CA 46 (CA 99 west to US 101)

[Max Rockatansky]

Did five different routes today starting with CA 46 west from CA 99 to US 101.  I put together the photo album tonight, I should have some sort of extended US 466 blog post up this weekend:

https://flic.kr/s/aHskyQCkv9

[nexus73]

Seeing the expressway segments makes me wonder if more will be added to 46?  Does the traffic warrant such in your opinion Max?  I found it interesting to cross over the hills between the San Joaquin Valley and Paso Robles in these pix since there did not appear to be a whole lot of curves and steep grades.  Having never driven the route before, I always wondered about the lay of the land over there. 

As always, thank you for being my eyes Max.  I always do enjoy your compilations of photos and the videos you create!

Rick

[Max Rockatansky]

Seeing the expressway segments makes me wonder if more will be added to 46?  Does the traffic warrant such in your opinion Max?  I found it interesting to cross over the hills between the San Joaquin Valley and Paso Robles in these pix since there did not appear to be a whole lot of curves and steep grades.  Having never driven the route before, I always wondered about the lay of the land over there. 

As always, thank you for being my eyes Max.  I always do enjoy your compilations of photos and the videos you create!

Rick

My personal opinion is it ought to be an Expressway all the way to 99.  There is heavy truck traffic along the entirety of 46 and it's definitely the most popular crossing to the coast north to 152.   The grade is definitely something that would allow for four lanes but I think the bigger issue would be the section east of I-5. 

[ranger5830]

Seeing the expressway segments makes me wonder if more will be added to 46?  Does the traffic warrant such in your opinion Max?  I found it interesting to cross over the hills between the San Joaquin Valley and Paso Robles in these pix since there did not appear to be a whole lot of curves and steep grades.  Having never driven the route before, I always wondered about the lay of the land over there. 

As always, thank you for being my eyes Max.  I always do enjoy your compilations of photos and the videos you create!

Rick

My personal opinion is it ought to be an Expressway all the way to 99.  There is heavy truck traffic along the entirety of 46 and it's definitely the most popular crossing to the coast north to 152.   The grade is definitely something that would allow for four lanes but I think the bigger issue would be the section east of I-5. 

While it would be nice if the entire length of the road was an expressway, I don't believe it is really necessary as there are already five routes one can take to get from Bakersfield to Lost Hills, from north to south 46, Lerdo Hwy, 7th Standard Rd, 58, and Stockdale Hwy.  Given the expense of either bypassing or upgrading the highway through Wasco, I think it is not needed.

[Max Rockatansky]

Seeing the expressway segments makes me wonder if more will be added to 46?  Does the traffic warrant such in your opinion Max?  I found it interesting to cross over the hills between the San Joaquin Valley and Paso Robles in these pix since there did not appear to be a whole lot of curves and steep grades.  Having never driven the route before, I always wondered about the lay of the land over there. 

As always, thank you for being my eyes Max.  I always do enjoy your compilations of photos and the videos you create!

Rick

My personal opinion is it ought to be an Expressway all the way to 99.  There is heavy truck traffic along the entirety of 46 and it's definitely the most popular crossing to the coast north to 152.   The grade is definitely something that would allow for four lanes but I think the bigger issue would be the section east of I-5. 

While it would be nice if the entire length of the road was an expressway, I don't believe it is really necessary as there are already five routes one can take to get from Bakersfield to Lost Hills, from north to south 46, Lerdo Hwy, 7th Standard Rd, 58, and Stockdale Hwy.  Given the expense of either bypassing or upgrading the highway through Wasco, I think it is not needed.

It will probably be an easier jog once the Centennial Corridor is completed and 58 is realigned for folks out of Bakersfield.  That rail crossing in Wasco where 43 multiplexes along probably would kill any prospect given how much money it would take to expand the road under the rail overpass.

[gonealookin]

I'm a little disappointed because I don't see how a photo essay on CA 46 is complete without the "Brown Material Road" sign.

[Max Rockatansky]

I'm a little disappointed because I don't see how a photo essay on CA 46 is complete without the "Brown Material Road" sign.

