary orange signage has only 58.

Technically there is no direct link from NB 99 to SB 204. While exit 27 southbound is signed for CA 204 Golden State Hwy, as displayed earlier, NB exit 27 is signed as Airport Drive/Oildale, with no mention of either Golden State or CA 204.

don1991

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 05, 2017, 10:02:14 AM
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on February 05, 2017, 09:15:21 AM
... Maybe getting off topic for this thread... but was there ever a plan to extend Route 178 to Route 99?  It's trajectory through Downtown makes me think not, but it also doesn't seem too logical to have an orphaned freeway route, considering 178 actually goes somewhere east of Bakersfield.

Yes and it is fairly recent:

http://www.cahighways.org/177-184.html

But considering CA 204 was once part of US 99 it would seem to make sense that the freeway end there given that Bakersfield only had about 56,000 people in 1960.

====

There are no plans to connect the new FUTURE CA-58 Centennial Freeway with the 178.  Too bad but not in the cards.

At one time, Centennial actually was to be more of a 178 extension west to connect to 58 - either via beltway or new alignment.  But this went away.  Instead, Centennial became the route to fix the 58 dead-end situation at Real and connect with the new Westside Parkway (which itself was the new version of the old Kern River Freeway concept) and finally allow a straight route for CA-58.

CA-178 has (for now) been left to die just west of CA-204, as the remaining surface street portion along 24th Street has been relinquished to Bakersfield.

Someday Bakersfield will have to resolve the Crosstown Freeway issue - either upgrade the 178 to 204 to 99 connection (though that is still awkward for those wanting to go south on 99 from 178) or find a way to build the 178 Freeway west to the 99.

Don

mrsman

Quote from: don1991 on March 25, 2017, 02:12:10 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 05, 2017, 10:02:14 AM
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on February 05, 2017, 09:15:21 AM
... Maybe getting off topic for this thread... but was there ever a plan to extend Route 178 to Route 99?  It's trajectory through Downtown makes me think not, but it also doesn't seem too logical to have an orphaned freeway route, considering 178 actually goes somewhere east of Bakersfield.

Yes and it is fairly recent:

http://www.cahighways.org/177-184.html

But considering CA 204 was once part of US 99 it would seem to make sense that the freeway end there given that Bakersfield only had about 56,000 people in 1960.

====

There are no plans to connect the new FUTURE CA-58 Centennial Freeway with the 178.  Too bad but not in the cards.

At one time, Centennial actually was to be more of a 178 extension west to connect to 58 - either via beltway or new alignment.  But this went away.  Instead, Centennial became the route to fix the 58 dead-end situation at Real and connect with the new Westside Parkway (which itself was the new version of the old Kern River Freeway concept) and finally allow a straight route for CA-58.

CA-178 has (for now) been left to die just west of CA-204, as the remaining surface street portion along 24th Street has been relinquished to Bakersfield.

Someday Bakersfield will have to resolve the Crosstown Freeway issue - either upgrade the 178 to 204 to 99 connection (though that is still awkward for those wanting to go south on 99 from 178) or find a way to build the 178 Freeway west to the 99.

Don

It would seem to me that an upgrade of 204 would be all that is needed to help 178 to 99 north traffic.  A few spot fixes to get rid of the handful of traffic signals along the stretch.  A full freeway would be unnecessary.

For traffic from Lake Isabella to 99 south, it seems that CA-184 should bear this traffic.  Maybe a few spot widenings would be appropriate here.   Signage already directs traffic bound for Los Angeles to use this route.  Perhaps all traffic heading for CA-99 south of CA-58 and the Westside Parkway (once its connected to CA 58) should just take CA-184 to CA-58 or all the way down to Wheeler Ridge.

