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

[sparker]

https://bakersfieldnow.com/news/local/belle-terrace-overpass-closed-until-spring-2020

Looks as if this project is being expedited rather than done in discrete "chunks"; the cited closure is so that CA 99 to CA 58 (and vice-versa) ramps can be constructed.  And it looks like in doing so a few substandard (in this case low-clearance) features of CA 99, common in facilities constructed in the very early 1960's, are being dealt with as well.  Good to see progress continuing here. 

[pderocco]

Not much progress in the residential areas, but the interchange and bridges at the north end are coming along. There's some work at the south end of the project, but I couldn't see what it really is by driving by on Real Rd.

When it's done, I'm wondering if CA-58 along Rosedale Hwy and the piece between CA-43 and I-5 will be relinquished. The other possibility is that they could renumber it back to CA-178, as it was before 1964. That would be kind of cool.

[TheStranger]

When it's done, I'm wondering if CA-58 along Rosedale Hwy and the piece between CA-43 and I-5 will be relinquished. The other possibility is that they could renumber it back to CA-178, as it was before 1964. That would be kind of cool.

IIRC some of the Route 58 surface routing between 99 and 43 has already been relinquished, though I'm not yet sure how all that is signed.

Biggest thing that I am super curious about with, long-term - how much less traffic will 46 have between 5 and 99 once 58/Westside Parkway becomes the preferred route west of the metro area?

[sparker]

From what I know, the surface portion of CA 58 within Bakersfield city limits (and west of CA 99) has been relinquished; Caltrans still maintains the portion west of there to CA 43 and then on to I-5.  That pretty much sinks the idea of a CA 178 re-designation of that route.  I haven't driven on the relinquished portion since that action was taken; have no idea how much CA 58 reassurance signage remains.  Regarding the potential of the Westside to relieve some traffic from CA 46 -- that's somewhat intriguing.  Traffic heading to Bakersfield on CA 46 from the central coast area (SLO, Paso Robles) tends to stay on 46 all the way to CA 99, but traffic coming south on I-5 seems to wait until CA 58 at Buttonwillow before exiting onto the surface road.  Part of that may be the possibility of hitting signals at Wasco (although I've never found that to be a particular problem) -- but more likely that the shorter distance of CA 58 (despite the right-angle "jog" on CA 43) from I-5 east to CA 99 has been the deciding factor there.  It certainly would be interesting to see "before & after" traffic counts on CA 58 at, say, the Bakersfield west city limits as well as CA 46 between Wasco and CA 99 to see just how much that decreases once the Westside is completed all the way out to I-5.  As a side note -- it would also be interesting to see if diverging eastward CA 58 traffic at a new interchange south of the current folded diamond/frontage road configuration at Buttonwillow has a devastating effect on the roadside businesses located at the present interchange.  Presuming the new facility will be a free-flow type (semi-directional Y or a large trumpet would be my guess as to interchange format), there wouldn't be much opportunity to establish travel-related commercial facilities at that location.   

[ranger5830]

I was just on 58 between Buttonwillow and Bakersfield and headed eastbound there are a couple "TO 58" shields with a straight arrow, indicating relinquishment, between Allen and Coffee Roads.  Then there is a standard East 58 shield at Mohawk Rd, about a mile west of 99, which would indicate it is still a state highway at that point.

[I94RoadRunner]

Not much progress in the residential areas, but the interchange and bridges at the north end are coming along. There's some work at the south end of the project, but I couldn't see what it really is by driving by on Real Rd.

When it's done, I'm wondering if CA-58 along Rosedale Hwy and the piece between CA-43 and I-5 will be relinquished. The other possibility is that they could renumber it back to CA-178, as it was before 1964. That would be kind of cool.

IMHO I still believe that Caltrans should instead consider numbering Rosedale Hwy, the Westside Parkway, and Centennial Corridor as CA 40 and then replace CA 58 eastward all the way to Barstow as CA 40. The reason is that since any upgrade to I-40 would still be a long way off, it still could be a continuous number from I-5 to the start of I-40. CA 58 could just stay where it is from CA 99 (Future I-9) westward .....

