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

CA 58

Started by Max Rockatansky, May 22, 2019, 06:20:55 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Max Rockatansky

Recently grove a large section of CA 58 between Bakersfield and Kramer Junction, seemed as good as time as any to open a dedicated thread.  Of note, the Kramer Junction Bypass is well underway and very visible from the current two lane highway.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2019/05/california-state-route-58-from-ca-99-in.html

There is quite a bit of older blogs on Gribblenation that are related to CA 58:


Former US 466 between Tehachapi and Bakersfield

https://www.gribblenation.org/2018/08/legacy-of-us-route-466-part-2-tehachapi.html


Westside Parkway/Future CA 58

https://www.gribblenation.org/2017/12/westside-parkway-and-centennial.html


Old Signed State Route 178, Legislative Route 137, and the 1914 Salinas River Bridge

https://www.gribblenation.org/2017/02/old-signed-state-route-178-legislative.html



Max Rockatansky

#1
Drove the 100 miles of CA 58 west of CA 43 to US 101 just for fun yesterday.  That being the case I got about 300 substantially updated photos, the 74 miles west of CA 33 is the infamous no-mans land through the Temblor Range, San Andreas Fault and La Panza Range.   If anything the point about why an hypothetical extension of I-40 over CA 58 west to US 101 is clearly illustrated as a waste time given the terrain coupled with lack of traffic. 

https://flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/sets/72157710331541586

nexus73

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 15, 2019, 03:13:01 PM
Drove the 100 miles of CA 58 west of CA 43 to US 101 just for fun yesterday.  That being the case I got about 300 substantially updated photos, the 74 miles west of CA 33 is the infamous no-mans land through the Temblor Range, San Andreas Fault and La Panza Range.   If anything the point about why an hypothetical extension of I-40 over CA 58 west to US 101 is clearly illustrated as a waste time given the terrain coupled with lack of traffic. 

https://flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/sets/72157710331541586

You could have taken one photo of a curvy section, then titled it "x100"...LOL!  US 50 in Nevada has some serious competition with 58 West for the Lonely Road Award. 

Rick
US 101 is THE backbone of the Pacific coast from Bandon OR to Willits CA.  Industry, tourism and local traffic would be gone or severely crippled without it being in functioning condition in BOTH states.

Max Rockatansky

Quote from: nexus73 on August 15, 2019, 05:50:22 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 15, 2019, 03:13:01 PM
Drove the 100 miles of CA 58 west of CA 43 to US 101 just for fun yesterday.  That being the case I got about 300 substantially updated photos, the 74 miles west of CA 33 is the infamous no-mans land through the Temblor Range, San Andreas Fault and La Panza Range.   If anything the point about why an hypothetical extension of I-40 over CA 58 west to US 101 is clearly illustrated as a waste time given the terrain coupled with lack of traffic. 

https://flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/sets/72157710331541586

You could have taken one photo of a curvy section, then titled it "x100"...LOL!  US 50 in Nevada has some serious competition with 58 West for the Lonely Road Award. 

Rick

I'd argue US 6 between Ely and Tonopah is the grand champion of lonely in terms of Nevada.  It certainly beats almost every in the Continental U.S. with that 160 plus miles without service.  CA 58 at minimum has a couple fire stations and ranches that blunt the remote factor slightly in favor of Nevada. 

nexus73

Looking at the section of 58 leading into Buttonwillow suggests to me that should I-40 be expanded to connect with I-5, that improving 58's entrance into Buttonwillow with a 4-lane expressway would be a good idea.  Maybe some main highway businesses will settle into the space between Buttonwillow and I-5. 

Rick
US 101 is THE backbone of the Pacific coast from Bandon OR to Willits CA.  Industry, tourism and local traffic would be gone or severely crippled without it being in functioning condition in BOTH states.

Max Rockatansky

Quote from: nexus73 on August 16, 2019, 12:03:39 AM
Looking at the section of 58 leading into Buttonwillow suggests to me that should I-40 be expanded to connect with I-5, that improving 58's entrance into Buttonwillow with a 4-lane expressway would be a good idea.  Maybe some main highway businesses will settle into the space between Buttonwillow and I-5. 

