News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

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

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

Previous topic - Next topic

Max Rockatansky

Hasn't been seriously considered since the 1980s.  Even with all the recent improvements to the corridor there is still a bunch that is far from Interstate standard.  As an example the rail underpass used by the northbound lanes near Chowchilla dates to the 1930s.  Tulare County had a crap ton of early 1950s freeway along with all the non-standard oddities that come with it.

Interestingly I think people don't realize sometimes that 99 between Wheeler Ridge and Sacramento only became a full freeway in 2016.  The expressway segment between Chowchilla and Merced was the last segment to be fully closed off.


cl94

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 22, 2024, 09:35:40 AM
I seem to recall there was a wavier process for SB 743?  Wasn't cl94 the one who mentioned something about that?

The thing with SB 743 is that it has some weird workarounds that encourage suburban development in counties with a decent amount of rural population. SB 743 is intended to reduce VMT per capita. Kern County has a lot of rural population, so anything suburban Bakersfield will reduce VMT per capita because their trip lengths will be shorter than someone who lives out in the boonies.

If the project ends up promoting infill development, SB 743 will likely be statisfied. But there are other things at play and CTC would need to approve it.

Long story short, nearly anything that encourages infill development (on a countywide scale) will satisfy SB 743, but other things could come into play.

(Personal opinions emphasized)
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

ClassicHasClass

QuoteThe expressway segment between Chowchilla and Merced was the last segment to be fully closed off.

Man, I remember when that finally got done. What an improvement, which is now ruined by the construction through Merced.

Max Rockatansky

Quote from: ClassicHasClass on February 24, 2024, 09:28:29 PM
QuoteThe expressway segment between Chowchilla and Merced was the last segment to be fully closed off.

Man, I remember when that finally got done. What an improvement, which is now ruined by the construction through Merced.

I've been using 16th Street and sometimes Santa Fe Drive (County Route J7) quite often to get around backups.

ClassicHasClass

Went up through Bakersfield this morning on CA 99 N and the CA 58 WB flyover is nicely striped but the whole thing is still behind K-rail.

pderocco

I also drove it Sunday, both directions. Where it passes over Stockdale Hwy, it's so wide that the area of the overpass is almost the size of a football field. It's almost more impressive to drive under than on it.

cahwyguy

I was working on the highway pages today, incorporating Tom's post on Route 58. There's an interesting problem.

▸In 2013, Chapter 525 (SB 788, 10/9/2013) split this into two segments:

    (3) From Route 43 to just west of Van Buren Place near Bakersfield.

    (4) Mohawk Street near Bakersfield to Route 99.

This legislative change hasn't been undone, to my knowledge. I just checked online, and the definition is still:
Quote
(a) Route 58 is from:
(1) Route 101 near Santa Margarita to Route 33.
(2) Route 33 to Route 43.
(3) Route 43 to just west of Van Buren Place near Bakersfield.
(4) Mohawk Street near Bakersfield to Route 99.
(5) Route 99 to Route 15 near Barstow via Bakersfield and Mojave.
(b) Upon a determination by the commission that it is in the best interests of the state to do so, the commission may, upon terms and conditions approved by it, relinquish to the City of Bakersfield or the County of Kern the portion of Route 58 that is located within the jurisdiction of that city or county if the city or county agrees to accept it. The following conditions shall apply upon relinquishment:
(1) The relinquishment shall become effective on the date following the county recorder's recordation of the relinquishment resolution containing the commission's approval of the terms and conditions of the relinquishment.
(2) On and after the effective date of the relinquishment, the relinquished portion of Route 58 shall cease to be a state highway.
(3) The portion of Route 58 relinquished under this subdivision shall be ineligible for future adoption under Section 81.
(4) For the portion of Route 58 that is relinquished under this subdivision, the City of Bakersfield or the County of Kern shall install and maintain within the jurisdiction of the city or county signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 58.
(c) The relinquished former portions of Route 58 within the unincorporated area of the County of Kern and within the City of Bakersfield are not state highways and are not eligible for adoption under Section 81. For the relinquished former portions of Route 58, the County of Kern and the City of Bakersfield shall maintain within their respective jurisdictions signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 58.
Ca. Sts. and High. Code § 358

Amended by Stats 2013 ch 523 (SB 788),s 9, eff. 1/1/2014.
Amended by Stats 2010 ch 491 (SB 1318),s 18, eff. 1/1/2011.
Amended by Stats 2006 ch 315 (AB 1858),s 1, eff. 1/1/2007.