[Kniwt]

Here's a picture taken last week from Marella Way, a little west of Real Road, looking south.

[skluth]

Not much progress in the residential areas, but the interchange and bridges at the north end are coming along. There's some work at the south end of the project, but I couldn't see what it really is by driving by on Real Rd.

When it's done, I'm wondering if CA-58 along Rosedale Hwy and the piece between CA-43 and I-5 will be relinquished. The other possibility is that they could renumber it back to CA-178, as it was before 1964. That would be kind of cool.

IMHO I still believe that Caltrans should instead consider numbering Rosedale Hwy, the Westside Parkway, and Centennial Corridor as CA 40 and then replace CA 58 eastward all the way to Barstow as CA 40. The reason is that since any upgrade to I-40 would still be a long way off, it still could be a continuous number from I-5 to the start of I-40. CA 58 could just stay where it is from CA 99 (Future I-9) westward .....

That would be great. Unfortunately, it makes far too much sense to ever be implemented.

[sparker]

Not much progress in the residential areas, but the interchange and bridges at the north end are coming along. There's some work at the south end of the project, but I couldn't see what it really is by driving by on Real Rd.

When it's done, I'm wondering if CA-58 along Rosedale Hwy and the piece between CA-43 and I-5 will be relinquished. The other possibility is that they could renumber it back to CA-178, as it was before 1964. That would be kind of cool.

IMHO I still believe that Caltrans should instead consider numbering Rosedale Hwy, the Westside Parkway, and Centennial Corridor as CA 40 and then replace CA 58 eastward all the way to Barstow as CA 40. The reason is that since any upgrade to I-40 would still be a long way off, it still could be a continuous number from I-5 to the start of I-40. CA 58 could just stay where it is from CA 99 (Future I-9) westward .....

That would be great. Unfortunately, it makes far too much sense to ever be implemented.

The corridor (at least east of Bakersfield) was US 466 for 30 years; it's been CA 58 for 56 years -- the only thing that could supplant it would be an Interstate 40 designation.   The expense of changing every sign for the 160 miles from the west end of the Westside to I-15 from CA 58 to a CA 40 would be prohibitive -- particularly for a decidedly "placeholder" number;  Caltrans would likely laugh that one off in short order (although they would do it for an Interstate, grumbling all the while). 

An unrelated and largely random thought:  Has anyone ever noticed that both CA and OR have state highways numbered 58 that connect the interior/eastern part of the state with the southern end of the state's major agricultural valley?  And that they are both paralleled by UP/former SP main lines over the intervening mountain range?  (OK, the similarities pretty much end there!).     

[Max Rockatansky]

At this point I'd settle for a free flowing expressway alignment of CA 58 west of CA 43 over an extension of I-40.  With the Kramer Junction and Hinkley bypasses complete it's hard to argue that traffic doesn't flow properly even with at-grade intersections.  As cool as it would be to have an extension of I-40 routes like US 101, CA 198, and even CA 152 prove that expressways can still have value in rural corridors. 

[Kniwt]

With the Kramer Junction and Hinkley bypasses complete it's hard to argue that traffic doesn't flow properly even with at-grade intersections. 

If Caltrans ever finds the money to do more work on 58, first priority should be a climbing lane toward Tehachapi. I've lost track of how many times I've been held up by semis* doing the slow-motion uphill tango, 27mph passing 25mph.

* And for the benefit of actual professional truck drivers, who have a difficult job already, let me stress that I'm referring only to unskilled, rude drivers (not just truckers) who don't consider their actions on other road users. The same thing applies to giant motorhomes towing giant SUVs doing 27mph in the left lane.

[kkt]

Not much progress in the residential areas, but the interchange and bridges at the north end are coming along. There's some work at the south end of the project, but I couldn't see what it really is by driving by on Real Rd.