Snuck up on me when I was trying to pass someone.  I was looking for it too since I got Main Drain and Gun Club Roads.  I'm definitely mentioning it when I get to the US 466 stuff on the blog post.

[Max Rockatansky]

Worked up a historical blog post on CA 46 and based a ton of it off of the US 466 thread from last year.  Took awhile to capture all the alignment shifts for US 466, CA 41, and CA 46 but they are all there.  I did find an old alignment of US 466 over Polonio Pass which still can be seen today:

http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2018/04/legacy-us-route-466-part-1-california.html

[Max Rockatansky]

Rediscovered this video from Regular Car Reviews.  Granted they incorrectly call US 466 as "Route 46" in the video there is a bunch of interesting details of the James Dean crash at the CA 41 junction:

[MrAndy1369]

At the rate things are going, I do wonder if there are very long-term plans to convert CA-46 into an interstate continuation of I-40 (once/if that is eventually expanded to CA-58)? It'd make logical sense to expand I-40 on CA-46 to U.S. 101 (which may also be its own interstate sometime in the future).

Yes, most of the land surrounding CA-46 is currently empty and rural farmland, but that could change later with the expansion of California's population.

[Max Rockatansky]

At the rate things are going, I do wonder if there are very long-term plans to convert CA-46 into an interstate continuation of I-40 (once/if that is eventually expanded to CA-58)? It'd make logical sense to expand I-40 on CA-46 to U.S. 101 (which may also be its own interstate sometime in the future).

Yes, most of the land surrounding CA-46 is currently empty and rural farmland, but that could change later with the expansion of California's population.

I don't foresee much development on the corridor east of 41.  The Central Valley lands aren't easy to obtain due to the money the ranchers make.  Most Central Valley cities abruptly end and don't have the sprawl you see around L.A., the Bay Area, or San Diego.

[sparker]

At the rate things are going, I do wonder if there are very long-term plans to convert CA-46 into an interstate continuation of I-40 (once/if that is eventually expanded to CA-58)? It'd make logical sense to expand I-40 on CA-46 to U.S. 101 (which may also be its own interstate sometime in the future).

Yes, most of the land surrounding CA-46 is currently empty and rural farmland, but that could change later with the expansion of California's population.

I don't foresee much development on the corridor east of 41.  The Central Valley lands aren't easy to obtain due to the money the ranchers make.  Most Central Valley cities abruptly end and don't have the sprawl you see around L.A., the Bay Area, or San Diego.

Max's observation is essentially correct; most development in the major Valley towns arrayed along CA 99 is to the east of both the highway and the parallel RR tracks; the west side of the valley is dominated by large agribusinesses (cotton in the southern valley and produce in the north) occupying vast tracts of land.  Southeast of Fresno and extending through Reedley, Dinuba, and out to the Exeter/Lindsay area is one of the state's predominant citrus-producing regions; outside of the principal regional cities (Visalia, Hanford) there's scant large-scale housing; most towns still function as service centers for local agriculture.  Even the cities with 6-figure populations (Fresno, Modesto) tend to follow the eastward-development trend, with very limited room for growth west of CA 99. 

[Max Rockatansky]

At the rate things are going, I do wonder if there are very long-term plans to convert CA-46 into an interstate continuation of I-40 (once/if that is eventually expanded to CA-58)? It'd make logical sense to expand I-40 on CA-46 to U.S. 101 (which may also be its own interstate sometime in the future).

Yes, most of the land surrounding CA-46 is currently empty and rural farmland, but that could change later with the expansion of California's population.

I don't foresee much development on the corridor east of 41.  The Central Valley lands aren't easy to obtain due to the money the ranchers make.  Most Central Valley cities abruptly end and don't have the sprawl you see around L.A., the Bay Area, or San Diego.

Max's observation is essentially correct; most development in the major Valley towns arrayed along CA 99 is to the east of both the highway and the parallel RR tracks; the west side of the valley is dominated by large agribusinesses (cotton in the southern valley and produce in the north) occupying vast tracts of land.  Southeast of Fresno and extending through Reedley, Dinuba, and out to the Exeter/Lindsay area is one of the state's predominant citrus-producing regions; outside of the principal regional cities (Visalia, Hanford) there's scant large-scale housing; most towns still function as service centers for local agriculture.  Even the cities with 6-figure populations (Fresno, Modesto) tend to follow the eastward-development trend, with very limited room for growth west of CA 99.