Max Rockatansky

The main problem with the Weedpatch Highway is that has a ton of agricultural development on it and has likewise traffic.  The road is two-lanes and generally isn't something that I think most people would want to take all the way south from 178 down to 223 or I-5.  184 I think is okay for most suburban forays to 58 and I-5 out Lake Isabella, I couldn't ever foresee a realistic upgrade south of 58.

sparker

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 26, 2017, 10:25:01 AM
The main problem with the Weedpatch Highway is that has a ton of agricultural development on it and has likewise traffic.  The road is two-lanes and generally isn't something that I think most people would want to take all the way south from 178 down to 223 or I-5.  184 I think is okay for most suburban forays to 58 and I-5 out Lake Isabella, I couldn't ever foresee a realistic upgrade south of 58.

Pretty much the same can be said for most Valley 2-lane state or local routes: a lot of ag traffic (necessarily) getting in the way of through traffic.  Back during my early college days (late '60's-early '70's) I had occasion to head up Weedpatch from Wheeler Ridge en route to Isabella; always thought that the "regular" non-ag traffic I encountered south of 223 warranted a southern extension of 184 all the way to I-5.  These days, with Caltrans attempting to shed as much surface mileage as they can (admittedly, most of which is somewhat more urban), the possibility of this happening falls between zero and "yeah, right!"  I haven't been on this road for several decades; I'll defer to the more local posters to inform the rest of us about current traffic levels and whether Weedpatch deserves enhancement.

pderocco

On 5/7 I drove around the portion of Bakersfield where the new 58 will be built. It's really happening, folks. They've completely demolished and cleared all the buildings between the existing 58 stub at 99, and California Ave, except for maybe a half dozen houses near the stub that already look unoccupied. The ground is covered with what looks sort of like bark mulch, to keep the dust down, but on closer inspection, it looks like they ground up some of the lumber the houses were made out of. Kind of creepy, if you think about it. They haven't yet torn down any of the businesses in the short gap between California Ave and the Westside Pkwy.

The most recent Google Earth imagery from last October just shows a few cleared lots.

Next up, I guess they'll be rerouting some of the streets and putting in cul-de-sacs. Or is it culs-de-sac?


Henry

Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

kkt

Great!  About time.  Too bad California didn't reserve the ROW back in the 50s when it was cheap.

sparker

Quote from: kkt on May 18, 2017, 02:23:35 PM
Great!  About time.  Too bad California didn't reserve the ROW back in the 50s when it was cheap.


Unfortunately, they didn't have an adopted alignment west of 99 until the Westside Parkway plans came about; what was on the books was an inexact corridor concept extending west from the 58/99 freeway interchange (in Caltrans' old cartographic idiom, a line of circles rather than a line of squares, which would have indicated a formally adopted route).  Convoluted as it is, the under-development Westside alignment is the first freeway facility heading west from CA 99 to advance beyond the conceptual. 

kkt

Quote from: sparker on May 18, 2017, 02:36:35 PM
Quote from: kkt on May 18, 2017, 02:23:35 PM
Great!  About time.  Too bad California didn't reserve the ROW back in the 50s when it was cheap.


Unfortunately, they didn't have an adopted alignment west of 99 until the Westside Parkway plans came about; what was on the books was an inexact corridor concept extending west from the 58/99 freeway interchange (in Caltrans' old cartographic idiom, a line of circles rather than a line of squares, which would have indicated a formally adopted route).  Convoluted as it is, the under-development Westside alignment is the first freeway facility heading west from CA 99 to advance beyond the conceptual. 

I know, but it should have been obvious it would be needed as soon as the Westside Freeway was adopted for the interstate route.

sparker

Quote from: kkt on May 18, 2017, 07:24:46 PM
Quote from: sparker on May 18, 2017, 02:36:35 PM
Quote from: kkt on May 18, 2017, 02:23:35 PM
Great!  About time.  Too bad California didn't reserve the ROW back in the 50s when it was cheap.


Unfortunately, they didn't have an adopted alignment west of 99 until the Westside Parkway plans came about; what was on the books was an inexact corridor concept extending west from the 58/99 freeway interchange (in Caltrans' old cartographic idiom, a line of circles rather than a line of squares, which would have indicated a formally adopted route).  Convoluted as it is, the under-development Westside alignment is the first freeway facility heading west from CA 99 to advance beyond the conceptual. 

I know, but it should have been obvious it would be needed as soon as the Westside Freeway was adopted for the interstate route.