Rick

Interchange for the northbound lanes with I-5 and 58 is weird.  Traffic has to turn onto a mini-Breezewood on Tracy Avenue which has become the defacto business core of Buttonwillow. 

sparker

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 16, 2019, 12:30:11 AM
Quote from: nexus73 on August 16, 2019, 12:03:39 AM
Looking at the section of 58 leading into Buttonwillow suggests to me that should I-40 be expanded to connect with I-5, that improving 58's entrance into Buttonwillow with a 4-lane expressway would be a good idea.  Maybe some main highway businesses will settle into the space between Buttonwillow and I-5. 

Rick

Interchange for the northbound lanes with I-5 and 58 is weird.  Traffic has to turn onto a mini-Breezewood on Tracy Avenue which has become the defacto business core of Buttonwillow. 

Arguably that'll change if & when the Westside Parkway is extended (probably within a 7-iron shot of Stockdale) west to I-5.  If CA 58 is jogged over I-5 south of the Buttonwillow interchange, the SB>EB and WB>NB traffic that slogs through the Buttonwillow roadside commercial "district" will have little or no reason (otherwise than either the car or personal meter reading "E" or close to it!) to make the stop.  Since it's hardly a gratuitous detour between existing and adjacent limited-access segments, I'd hardly place Buttonwillow in the same league as Breezewood.  But if the Westside Parkway interchange is free-flowing (trumpet or "Y"), it's likely the business hit Buttonwillow is likely to take will be mitigated a bit by continued patronization by those who were going to stop at that point anyway.   

Max Rockatansky

Quote from: sparker on August 17, 2019, 01:34:35 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 16, 2019, 12:30:11 AM
Quote from: nexus73 on August 16, 2019, 12:03:39 AM
Looking at the section of 58 leading into Buttonwillow suggests to me that should I-40 be expanded to connect with I-5, that improving 58's entrance into Buttonwillow with a 4-lane expressway would be a good idea.  Maybe some main highway businesses will settle into the space between Buttonwillow and I-5. 

Rick

Interchange for the northbound lanes with I-5 and 58 is weird.  Traffic has to turn onto a mini-Breezewood on Tracy Avenue which has become the defacto business core of Buttonwillow. 

Arguably that'll change if & when the Westside Parkway is extended (probably within a 7-iron shot of Stockdale) west to I-5.  If CA 58 is jogged over I-5 south of the Buttonwillow interchange, the SB>EB and WB>NB traffic that slogs through the Buttonwillow roadside commercial "district" will have little or no reason (otherwise than either the car or personal meter reading "E" or close to it!) to make the stop.  Since it's hardly a gratuitous detour between existing and adjacent limited-access segments, I'd hardly place Buttonwillow in the same league as Breezewood.  But if the Westside Parkway interchange is free-flowing (trumpet or "Y"), it's likely the business hit Buttonwillow is likely to take will be mitigated a bit by continued patronization by those who were going to stop at that point anyway.   

The effect the Centennial Corridor and West Side Parkway will have on 58 to I-5 is something I'm waiting to see.  Rosedale Highway west of 99 to 43 is hardly a good connecting choice for I-5 traffic but I suspect that the new alignment will be pretty solid.  My assumption is most traffic bound for I-5 simply will stay in Stockdale Highway rather than jog north to stay on 58 to reach I-5 once the Centennial Corridor gap is closed. 

sparker

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 17, 2019, 09:02:22 AM
Quote from: sparker on August 17, 2019, 01:34:35 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 16, 2019, 12:30:11 AM
Quote from: nexus73 on August 16, 2019, 12:03:39 AM
Looking at the section of 58 leading into Buttonwillow suggests to me that should I-40 be expanded to connect with I-5, that improving 58's entrance into Buttonwillow with a 4-lane expressway would be a good idea.  Maybe some main highway businesses will settle into the space between Buttonwillow and I-5. 

Rick

Interchange for the northbound lanes with I-5 and 58 is weird.  Traffic has to turn onto a mini-Breezewood on Tracy Avenue which has become the defacto business core of Buttonwillow. 

Arguably that'll change if & when the Westside Parkway is extended (probably within a 7-iron shot of Stockdale) west to I-5.  If CA 58 is jogged over I-5 south of the Buttonwillow interchange, the SB>EB and WB>NB traffic that slogs through the Buttonwillow roadside commercial "district" will have little or no reason (otherwise than either the car or personal meter reading "E" or close to it!) to make the stop.  Since it's hardly a gratuitous detour between existing and adjacent limited-access segments, I'd hardly place Buttonwillow in the same league as Breezewood.  But if the Westside Parkway interchange is free-flowing (trumpet or "Y"), it's likely the business hit Buttonwillow is likely to take will be mitigated a bit by continued patronization by those who were going to stop at that point anyway.   