The really interesting analog city for that lack of growth west of 99 is with Fresno.  You can literally be standing out in a farm field directly south of 99 and see high rises clear as day to the north in downtown Fresno.  I'm actually amazed that in retrospect that so much of CA 41 south to 198 was actually built to an expressway so many large farms out there. 

[kkt]

At the rate things are going, I do wonder if there are very long-term plans to convert CA-46 into an interstate continuation of I-40 (once/if that is eventually expanded to CA-58)? It'd make logical sense to expand I-40 on CA-46 to U.S. 101 (which may also be its own interstate sometime in the future).

Yes, most of the land surrounding CA-46 is currently empty and rural farmland, but that could change later with the expansion of California's population.

Extending I-40 west of I-5 seems unlikely.  If I-40 were extended along the Centennial Corridor and then parallel to the Stockdale Highway it would have to duplex with I-5 north about 15 miles to reach CA 46.  I-5 seems like a more logical endpoint than US 101 or CA 1, given relatively light traffic west of I-5.  They'd also need to do something with the leftover bits of CA 46 west of US 101 and east of I-5 if they did that.  There are also several highways and a section in town that would need expensive interchanges or bypasses in order to be an interstate.  Caltrans is famously unenthusiastic about extending interstate designations -- to them it seems like just a bunch of pointless paperwork that doesn't help the driving public or get them any additional money.

[sparker]

At the rate things are going, I do wonder if there are very long-term plans to convert CA-46 into an interstate continuation of I-40 (once/if that is eventually expanded to CA-58)? It'd make logical sense to expand I-40 on CA-46 to U.S. 101 (which may also be its own interstate sometime in the future).

Yes, most of the land surrounding CA-46 is currently empty and rural farmland, but that could change later with the expansion of California's population.

Extending I-40 west of I-5 seems unlikely.  If I-40 were extended along the Centennial Corridor and then parallel to the Stockdale Highway it would have to duplex with I-5 north about 15 miles to reach CA 46.  I-5 seems like a more logical endpoint than US 101 or CA 1, given relatively light traffic west of I-5.  They'd also need to do something with the leftover bits of CA 46 west of US 101 and east of I-5 if they did that.  There are also several highways and a section in town that would need expensive interchanges or bypasses in order to be an interstate.  Caltrans is famously unenthusiastic about extending interstate designations -- to them it seems like just a bunch of pointless paperwork that doesn't help the driving public or get them any additional money.

The previous enthusiasm Caltrans had for Interstate upgrade/additions, manifested in the I-110, 710, and 880 (not to mention the dreaded 238) conversions evaporated in the early '90's when funding tied to such upgrades did likewise.  Since then, most initiatives for such conversions have invariably come from Congress (e.g., the CA 99/HPC 54 concept) but decidedly absent any earmarked $$ -- which is why Caltrans has basically either ignored such externally-fomented plans or at best has provided scant lip service to such activities. 

Curiously, CA 58 has been on the agency's radar for at least the past five decades; a I-40 west extension along the lines explored in threads here was included in the initial iteration of the 1968 batch of Interstate additions prior to its being cut back to 1500 miles from the original 4500.  A conversation I had with a group of Caltrans planners back in 1987 (at their Sacramento HQ) indicated that they hadn't completely given up on the concept -- in fact, it was the one rural in-state corridor featuring broad consensus as a future Interstate candidate -- provided there was federal funding attached.  It was implied at that time that the impetus for upgrading CA 58 to Interstate status was originating within the trucking industry -- and that the ball was in their court regarding influence at the national level translating into available funds.  That hasn't occurred in the ensuing years, so the CA 58 upgrades have been piecemeal -- with the long-term plan being that eventually the entire route will be at least upgradeable expressway, which can then be brought up to snuff gradually.  But an extension to US 101 via CA 46 was never considered as a natural extension of such a project; while in itself 46 is a major in-state east-west corridor, it simply doesn't draw interregional truck traffic in the way that 58 east of I-5 does.       