Cal. Sts. & Hy. Code § 358

So, although the new segments might be signed as Route 58, it is unclear if they are really part of Route 58 until there's a legislative change -- and based on my review of all the assembly and senate bills currently introduced for the 2023-2024 session, there are no plans to change the state code.

OK, who wants to tell Caltrans?

Daniel - California Highway Guy ● Highway Site: http://www.cahighways.org/ ●  Blog: http://blog.cahighways.org/ ● Podcast (CA Route by Route): http://caroutebyroute.org/ ● Follow California Highways on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/cahighways

pderocco

Quote from: cahwyguy on March 02, 2024, 09:59:57 PM
I was working on the highway pages today, incorporating Tom's post on Route 58. There's an interesting problem.

▸In 2013, Chapter 525 (SB 788, 10/9/2013) split this into two segments:

    (3) From Route 43 to just west of Van Buren Place near Bakersfield.

    (4) Mohawk Street near Bakersfield to Route 99.

This legislative change hasn't been undone, to my knowledge. I just checked online, and the definition is still:
Quote
(a) Route 58 is from:
(1) Route 101 near Santa Margarita to Route 33.
(2) Route 33 to Route 43.
(3) Route 43 to just west of Van Buren Place near Bakersfield.
(4) Mohawk Street near Bakersfield to Route 99.
(5) Route 99 to Route 15 near Barstow via Bakersfield and Mojave.
(b) Upon a determination by the commission that it is in the best interests of the state to do so, the commission may, upon terms and conditions approved by it, relinquish to the City of Bakersfield or the County of Kern the portion of Route 58 that is located within the jurisdiction of that city or county if the city or county agrees to accept it. The following conditions shall apply upon relinquishment:
(1) The relinquishment shall become effective on the date following the county recorder's recordation of the relinquishment resolution containing the commission's approval of the terms and conditions of the relinquishment.
(2) On and after the effective date of the relinquishment, the relinquished portion of Route 58 shall cease to be a state highway.
(3) The portion of Route 58 relinquished under this subdivision shall be ineligible for future adoption under Section 81.
(4) For the portion of Route 58 that is relinquished under this subdivision, the City of Bakersfield or the County of Kern shall install and maintain within the jurisdiction of the city or county signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 58.
(c) The relinquished former portions of Route 58 within the unincorporated area of the County of Kern and within the City of Bakersfield are not state highways and are not eligible for adoption under Section 81. For the relinquished former portions of Route 58, the County of Kern and the City of Bakersfield shall maintain within their respective jurisdictions signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 58.
Ca. Sts. and High. Code § 358

Amended by Stats 2013 ch 523 (SB 788),s 9, eff. 1/1/2014.
Amended by Stats 2010 ch 491 (SB 1318),s 18, eff. 1/1/2011.
Amended by Stats 2006 ch 315 (AB 1858),s 1, eff. 1/1/2007.

Cal. Sts. & Hy. Code § 358

So, although the new segments might be signed as Route 58, it is unclear if they are really part of Route 58 until there's a legislative change -- and based on my review of all the assembly and senate bills currently introduced for the 2023-2024 session, there are no plans to change the state code.

OK, who wants to tell Caltrans?

Who wants to tell the legislature? Hadn't they heard about this bit of freeway which has been under construction for several years?

cahwyguy

Quote from: pderocco on March 02, 2024, 10:06:17 PM
Quote from: cahwyguy on March 02, 2024, 09:59:57 PM
I was working on the highway pages today, incorporating Tom's post on Route 58. There's an interesting problem.

▸In 2013, Chapter 525 (SB 788, 10/9/2013) split this into two segments:

    (3) From Route 43 to just west of Van Buren Place near Bakersfield.

    (4) Mohawk Street near Bakersfield to Route 99.