Despite my avatar, it's not an interstate yet.  The Westside Freeway was a locally planned (if not locally funded) facility; it was touch & go whether a connector to the existing CA 58 freeway east of CA 99 would ever reach fruition (even to the extent that it was thought for a time that it wouldn't even reach CA 99 at any location, much less the 58/99 interchange).  These days, it seems nothing is really obvious to Caltrans; they seem to need to be dragged kicking & screaming into the middle of locally promulgated projects (I suppose persistent underfunding will do that to an agency!).  Head on over to the "Hinkley Bypass" thread in this board -- more on possible Interstate conversion there!

kkt

Quote from: sparker on May 18, 2017, 08:13:56 PM
Quote from: kkt on May 18, 2017, 07:24:46 PM
Quote from: sparker on May 18, 2017, 02:36:35 PM
Quote from: kkt on May 18, 2017, 02:23:35 PM
Great!  About time.  Too bad California didn't reserve the ROW back in the 50s when it was cheap.


Unfortunately, they didn't have an adopted alignment west of 99 until the Westside Parkway plans came about; what was on the books was an inexact corridor concept extending west from the 58/99 freeway interchange (in Caltrans' old cartographic idiom, a line of circles rather than a line of squares, which would have indicated a formally adopted route).  Convoluted as it is, the under-development Westside alignment is the first freeway facility heading west from CA 99 to advance beyond the conceptual. 

I know, but it should have been obvious it would be needed as soon as the Westside Freeway was adopted for the interstate route.


Despite my avatar, it's not an interstate yet.  The Westside Freeway was a locally planned (if not locally funded) facility; it was touch & go whether a connector to the existing CA 58 freeway east of CA 99 would ever reach fruition (even to the extent that it was thought for a time that it wouldn't even reach CA 99 at any location, much less the 58/99 interchange).  These days, it seems nothing is really obvious to Caltrans; they seem to need to be dragged kicking & screaming into the middle of locally promulgated projects (I suppose persistent underfunding will do that to an agency!).  Head on over to the "Hinkley Bypass" thread in this board -- more on possible Interstate conversion there!

By Westside Freeway, I mean I-5 up the west side of the valley from Wheeler Ridge to Tracy.  The new freeway from CA 58 at 99 to the west end of Bakersfield is the Westside Parkway.  Confusing choice of names, I know.
The need for the Barstow-Bakersfield route to continue to I-5 should have been obvious by the late 1950s, before west Bakersfield was subdivisions.

sparker

It's likely that all the parties involved in relocating I-5 away from (then) US 99 and onto the Westside Freeway -- for the sake of providing a more direct LA-Bay Area connection -- didn't want to stir up any more local resentment toward their action than was already present; suggesting "spurs" -- Interstate or otherwise -- from I-5 toward the bypassed cities might have done just that after the fact.  An Interstate corridor following CA 58 was proposed as part of the 1968 batch of Interstate additions when that proposal was at the 4K+ mileage level; when it was truncated back to 1500 miles that particular corridor was discarded (CA only got the I-15 extension to San Diego and I-105).  After that, it appears the Division of Highways and, later, Caltrans just seemed to lose interest in the corridor in general.

mgk920

Quote from: sparker on May 19, 2017, 07:53:41 PM
It's likely that all the parties involved in relocating I-5 away from (then) US 99 and onto the Westside Freeway -- for the sake of providing a more direct LA-Bay Area connection -- didn't want to stir up any more local resentment toward their action than was already present; suggesting "spurs" -- Interstate or otherwise -- from I-5 toward the bypassed cities might have done just that after the fact.  An Interstate corridor following CA 58 was proposed as part of the 1968 batch of Interstate additions when that proposal was at the 4K+ mileage level; when it was truncated back to 1500 miles that particular corridor was discarded (CA only got the I-15 extension to San Diego and I-105).  After that, it appears the Division of Highways and, later, Caltrans just seemed to lose interest in the corridor in general.