[Plutonic Panda]

Interstate designation or not holy lord almighty does this road need to become a fully controlled access facility. Just 4 laning isn't good enough. People drive like absolute maniacs and I'm a fast driver. I was in my car hauling at least double the speed limit being passed and tailgated not to mention the endless line of cars waiting to turn left and right at certain spots. I couldn't believe how busy this road was. Insanity.

[Max Rockatansky]

So, ran into a bunch of rebels without a cause?

Anyways, I was taking CA 46 as my alternate to CA 156/CA 152 to get to US 101 for a couple months while waiting for CA 198 to reopen.  As frustrating as 46 can get I've found that the worst parts between 41 and Bitterwater Road have been largely mitigated by recent improvements.  Four lanes at least to I-5 is still what is really necessary considering the volume of cars though.   

[Plutonic Panda]

They had something going on in Paso Robles(I think a fair or something) so probably a bunch of drunks. No enforcement whatsoever that I saw other than a checkpoint in Paso Robles directly west of the 101 where it turns into 24th St.

Oddly enough I saw some guy in an M3 drift off the NB freeway exit heading directly to the checkpoint so I wonder how that went down. No way they didn't see that.

But yeah the part in Kern county is where the most improvements seem to take place. I've noticed in counties like San Luis Obispo they've changed their wording on Caltrans projects from "capacity enchantments"  to some shit like "multimodal use enchantments"  or something like that. Kern county just says "4 lane widening."  They don't give a fuck. I like Kern County they seem to be somewhat actively trying to mitigate traffic issues.

If I had to guess they would support being part of an I-40 extension but given Caltrans and LA Metro why bother.

[Max Rockatansky]

D6 tends to be the Caltrans District with the most growth/expansion in recent decades.  The reason things are like that is because the D6 counties are growing and they are pushing for modernization of highway infrastructure.  Really a full freeway isn't needed on 46 but rather a good four lane expressway with a coupe well placed interchanges. 

[Quillz]

At the rate things are going, I do wonder if there are very long-term plans to convert CA-46 into an interstate continuation of I-40 (once/if that is eventually expanded to CA-58)? It'd make logical sense to expand I-40 on CA-46 to U.S. 101 (which may also be its own interstate sometime in the future).

Yes, most of the land surrounding CA-46 is currently empty and rural farmland, but that could change later with the expansion of California's population.

Even if CA-46 became a western interstate in terms of quality, I don't see the number changing. There's no need. Just like CA-99 will almost surely stay the same and not become I-9.

[jg4567]

So, ran into a bunch of rebels without a cause?

Anyways, I was taking CA 46 as my alternate to CA 156/CA 152 to get to US 101 for a couple months while waiting for CA 198 to reopen.  As frustrating as 46 can get I've found that the worst parts between 41 and Bitterwater Road have been largely mitigated by recent improvements.  Four lanes at least to I-5 is still what is really necessary considering the volume of cars though.

I drive 41 from Madera Ranchos to the coast twice a month and decided to take 46 from Lost Hills last week to break up the monotony.  I was blown away by how better quality of road was on 46 vs 41.  Are the vehicle and commercial truck counts on 46 that much more to warrant four lanes versus a pothole-ridden death trap with no shoulders in some places (ie west of Cottonwood Pass)?  It seems like the disparity in quality between 41 and 46 is too great and continues to grow.

[Max Rockatansky]

So, ran into a bunch of rebels without a cause?

Anyways, I was taking CA 46 as my alternate to CA 156/CA 152 to get to US 101 for a couple months while waiting for CA 198 to reopen.  As frustrating as 46 can get I've found that the worst parts between 41 and Bitterwater Road have been largely mitigated by recent improvements.  Four lanes at least to I-5 is still what is really necessary considering the volume of cars though.

I drive 41 from Madera Ranchos to the coast twice a month and decided to take 46 from Lost Hills last week to break up the monotony.  I was blown away by how better quality of road was on 46 vs 41.  Are the vehicle and commercial truck counts on 46 that much more to warrant four lanes versus a pothole-ridden death trap with no shoulders in some places (ie west of Cottonwood Pass)?  It seems like the disparity in quality between 41 and 46 is too great and continues to grow.