When it's done, I'm wondering if CA-58 along Rosedale Hwy and the piece between CA-43 and I-5 will be relinquished. The other possibility is that they could renumber it back to CA-178, as it was before 1964. That would be kind of cool.

IMHO I still believe that Caltrans should instead consider numbering Rosedale Hwy, the Westside Parkway, and Centennial Corridor as CA 40 and then replace CA 58 eastward all the way to Barstow as CA 40. The reason is that since any upgrade to I-40 would still be a long way off, it still could be a continuous number from I-5 to the start of I-40. CA 58 could just stay where it is from CA 99 (Future I-9) westward .....

That would make sense.

Perhaps they'll just renumber it once, after the CA 58 to Westside Parkway and Westside Parkway to I-5 connections are done.

Modified:  Also, the mileage signs and exit numbers for I-40 start at Barstow.  If CA 58 is made in CA 40 or I-40, it'll be a lot of work to change them, and confuse people who are used to giving directions...

[sparker]

At this point I'd settle for a free flowing expressway alignment of CA 58 west of CA 43 over an extension of I-40.  With the Kramer Junction and Hinkley bypasses complete it's hard to argue that traffic doesn't flow properly even with at-grade intersections.  As cool as it would be to have an extension of I-40 routes like US 101, CA 198, and even CA 152 prove that expressways can still have value in rural corridors. 

In basic agreement on the type of facility that would be appropriate for a western extension of the Westside/58 facility to I-5; for the present, either an expressway or full freeway would do.  My only concern is with the actual connection to I-5; if Caltrans elects to "piggyback" on the present Stockdale diamond interchange (with no or even minimal improvements) or build a non-free-flowing new interchange (SPUI, parclo, or DDI included) it would tend to put limits on the E-W corridor's long-term prospects.  A trumpet -- "biased" for traffic to NB I-5 and from SB I-5 would be ideal as well as cost-effective as to the actual structures required; the facility at the other end of the effective corridor -- the I-15/CA 58 Barstow trumpet -- could well serve as a model for this, adjusted for topology.  While not posing immediate prospects for doing so, it's likely that over the next several decades CA 58 will be upgraded to a full freeway, possibly featuring Interstate-grade standards -- one remaining piece at a time, as with the various 4-laning projects.   It would be short-sighted to build interim facilities that would limit or give pause to upgrading efforts down the line. 

[stevashe]

Modified:  Also, the mileage signs and exit numbers for I-40 start at Barstow.  If CA 58 is made in CA 40 or I-40, it'll be a lot of work to change them, and confuse people who are used to giving directions...

Actually, not really. California doesn't use mileposts and I don't see any reason why the existing postmiles can't be kept since they're mainly for maintenance use anyway.

As for the exit numbers, I-40 has a whopping 21 exits despite its 155 mile length in California so I don't think it's too much of an ask to change them, and since most of those are in the middle of the desert I doubt much confusion would ensue from changing them either.

[Max Rockatansky]

Modified:  Also, the mileage signs and exit numbers for I-40 start at Barstow.  If CA 58 is made in CA 40 or I-40, it'll be a lot of work to change them, and confuse people who are used to giving directions...

Actually, not really. California doesn't use mileposts and I don't see any reason why the existing postmiles can't be kept since they're mainly for maintenance use anyway.

As for the exit numbers, I-40 has a whopping 21 exits despite its 155 mile length in California so I don't think it's too much of an ask to change them, and since most of those are in the middle of the desert I doubt much confusion would ensue from changing them either.

The problem is the Post Mile paddles would still refer to Route 58.  Almost all freeway interchange exits in California now have conventional mileage based exit numbers.  To that end the reworking of even the minor signage would substantial. 

[vdeane]

If the postmiles are used for maintenance purposes, not traveler navigation, would they need to change?  NY's reference markers don't (they actually can't, because there are numerous paper records, PDF documents, word/excel files, etc. referencing them).

[kkt]

So as you roam around NY there are lots of reference markers kept with the routes as they were in the 1910s even if they have changed many times since?  That sounds like it would confuse everybody, travelers and maintenance workers alike.