Actually, I-5 was built where it was because it was far easier, faster, and cheaper for Caltrans to do that than it was to upgrade existing US (now CA) 99 to full interstate standards.  It's the same reason why the US 141 routing was made into an interstate (I-43) here in Wisconsin back in the 1970s - it was faster, easier, and cheaper than upgrading the US 41 corridor (now I-41, signed two years ago).

Mike

sparker

Quote from: mgk920 on May 19, 2017, 09:09:02 PM
Actually, I-5 was built where it was because it was far easier, faster, and cheaper for Caltrans to do that than it was to upgrade existing US (now CA) 99 to full interstate standards.  It's the same reason why the US 141 routing was made into an interstate (I-43) here in Wisconsin back in the 1970s - it was faster, easier, and cheaper than upgrading the US 41 corridor (now I-41, signed two years ago).

Mike

Regardless of the rationale behind the construction of I-5 as it is today, there is more than a little residual resentment emanating from cities along the 99 corridor; this resentment has, on occasion, promulgated the various proposals to elevate CA 99 to Interstate status -- one of which, of course, resulted in the designation of HPC #54 and its future-Interstate status back in 2005.  It's ironic that the overall process in this instance mimics the Wisconsin situation -- an Interstate deployed over what was a secondary (in CA's case, new terrain altogether) intercity corridor but bypassing a string of populated areas lying along an existing arterial route -- which itself was later designated an Interstate (both states' future corridors were established at the same time) with end points more or less at or along the first corridor.  It took 46 years (from the 1968 legislation that resulted in the original Green Bay extension to 2014) to get I-41 designated; we're looking at 61 years and counting (1956-?) for something similar to occur in CA, since CA 99 is a designated future Interstate.  I guess the moral of the story is that if you bypass masses of registered voters, eventually -- if pressure is consistently maintained -- they'll get their Interstate sooner or later.  We'll just have to see what happens in CA in the not-too-distant future.

ARMOURERERIC

It has been fun watching the slow but sure clearing of ROW.

BakoCondors

Quote from: pderocco on May 18, 2017, 04:15:07 AM
On 5/7 I drove around the portion of Bakersfield where the new 58 will be built. It's really happening, folks. They've completely demolished and cleared all the buildings between the existing 58 stub at 99, and California Ave, except for maybe a half dozen houses near the stub that already look unoccupied. The ground is covered with what looks sort of like bark mulch, to keep the dust down, but on closer inspection, it looks like they ground up some of the lumber the houses were made out of. Kind of creepy, if you think about it. They haven't yet torn down any of the businesses in the short gap between California Ave and the Westside Pkwy.

The most recent Google Earth imagery from last October just shows a few cleared lots.

Next up, I guess they'll be rerouting some of the streets and putting in cul-de-sacs. Or is it culs-de-sac?

This was published in the Bakersfield Californian on May 15th. The caption read:

The city released an aerial picture of the homes and commercial buildings that have been cleared to build the Centennial Corridor, which will link Highway 58 to the Westside Parkway.
The most recent Thomas Roads Improvement Program project update said the corridor design is 65 percent complete and all except one residence and two commercial buildings have been acquired.




sparker

Quote from: BakoCondors on May 23, 2017, 11:20:12 PM
The city released an aerial picture of the homes and commercial buildings that have been cleared to build the Centennial Corridor, which will link Highway 58 to the Westside Parkway.
The most recent Thomas Roads Improvement Program project update said the corridor design is 65 percent complete and all except one residence and two commercial buildings have been acquired.





Good call -- that is a bit creepy!  Looks like a swath of chemical warfare hit Bakersfield.  Interesting note about the source of the ground cover (my admittedly occasionally disturbed mind is picturing Charlton Heston running down the cleared corridor yelling "Soylent Beige is Houses!").

But seriously....have any actual physical plans for the freeway been released as of yet? -- such as will it primarily be at ground level, on a berm, sunk, or a combination of all of the above?  I can't imagine those adjacent property owners being too thrilled with the prospect of a ground-level freeway through their midst (fumes, noise, etc.); it's more than likely that very high sound walls will be an integral part of this project.   





compdude787




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.