The effect the Centennial Corridor and West Side Parkway will have on 58 to I-5 is something I'm waiting to see.  Rosedale Highway west of 99 to 43 is hardly a good connecting choice for I-5 traffic but I suspect that the new alignment will be pretty solid.  My assumption is most traffic bound for I-5 simply will stay in Stockdale Highway rather than jog north to stay on 58 to reach I-5 once the Centennial Corridor gap is closed. 

That, of course, is assuming Caltrans elects to adopt Stockdale as a new CA 58 alignment and signs it as such -- thus actually implementing a southward "jog" of CA 58 over I-5 for several miles.  If the current Stockdale diamond interchange is utilized as an interim connection (pending extension of the Westside freeway), some increased level of roadside-business development may take place there -- particularly if plans for such a freeway extension/connection aren't immediately forthcoming, and the "interim" connection turns into something a bit more long-term (meaning, commercially, "open for business" somewhat longer).   OTOH, if the completion of the in-town 58 connection is followed in short order by plans to extend the freeway west to I-5 (possible but not probable), some businesses might elect to "sit out" any development at the I-5/Stockdale interchange, figuring they wouldn't have much in the way of time to maximize their return on investment.  I guess we shall just wait and see what Caltrans and the Bakersfield MPO can concoct in the not-too-distant future.   

Max Rockatansky

Quote from: sparker on August 17, 2019, 03:01:25 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 17, 2019, 09:02:22 AM
Quote from: sparker on August 17, 2019, 01:34:35 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 16, 2019, 12:30:11 AM
Quote from: nexus73 on August 16, 2019, 12:03:39 AM
Looking at the section of 58 leading into Buttonwillow suggests to me that should I-40 be expanded to connect with I-5, that improving 58's entrance into Buttonwillow with a 4-lane expressway would be a good idea.  Maybe some main highway businesses will settle into the space between Buttonwillow and I-5. 

Rick

Interchange for the northbound lanes with I-5 and 58 is weird.  Traffic has to turn onto a mini-Breezewood on Tracy Avenue which has become the defacto business core of Buttonwillow. 

Arguably that'll change if & when the Westside Parkway is extended (probably within a 7-iron shot of Stockdale) west to I-5.  If CA 58 is jogged over I-5 south of the Buttonwillow interchange, the SB>EB and WB>NB traffic that slogs through the Buttonwillow roadside commercial "district" will have little or no reason (otherwise than either the car or personal meter reading "E" or close to it!) to make the stop.  Since it's hardly a gratuitous detour between existing and adjacent limited-access segments, I'd hardly place Buttonwillow in the same league as Breezewood.  But if the Westside Parkway interchange is free-flowing (trumpet or "Y"), it's likely the business hit Buttonwillow is likely to take will be mitigated a bit by continued patronization by those who were going to stop at that point anyway.   

The effect the Centennial Corridor and West Side Parkway will have on 58 to I-5 is something I'm waiting to see.  Rosedale Highway west of 99 to 43 is hardly a good connecting choice for I-5 traffic but I suspect that the new alignment will be pretty solid.  My assumption is most traffic bound for I-5 simply will stay in Stockdale Highway rather than jog north to stay on 58 to reach I-5 once the Centennial Corridor gap is closed. 

That, of course, is assuming Caltrans elects to adopt Stockdale as a new CA 58 alignment and signs it as such -- thus actually implementing a southward "jog" of CA 58 over I-5 for several miles.  If the current Stockdale diamond interchange is utilized as an interim connection (pending extension of the Westside freeway), some increased level of roadside-business development may take place there -- particularly if plans for such a freeway extension/connection aren't immediately forthcoming, and the "interim" connection turns into something a bit more long-term (meaning, commercially, "open for business" somewhat longer).   OTOH, if the completion of the in-town 58 connection is followed in short order by plans to extend the freeway west to I-5 (possible but not probable), some businesses might elect to "sit out" any development at the I-5/Stockdale interchange, figuring they wouldn't have much in the way of time to maximize their return on investment.  I guess we shall just wait and see what Caltrans and the Bakersfield MPO can concoct in the not-too-distant future.