This legislative change hasn't been undone, to my knowledge. I just checked online, and the definition is still:
Quote
(a) Route 58 is from:
(1) Route 101 near Santa Margarita to Route 33.
(2) Route 33 to Route 43.
(3) Route 43 to just west of Van Buren Place near Bakersfield.
(4) Mohawk Street near Bakersfield to Route 99.
(5) Route 99 to Route 15 near Barstow via Bakersfield and Mojave.
(b) Upon a determination by the commission that it is in the best interests of the state to do so, the commission may, upon terms and conditions approved by it, relinquish to the City of Bakersfield or the County of Kern the portion of Route 58 that is located within the jurisdiction of that city or county if the city or county agrees to accept it. The following conditions shall apply upon relinquishment:
(1) The relinquishment shall become effective on the date following the county recorder's recordation of the relinquishment resolution containing the commission's approval of the terms and conditions of the relinquishment.
(2) On and after the effective date of the relinquishment, the relinquished portion of Route 58 shall cease to be a state highway.
(3) The portion of Route 58 relinquished under this subdivision shall be ineligible for future adoption under Section 81.
(4) For the portion of Route 58 that is relinquished under this subdivision, the City of Bakersfield or the County of Kern shall install and maintain within the jurisdiction of the city or county signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 58.
(c) The relinquished former portions of Route 58 within the unincorporated area of the County of Kern and within the City of Bakersfield are not state highways and are not eligible for adoption under Section 81. For the relinquished former portions of Route 58, the County of Kern and the City of Bakersfield shall maintain within their respective jurisdictions signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 58.
Ca. Sts. and High. Code § 358

Amended by Stats 2013 ch 523 (SB 788),s 9, eff. 1/1/2014.
Amended by Stats 2010 ch 491 (SB 1318),s 18, eff. 1/1/2011.
Amended by Stats 2006 ch 315 (AB 1858),s 1, eff. 1/1/2007.

Cal. Sts. & Hy. Code § 358

So, although the new segments might be signed as Route 58, it is unclear if they are really part of Route 58 until there's a legislative change -- and based on my review of all the assembly and senate bills currently introduced for the 2023-2024 session, there are no plans to change the state code.

OK, who wants to tell Caltrans?

Who wants to tell the legislature? Hadn't they heard about this bit of freeway which has been under construction for several years?

Often the legislature doesn't know or care about this stuff. They may just never have realized they relinquished it (after all, it happened over 10 years ago). Caltrans would care, as they likely could get audited and chided by the state for spending maintenance money on non-state facilities (although I guess they do fund stuff off the state highway system). Still, they shouldn't be putting it in as postmiles, or not signing it without a "TO" placard.
Daniel - California Highway Guy ● Highway Site: http://www.cahighways.org/ ●  Blog: http://blog.cahighways.org/ ● Podcast (CA Route by Route): http://caroutebyroute.org/ ● Follow California Highways on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/cahighways

Max Rockatansky

Considering zombie/necro routes like 225 and 187 never got deleted I suspect there is lots of stuff Caltrans needs to send up legislature to clean up.

cahwyguy

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 02, 2024, 10:28:26 PM
Considering zombie/necro routes like 225 and 187 never got deleted I suspect there is lots of stuff Caltrans needs to send up legislature to clean up.

Certainly, as we know, they need to update the definition of Route 1 to reflect relinquishments (and finally give Torrance its due).
Daniel - California Highway Guy ● Highway Site: http://www.cahighways.org/ ●  Blog: http://blog.cahighways.org/ ● Podcast (CA Route by Route): http://caroutebyroute.org/ ● Follow California Highways on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/cahighways

ClassicHasClass

Not sure when the K-rail was removed but the CA 58 W flyover was in full operation when we went through on CA 99 N. Getting some usage already.

FredAkbar

We drove through this past weekend on 58 (eastbound on Thursday morning, westbound on Sunday morning). It all looked complete and was a nice change from having to take city streets to get back to 58E.

The only weird thing (which I assume they will remove?) is, on 58E around the Mohawk exit, there is still the sign telling you to use the next exit for 58. Which makes no sense since 58 passes straight through.

Max Rockatansky

Quote from: FredAkbar on March 12, 2024, 10:41:35 PM
We drove through this past weekend on 58 (eastbound on Thursday morning, westbound on Sunday morning). It all looked complete and was a nice change from having to take city streets to get back to 58E.

The only weird thing (which I assume they will remove?) is, on 58E around the Mohawk exit, there is still the sign telling you to use the next exit for 58. Which makes no sense since 58 passes straight through.

Yes, Mohawk was part of the interim routing.  It would direct traffic up to Rosedale Highway.  I made sure to get all those signs in my photo albums I linked from Flickr.

Lukeisroads

i found this hint https://www.google.com/maps/@35.3617922,-119.1220027,3a,44.5y,110.24h,101.17t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGk4JTN2uT9FvK22HsSwxcA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu maybe their turning allen into 102 calloway into 104 coffee into 105 mohawk into 106 and truxtun into 107 this is a great hint thank you sign for decaying

The Ghostbuster

As you all are probably aware, Google Maps Street View was updated last month to include the new segment of CA 58/Westside Parkway.



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.