41 ought to be four lanes from CA 198 to I-5 if not all the way to 46.  The traffic south of Lemoore when it drops to two lanes is usually super aggressive which doesn't mix well with all the Ag vehicles.  At least south of I-5 it can be somewhat easy pass if you are patient enough. 

Personally I never found the so called "2 Lane Death Trap"  between Elkhorn Avenue and Excelsior Avenue near Camden to be any big deal.  Elk Avenue and Camden Avenue are always available if 41 is having problems.  The Jersey Barriers actually sped traffic up to running about 65-70 MPH. 

[jg4567]

So, ran into a bunch of rebels without a cause?

Anyways, I was taking CA 46 as my alternate to CA 156/CA 152 to get to US 101 for a couple months while waiting for CA 198 to reopen.  As frustrating as 46 can get I've found that the worst parts between 41 and Bitterwater Road have been largely mitigated by recent improvements.  Four lanes at least to I-5 is still what is really necessary considering the volume of cars though.

I drive 41 from Madera Ranchos to the coast twice a month and decided to take 46 from Lost Hills last week to break up the monotony.  I was blown away by how better quality of road was on 46 vs 41.  Are the vehicle and commercial truck counts on 46 that much more to warrant four lanes versus a pothole-ridden death trap with no shoulders in some places (ie west of Cottonwood Pass)?  It seems like the disparity in quality between 41 and 46 is too great and continues to grow.

41 ought to be four lanes from CA 198 to I-5 if not all the way to 46.  The traffic south of Lemoore when it drops to two lanes is usually super aggressive which doesn't mix well with all the Ag vehicles.  At least south of I-5 it can be somewhat easy pass if you are patient enough. 

Personally I never found the so called "2 Lane Death Trap"  between Elkhorn Avenue and Excelsior Avenue near Camden to be any big deal.  Elk Avenue and Camden Avenue are always available if 41 is having problems.  The Jersey Barriers actually sped traffic up to running about 65-70 MPH.

As for the "death trap" between Elkhorn and Excelsior, I'd rather see Caltrans find a way to improve the Mt. Whitney intersection despite the very tight right-of-way, or perhaps setting up diamond interchanges at Manning or Mountain View.  I commuted from Fresno to Caruthers at the turn of the century and found it bizarre how Caltrans/Fresno County was aggressive in moving the right-of-way and twinning 41 from Jensen to Elkhorn and then stall further progress for over 20 years, even with virtually all the needed right-of-way already set aside.  Not a big deal at the end of the day with those jersey barriers.

Four-laning south of Stratford and through the Kettleman Hills should be on the drawing board once 46 is completed. There's significant commerical trucks and I've seen several military convoys the last few months going northbound.  Then there's the conga line of cars itching to pass you when you're going 75 in a 55...

[Max Rockatansky]

Worth noting, the Elkhorn-Excelsior 2 Lane Death Trap was the first expressway (in two lane configuration) segment of 41 constructed south of Fresno.  The purpose of the segment was to eliminate two jogs along Elm Avenue in the Camden area.  The hold up with expanding the corridor to four lanes was the eminent domain that was needed to buy out what is left of Camden.  The corridor is set to be expanded to four lanes in coming years. 

To your point, Manning Avenue in particular probably the traffic levels which would warrant construction of an interchange.  I tend to turn south onto 41 via South Avenue (which has become a favored local road since the HSR overpass opened) to avoid having to use the light at Adams Avenue or Manning Avenue.  Trouble is, said maneuver is unwise in a thick winter Tule Fog. 

[pderocco]

If you want to see what's going on with the Cholame and Wye sections of the CA-46 construction, there is now aerial imagery from eight days ago on Google Earth. It's not the default imagery, so you have to turn the time slider on to see it. It's a much bigger job than the past widening efforts because it's a completely new road that doesn't use the old roadbed, and it will have a grade-separated interchange with CA-41 a mile further east. Pretty interesting.