All of current I-40 in California is in San Bernadino County.  The current postmiles are from I-15 in Barstow.  If I-40 were extended along CA 58 to I-5, the convention would be for all the postmiles in San Bernadino County to be measured from the Kern-San Bernadino County Line, so they'd either all need to be changed or live with a confusing situation of the first 30 miles or so being duplicated.

Some exits on CA 58 have exit numbers as well.

I'm not saying these changes would be impossible, but they will make the project a bit more expensive and they should definitely try to do it only once rather than once as far west as CA 99 and then again to I-5 in a few years.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^^
All existing green mileposts and exit signage on CA 58 are based upon that route's western terminus at US 101 near Santa Margarita in San Luis Obispo County.   It'll be interesting to see if exit numbers on the Westside, once completed at least east to CA 99, follow in that fashion -- and whether they will reflect any multiplex with I-5 as well.

[vdeane]

So as you roam around NY there are lots of reference markers kept with the routes as they were in the 1910s even if they have changed many times since?  That sounds like it would confuse everybody, travelers and maintenance workers alike.

All of current I-40 in California is in San Bernadino County.  The current postmiles are from I-15 in Barstow.  If I-40 were extended along CA 58 to I-5, the convention would be for all the postmiles in San Bernadino County to be measured from the Kern-San Bernadino County Line, so they'd either all need to be changed or live with a confusing situation of the first 30 miles or so being duplicated.

Some exits on CA 58 have exit numbers as well.

I'm not saying these changes would be impossible, but they will make the project a bit more expensive and they should definitely try to do it only once rather than once as far west as CA 99 and then again to I-5 in a few years.

The system isn't that old... but yes, there are quite a few that reflect the state of the touring route system in the 1960s/70s (I-390 near Wayland reads 245 instead of 390I, for example, because it was part of NY 245 when the system was established).  It doesn't really confuse anyone because they're not intended for travelers - only for internal DOT use.  I imagine most people don't notice them and wouldn't know how to read them if they did.  In any case, they're used to correlate things like accident reports with real-world locations, so they're not supposed to change (although a few have anyways).  Granted, unlike California, New York also uses regular milemarkers on most interstates and major freeways.

Short explanation: http://nysroads.com/ref-markers.php
Long explanation: http://www.empirestateroads.com/rm/

[ClassicHasClass]

If the postmiles are used for maintenance purposes, not traveler navigation, would they need to change?

Yes, because the signed route number is the legislative route number (since 1964).

That said, look at how many CA 30 postmiles are still on CA 210. There's a funny view near Redlands on the EB carriageway just before the San Bernardino Ave exit with a CA 210 shield next to an old CA 30 postmile.

[Max Rockatansky]

If the postmiles are used for maintenance purposes, not traveler navigation, would they need to change?

Yes, because the signed route number is the legislative route number (since 1964).

That said, look at how many CA 30 postmiles are still on CA 210. There's a funny view near Redlands on the EB carriageway just before the San Bernardino Ave exit with a CA 210 shield next to an old CA 30 postmile.

And I would add that Post Mile paddles can be a navigational aid if you know how to read them.  The suffixed letters are really handing determining how many realignments have taken place since the 1964 Renumbering.  They aren't anywhere near as intuitive as Mile Markers but offer way more information.

[vdeane]

If the postmiles are used for maintenance purposes, not traveler navigation, would they need to change?

Yes, because the signed route number is the legislative route number (since 1964).

That said, look at how many CA 30 postmiles are still on CA 210. There's a funny view near Redlands on the EB carriageway just before the San Bernardino Ave exit with a CA 210 shield next to an old CA 30 postmile.

But does that matter for something as lowly as a maintenance marker?  Are you telling me that every time California moves/extends/renumbers a road, every single accident report, paving record, etc. that had occurred to that point becomes incorrect?  That's the reason why NY's reference markers aren't supposed to change - so you can look at all the accident reports for a location, and then go out into the field and find the exact location where they occurred.  We're not even supposed to change what they're mounted to, because they're supposed to correlate and exact real-world location to all our records since the beginning of time itself.

