AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules for political content in signatures and user profiles. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: CA 58  (Read 3780 times)

Occidental Tourist

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 606
  • Last Login: Today at 06:44:02 PM
Re: CA 58
« Reply #25 on: August 25, 2019, 02:06:46 PM »

^^^^^^^
D6 is one of the few districts that actually seems to promote a reasonable level of continuity with relinquished highways; the retained 178 signage through downtown Bakersfield exemplifies that.  I haven't heard any reportage from the area regarding the level of signage on those relinquished sections of 58 on Rosedale Highway within the city limits; if it follows the previous example, there still will be regular reassurance shielding.  But with the other item mentioned -- I'd simply route CA 178 over the northern portion of CA 204 to CA 99, and use the connecting surface streets to access southward 99.  A lot closer and more in line with the E-W 178 trajectory.  CA 204 may as well be relinquished south of 178; it really doesn't serve a purpose (and is signed as Business 99 in any case); just another one of those "we own it therefore it's signed" Caltrans situations.  But the northern part does serve as a reasonable connector to CA 99 (particularly northward). 

This.  I imagine itís faster on both directions of 99 to use 204 to get to 178 than to go through downtown.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8261
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:31:11 PM
Re: CA 58
« Reply #26 on: August 25, 2019, 05:28:31 PM »

^^^^^^^
D6 is one of the few districts that actually seems to promote a reasonable level of continuity with relinquished highways; the retained 178 signage through downtown Bakersfield exemplifies that.  I haven't heard any reportage from the area regarding the level of signage on those relinquished sections of 58 on Rosedale Highway within the city limits; if it follows the previous example, there still will be regular reassurance shielding.  But with the other item mentioned -- I'd simply route CA 178 over the northern portion of CA 204 to CA 99, and use the connecting surface streets to access southward 99.  A lot closer and more in line with the E-W 178 trajectory.  CA 204 may as well be relinquished south of 178; it really doesn't serve a purpose (and is signed as Business 99 in any case); just another one of those "we own it therefore it's signed" Caltrans situations.  But the northern part does serve as a reasonable connector to CA 99 (particularly northward). 

This.  I imagine itís faster on both directions of 99 to use 204 to get to 178 than to go through downtown.

I've done it -- and the answer is considerably!.   Downtown via the surface signed 178 is a bit of a slog; the only immediately apparent reason (aside from nostalgia for formerly vital downtown districts!) to utilize it would be go get to the Amtrak station a few blocks to the south. 
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 15695
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 11:54:11 PM
    • Gribblenation
Re: CA 58
« Reply #27 on: August 25, 2019, 05:32:10 PM »

^^^^^^^
D6 is one of the few districts that actually seems to promote a reasonable level of continuity with relinquished highways; the retained 178 signage through downtown Bakersfield exemplifies that.  I haven't heard any reportage from the area regarding the level of signage on those relinquished sections of 58 on Rosedale Highway within the city limits; if it follows the previous example, there still will be regular reassurance shielding.  But with the other item mentioned -- I'd simply route CA 178 over the northern portion of CA 204 to CA 99, and use the connecting surface streets to access southward 99.  A lot closer and more in line with the E-W 178 trajectory.  CA 204 may as well be relinquished south of 178; it really doesn't serve a purpose (and is signed as Business 99 in any case); just another one of those "we own it therefore it's signed" Caltrans situations.  But the northern part does serve as a reasonable connector to CA 99 (particularly northward). 

This.  I imagine itís faster on both directions of 99 to use 204 to get to 178 than to go through downtown.

I've done it -- and the answer is considerably!.   Downtown via the surface signed 178 is a bit of a slog; the only immediately apparent reason (aside from nostalgia for formerly vital downtown districts!) to utilize it would be go get to the Amtrak station a few blocks to the south.

I can also attest any direction on 204 is way more efficient than taking old 178 through downtown.  Even Union Avenue south of downtown has a pretty swift traffic flow to it with a pretty large capacity. 
Logged

TJS23

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15
  • Location: California
  • Last Login: July 14, 2021, 11:46:34 PM
Re: CA 58
« Reply #28 on: March 03, 2021, 03:06:01 AM »

I had the chance to drive the route from 101 to 33, it was a very interesting road, especially the part in the plains which were sort of like a roller coaster. There was nobody around so it was possible to go pretty fast in that part, it would be an interesting race track. I was also shocked that after there was the whole windy drop into McKittrick. I agree that there's no need to extend any interstate this way, but 40 should definitely be extended to at least Bakersfield and even 5. It was a pretty long detour and pretty tiring, I kept going on 33 which was a mistake because it got dark and I missed all the mountain scenery on that route. :pan: :spin: I think I'm sticking to 5 for my SF to LA trips for the time being :D Anyway just thought I'd share my thoughts, I've been inspired by the forum to try new routes but honestly it was pretty similar to 198 and I wouldn't take it again.
Logged

kkt

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5497
  • Location: Seattle, Washington
  • Last Login: Today at 10:14:19 PM
Re: CA 58
« Reply #29 on: March 03, 2021, 02:54:29 PM »

I think I'm sticking to 5 for my SF to LA trips for the time being :D

Oh, don't stop exploring, just be conscious of what time sunset is going to be.  :)

Regarding an interstate to US 101 in the south Central Valley, if (and it's a big if) this is ever needed, CA 46 would be the obvious choice.  Gentler grades and it's mostly 4-lane expressway already.
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 15695
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 11:54:11 PM
    • Gribblenation
Re: CA 58
« Reply #30 on: March 03, 2021, 03:55:11 PM »

I think I'm sticking to 5 for my SF to LA trips for the time being :D

Oh, don't stop exploring, just be conscious of what time sunset is going to be.  :)

Regarding an interstate to US 101 in the south Central Valley, if (and it's a big if) this is ever needed, CA 46 would be the obvious choice.  Gentler grades and it's mostly 4-lane expressway already.

Worth noting that 166 is also decidedly less curvy than 58 and 198.  But yes, 46 is the obvious main corridor for a reason.
Logged

 


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.