I'll be curious to see.  For some reason I was under the impression 58 would stay on Rosedale Highway west of CA 43.  A routing down Stockdale Highway to I-5 would be a better alignment and net slightly fewer maintained miles for Caltrans. 

sparker

^^^^^^^^^^^
Given their current penchant for relinquishing surface miles, an alternative approach would be for Caltrans to simply relinquish all the maintained CA 58 miles east of CA 43 and continue 58 multiplexed with 43 south to Stockdale, where it would turn east to reach the western terminus of the Westside Freeway.  Since 43 bisects Stockdale at just about the halfway point between that terminus and I-5, it would mean less total mileage to maintain.   Nevertheless, all speculation about interim routings is moot until Caltrans gives some sort of indication about a Westside extension out to I-5 and roughly when that will occur.  But with the above alternative traffic segueing from CA 58 to NB I-5 and vice-versa would continue to be routed past the Buttonwillow frontage road "business district".   Not that Caltrans is inherently interested in maintaining the commercial status quo -- but if sufficient voices emanating from the corporations and other parties that benefit from the current arrangement are heard by D6, consideration may be given to an interim mode that exhibits that effect.   

mrsman

While there are more businesses at 58/I-5, there are already some businesses near I-5/Stockdale, such as 2 gas staions, 2 motels, and an IHOP.  I imagine that an extended Westside Pkwy will allow an exit to access those businesses and Stockdale Hwy west of I-5.

One problem with the I-5/58 exit are those tight ramps.  This was done because of the R/R tracks that are adjacent to 58.  One would hope that new ramps could be built to allow for a gradual transition from 58 west of I-5, along I-5 (which should be at least 6 lanes along this mile, even if the rest of I-5 does not get widened) to the I-5/Westside Pkwy interchange.  I imagine that the Westside Pkwy would interchange I-5 somewhere  north of Stockdale Hwy.  Hopefully, decent business access can be maintained, even if the I-5/stockdale interchange will have to be removed because it will be too close to the interchange with the Westside Pkwy.

sparker

Quote from: mrsman on August 18, 2019, 07:34:32 AM
While there are more businesses at 58/I-5, there are already some businesses near I-5/Stockdale, such as 2 gas staions, 2 motels, and an IHOP.  I imagine that an extended Westside Pkwy will allow an exit to access those businesses and Stockdale Hwy west of I-5.

One problem with the I-5/58 exit are those tight ramps.  This was done because of the R/R tracks that are adjacent to 58.  One would hope that new ramps could be built to allow for a gradual transition from 58 west of I-5, along I-5 (which should be at least 6 lanes along this mile, even if the rest of I-5 does not get widened) to the I-5/Westside Pkwy interchange.  I imagine that the Westside Pkwy would interchange I-5 somewhere  north of Stockdale Hwy.  Hopefully, decent business access can be maintained, even if the I-5/stockdale interchange will have to be removed because it will be too close to the interchange with the Westside Pkwy.

Once again, all that will depend upon (a) the schedule for an extension of the Westside Parkway to I-5 (b) the exact alignment chosen for this extension, and (c) the configuration of the extension.  Because of the sharp angle at which any nominally E-W facility will intersect I-5, any alignment north of Stockdale will be longer than anything at or south of that current diamond interchange; one would think that a state/local-funded activity might select the shortest feasible route for the sake of economy.  That brings up (c): the format of the Westside extension.  While most of us here would probably like to see a continuation of the full freeway format, there's always the possibility that it might be constructed as an expressway extension, with at-grade crossings (or possibly a single interchange at CA 43); the "upper midwest" approach.  Or, again for the sake of simple economy, Stockdale could be expanded to a (gasp) 5-lane facility.  In the case of either of the non-full-freeway approaches, the basic I-5/Stockdale non-free-flowing interchange could be retained (with a possible widening of the overpass).  If that were to occur, then it would be expected that a large number of roadside businesses (hopefully including an additional In-N-Out! -- personal plea) might cluster around I-5/Stockdale if signed as EB CA 58.  Of course, extending the Westside/58 facility as a full freeway would render all this moot; some sort of free-flowing (I'd guess an extended trumpet) interchange, likely either just south or just north of the current diamond, would be the most likely terminus format. 