They're also not the only mileage inventory.  There's also a milepoint system that is similar but not identical that resets strictly on county lines (not sure what they do if a route enters a county multiple times), and in addition to both of those, the actual signed milemarkers (for routes that have them).

And I would add that Post Mile paddles can be a navigational aid if you know how to read them.  The suffixed letters are really handing determining how many realignments have taken place since the 1964 Renumbering.  They aren't anywhere near as intuitive as Mile Markers but offer way more information.

I would think that "if you know how to read them" would disqualify them as a navigational aid.  I use reference markers in the same way, though they're really not intended for that.

[stevashe]

Yes, I do realize that normally the postmiles would start where current CA 58 crosses into San Bernardino County and count up from there, meaning the pole mile paddle on current I-40 would need to change, but as vdeane has noted, the post miles shouldn't change existing crash records referencing them won't be broken. That's why the realignment suffixes Max mentioned two posts up exist in the first place; so the whole route doesn't need to be re-postmiled with all the post miles continually changing and messing various records up. Now, if Caltrans didn't want CA 58 post miles on I-40, they could just use a suffix is they wish. I think D (for duplication) would work just fine. My point was only referring to the current section of I-40, however, and like I said, nothing would need to change there, just slap a panel over the exit numbers  to update them (there can't be more than 120 signs worst case assuming 3 per exit per direction) and call it a day.

[Max Rockatansky]

Yes, I do realize that normally the postmiles would start where current CA 58 crosses into San Bernardino County and count up from there, meaning the pole mile paddle on current I-40 would need to change, but as vdeane has noted, the post miles shouldn't change existing crash records referencing them won't be broken. That's why the realignment suffixes Max mentioned two posts up exist in the first place; so the whole route doesn't need to be re-postmiled with all the post miles continually changing and messing various records up. Now, if Caltrans didn't want CA 58 post miles on I-40, they could just use a suffix is they wish. I think D (for duplication) would work just fine. My point was only referring to the current section of I-40, however, and like I said, nothing would need to change there, just slap a panel over the exit numbers  to update them (there can't be more than 120 signs worst case assuming 3 per exit per direction) and call it a day.

The irony there is that I-40 and US 66 were part of Legislative Route 58.  I'm not all that familiar with pre-1964 Post Mile paddles but I'm assuming that they used the Legislative Route rather than the Sign Route?

[sparker]

Yes, I do realize that normally the postmiles would start where current CA 58 crosses into San Bernardino County and count up from there, meaning the pole mile paddle on current I-40 would need to change, but as vdeane has noted, the post miles shouldn't change existing crash records referencing them won't be broken. That's why the realignment suffixes Max mentioned two posts up exist in the first place; so the whole route doesn't need to be re-postmiled with all the post miles continually changing and messing various records up. Now, if Caltrans didn't want CA 58 post miles on I-40, they could just use a suffix is they wish. I think D (for duplication) would work just fine. My point was only referring to the current section of I-40, however, and like I said, nothing would need to change there, just slap a panel over the exit numbers  to update them (there can't be more than 120 signs worst case assuming 3 per exit per direction) and call it a day.

The irony there is that I-40 and US 66 were part of Legislative Route 58.  I'm not all that familiar with pre-1964 Post Mile paddles but I'm assuming that they used the Legislative Route rather than the Sign Route?

IIRC, there were many fewer paddles but, like the current system, did reset at county lines.  And they did refer to the relevant LRN; the SSR designations were strictly for navigation; all funding and projects were apportioned to an LRN.   Most of the paddles I remember seeing were at or near structures, such as culverts under roadways as well as actual bridges.  Interestingly, there seemed to be more white markers identifying FAP and FAS routes than those delineating LRN's.   But I also remember a couple of FAU paddles along Front Street in downtown Burbank when that street hosted US 99/6 before 1957, when it was "plowed under" to make room for I-5/Golden State Freeway.