The chances of the Westside curving north to utilize the current Buttonwillow setup are slim & none, primarily due to the presence of the (still utilized) RR tracks, which necessitated the present configuration that was & is damn near ideal for the deployment of roadside services/businesses into a compact cluster.   Looking into the crystal ball, my guess is that if Westside is constructed as a freeway, and the interchange with I-5 is south of Stockdale, that interchange might see more similar businesses locating there just to take advantage of the increased aggregate traffic due to the input from WB 58 and travelers bound for EB 58 staying on I-5.  An interchange located north of there, not so much.  I've actually eaten at that IHOP -- and even at 9 on a weekday morning, the patronage was pretty sparse.   Absent additional traffic to and from the 58 freeway extension, don't expect much additional developmental activity at the Stockdale interchange.       

skluth

Quote from: sparker on August 18, 2019, 12:53:22 AM
^^^^^^^^^^^
Given their current penchant for relinquishing surface miles, an alternative approach would be for Caltrans to simply relinquish all the maintained CA 58 miles east of CA 43 and continue 58 multiplexed with 43 south to Stockdale, where it would turn east to reach the western terminus of the Westside Freeway.  Since 43 bisects Stockdale at just about the halfway point between that terminus and I-5, it would mean less total mileage to maintain.   Nevertheless, all speculation about interim routings is moot until Caltrans gives some sort of indication about a Westside extension out to I-5 and roughly when that will occur.  But with the above alternative traffic segueing from CA 58 to NB I-5 and vice-versa would continue to be routed past the Buttonwillow frontage road "business district".   Not that Caltrans is inherently interested in maintaining the commercial status quo -- but if sufficient voices emanating from the corporations and other parties that benefit from the current arrangement are heard by D6, consideration may be given to an interim mode that exhibits that effect.

You make a great point about the possible direction of a westward extension; it's only about six miles to I-5 going southwest from the end of the Westside Freeway while about nine miles along Stockdale Highway. Another reason for a more southwesterly option to I-5 is the cost of land acquisition. The land along Stockdale Highway is farmland. Not expensive, but certainly more expensive than the undeveloped land south of the canal just 1/2 mile south of Stockdale Highway.

A four-lane expressway on the current Stockdale Highway might be a quick and reasonable short term solution for the inevitable increased traffic once the Westside Freeway is built. It will certainly be simpler and cheaper than a freeway extension to I-5. An upgrade is inevitable regardless as more traffic turns the current two lane road into what will likely be called "Bloody Stockdale" once the accident rates skyrocket. How long it takes is unfortunately up the Caltrans and the state legislature.

Kniwt

Perhaps slightly significant, and something I didn't realize until I just checked: The city limits of Bakersfield now extend all the way -- just barely -- to I-5, in a narrow southwesterly strip along the Kern River, to just north of where CA 43 meets I-5, but well south of where the Westside Freeway/Expressway would presumably otherwise go.


Max Rockatansky

Quote from: Kniwt on August 20, 2019, 07:17:02 PM
Perhaps slightly significant, and something I didn't realize until I just checked: The city limits of Bakersfield now extend all the way -- just barely -- to I-5, in a narrow southwesterly strip along the Kern River, to just north of where CA 43 meets I-5, but well south of where the Westside Freeway/Expressway would presumably otherwise go.



I'm not so sure, Ward 4 essentially follows the flow of the Kern River.  It would make sense for the city to want exclusive access to that water.  That would make for a pretty impractical southward jog for CA 58 traffic. 

nexus73

Quote from: Kniwt on August 20, 2019, 07:17:02 PM
Perhaps slightly significant, and something I didn't realize until I just checked: The city limits of Bakersfield now extend all the way -- just barely -- to I-5, in a narrow southwesterly strip along the Kern River, to just north of where CA 43 meets I-5, but well south of where the Westside Freeway/Expressway would presumably otherwise go.



In 100 years Bakersfield will be all over the south end of the Valley and engulf I-5 if the current map showing settlement sees expansion.  All the old "I-5 Bakersfield" button copy signs will be correct once more...LOL!

Rick
US 101 is THE backbone of the Pacific coast from Bandon OR to Willits CA.  Industry, tourism and local traffic would be gone or severely crippled without it being in functioning condition in BOTH states.

skluth

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 20, 2019, 07:29:32 PM
Quote from: Kniwt on August 20, 2019, 07:17:02 PM
Perhaps slightly significant, and something I didn't realize until I just checked: The city limits of Bakersfield now extend all the way -- just barely -- to I-5, in a narrow southwesterly strip along the Kern River, to just north of where CA 43 meets I-5, but well south of where the Westside Freeway/Expressway would presumably otherwise go.



I'm not so sure, Ward 4 essentially follows the flow of the Kern River.  It would make sense for the city to want exclusive access to that water.  That would make for a pretty impractical southward jog for CA 58 traffic.

Creating a right-of-way to a point running about two miles north of the I-5/CA 43 interchange would still be only 6.5 miles. It's more a WSW direction, but it's still shorter. It would still be through mostly undeveloped land rather than buying farmland and ranches (and cheaper to buy) and stays entirely out of Bakersfield. No idea if there are mitigating environmental concerns by being closer to the Kern River or what might be wetland.

Max Rockatansky

Quote from: skluth on August 20, 2019, 08:14:28 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 20, 2019, 07:29:32 PM
Quote from: Kniwt on August 20, 2019, 07:17:02 PM
Perhaps slightly significant, and something I didn't realize until I just checked: The city limits of Bakersfield now extend all the way -- just barely -- to I-5, in a narrow southwesterly strip along the Kern River, to just north of where CA 43 meets I-5, but well south of where the Westside Freeway/Expressway would presumably otherwise go.



I'm not so sure, Ward 4 essentially follows the flow of the Kern River.  It would make sense for the city to want exclusive access to that water.  That would make for a pretty impractical southward jog for CA 58 traffic.

Creating a right-of-way to a point running about two miles north of the I-5/CA 43 interchange would still be only 6.5 miles. It's more a WSW direction, but it's still shorter. It would still be through mostly undeveloped land rather than buying farmland and ranches (and cheaper to buy) and stays entirely out of Bakersfield. No idea if there are mitigating environmental concerns by being closer to the Kern River or what might be wetland.

I doubt anyone down in the Bakersfield area would object to development along the Kern River/Buena Vista Lake watershed.  That water basin essentially has been engineered to extinction west of Bakersfield almost a century ago.  I doubt there would be little to no resistance on a environmental impact study.  The ranchers and oil people down there would probably be in favor of such an alignment also. 

sparker

^^^^^^^^^^
The only thing that might pose an obstacle for a Westside/58 alignment alongside the Kern River channel would be something similar to what's found elsewhere in CA regarding nominally dry rivers -- sand and broken-up rocks on or near the surface, with anything resembling bedrock far beneath the surface.  Makes anchoring structures and/or roadbed problematic (like CA 210 across the Santa Ana River channel north of Redlands).  Caltrans (and/or the lead agency here) would likely be wise to do extensive geological research -- or at least keep a safe distance from the riverbed itself -- which would likely mean traversing farmland (which would likely add to the cost of ROW acquisition versus right alongside the channel). 

But Max is probably correct with his guess that Bakersfield annexed the riverbed in order to maintain control over any water distribution from it; the Westside will likely simply head west within shouting distance of Stockdale.   

Max Rockatansky

Finished up the blog post for CA 58 west of CA 43 to US 101 in Santa Margarita.  CA 58 prior to 1964 was part of CA 178 which seems to be renumbered to match the hidden designation of Legislative Route 58.  CA 58 west of CA 43 traverses some interesting terrain through the Elk Hills, Temblor Range, Carrizo Plains and La Panza Range before reaching a terminus as US 101 near Cuesta Pass.  I generally only encounter about 12-15 cars on this stretch of CA 58 since it is not a very popular crossing of the Coast Ranges over CA 166 and CA 46.  Of interest CA 178 originally was aligned on Pozo Road until circa 1956 when it was aligned to the north on a new route which included the 1914 Salinas River Bridge.  Personally I always thought that this portion of CA 58 fit in way more with the character of CA 178 than CA 58.  With the Centennial Corridor project coming closer to completion and the relinquishment of CA 178 in downtown Bakersfield at minimum this segment of CA 58 will have more continuity with the rest of CA 58 east of CA 99.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2019/08/california-state-route-58old-california.html

sparker

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 23, 2019, 04:55:20 PM
Finished up the blog post for CA 58 west of CA 43 to US 101 in Santa Margarita.  CA 58 prior to 1964 was part of CA 178 which seems to be renumbered to match the hidden designation of Legislative Route 58.  CA 58 west of CA 43 traverses some interesting terrain through the Elk Hills, Temblor Range, Carrizo Plains and La Panza Range before reaching a terminus as US 101 near Cuesta Pass.  I generally only encounter about 12-15 cars on this stretch of CA 58 since it is not a very popular crossing of the Coast Ranges over CA 166 and CA 46.  Of interest CA 178 originally was aligned on Pozo Road until circa 1956 when it was aligned to the north on a new route which included the 1914 Salinas River Bridge.  Personally I always thought that this portion of CA 58 fit in way more with the character of CA 178 than CA 58.  With the Centennial Corridor project coming closer to completion and the relinquishment of CA 178 in downtown Bakersfield at minimum this segment of CA 58 will have more continuity with the rest of CA 58 east of CA 99.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2019/08/california-state-route-58old-california.html

CA 58 west of I-5 does look like it's in another world compared to the more heavily traveled segments across the Tehachapi and through the desert; in that respect, the western segment looks more like parts of CA 178.  If by any chance down the line CA 58 east of I-5 becomes a I-40 extension, reviving the original CA 178 (despite the Bakersfield relinquishments along its own recent route and that of CA 58 as well) to take over what's left of 58 west of CA 99/Bakersfield, IMO, would be a fine idea!  It certainly would be the longest E-W state route -- the gap between Trona and Death Valley notwithstanding. 

Max Rockatansky

Quote from: sparker on August 23, 2019, 06:40:08 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 23, 2019, 04:55:20 PM
Finished up the blog post for CA 58 west of CA 43 to US 101 in Santa Margarita.  CA 58 prior to 1964 was part of CA 178 which seems to be renumbered to match the hidden designation of Legislative Route 58.  CA 58 west of CA 43 traverses some interesting terrain through the Elk Hills, Temblor Range, Carrizo Plains and La Panza Range before reaching a terminus as US 101 near Cuesta Pass.  I generally only encounter about 12-15 cars on this stretch of CA 58 since it is not a very popular crossing of the Coast Ranges over CA 166 and CA 46.  Of interest CA 178 originally was aligned on Pozo Road until circa 1956 when it was aligned to the north on a new route which included the 1914 Salinas River Bridge.  Personally I always thought that this portion of CA 58 fit in way more with the character of CA 178 than CA 58.  With the Centennial Corridor project coming closer to completion and the relinquishment of CA 178 in downtown Bakersfield at minimum this segment of CA 58 will have more continuity with the rest of CA 58 east of CA 99.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2019/08/california-state-route-58old-california.html

CA 58 west of I-5 does look like it's in another world compared to the more heavily traveled segments across the Tehachapi and through the desert; in that respect, the western segment looks more like parts of CA 178.  If by any chance down the line CA 58 east of I-5 becomes a I-40 extension, reviving the original CA 178 (despite the Bakersfield relinquishments along its own recent route and that of CA 58 as well) to take over what's left of 58 west of CA 99/Bakersfield, IMO, would be a fine idea!  It certainly would be the longest E-W state route -- the gap between Trona and Death Valley notwithstanding.

To my knowledge Bakersfield still signs CA 178 through downtown to CA 99/58.  But if I recall correctly isn't much of CA 58 on Rosedale Highway in Bakersfield already relinquished as well?  I'm assuming (without looking the ramp) that CA 178 could just be routed down CA 204 on Union to reach CA 58.  The multiplex required for CA 178 tends to make me think that CA 58 west of I-5 would be better in the scenario of a Bakersfield/I-5 extension of I-40. 

sparker

^^^^^^^
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). 

Max Rockatansky

#24
Quote from: sparker on August 24, 2019, 03:54:36 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).

Here is what is posted from 99 south; To 178 and CA 58 on Rosedale Highway.  I would assume the reason it isn't "To 58"  is because the actual relinquishment area is to the west on Rosedale between Allen and Mohawk:

https://flic.kr/p/2fYfYAB

I'd be all on board with having continuation on Rosedale for CA 178 but it isn't keeping with the present themes of State Highways being signed almost entirely on State Maintained roadways.  It seems that even D6 (espite the surface CA 178 signage remaining in Bakersfield still wants to illustrate the difference in who maintains what with the "TO 178" on the overhead gantry.



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.