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

[ClassicHasClass]

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?

I don't know what they do with old records, but yes, the postmiles are expected to change. If they change the road alignment, it may get marked with an R or M indicating the road was realigned (M is a double realignment) or an L for linking or lengthening.

As an example, former CA 109 in San Diego was absorbed into I-8 as an extension to Nimitz Blvd/Sunset Cliffs Blvd in 1972. Since I-8's original terminus was I-5 and CA 109 extended west of that, Caltrans yanked the Route 109 postmiles and replaced them with Route 8 postmiles marked L so that it didn't have to recompute all the mileage east of that point to the Arizona state line. I have pictures of this but I don't have them posted yet.

However, as another example actually in the field, compare Kearny Villa Rd (former US 395, briefly I-15) with modern I-15: https://www.floodgap.com/roadgap/395/old/u3/#img_30

[ClassicHasClass]

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?

No. The current postmile system didn't exist until the 1964 Great Renumbering. Prior to this the Division of Highways used station markers. Here's one on old US 399 next to an even older C-block in Taft: https://www.floodgap.com/roadgap/399/u6/#img_46

[kkt]

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?

I don't know what they do with old records, but yes, the postmiles are expected to change. If they change the road alignment, it may get marked with an R or M indicating the road was realigned (M is a double realignment) or an L for linking or lengthening.

As an example, former CA 109 in San Diego was absorbed into I-8 as an extension to Nimitz Blvd/Sunset Cliffs Blvd in 1972. Since I-8's original terminus was I-5 and CA 109 extended west of that, Caltrans yanked the Route 109 postmiles and replaced them with Route 8 postmiles marked L so that it didn't have to recompute all the mileage east of that point to the Arizona state line. I have pictures of this but I don't have them posted yet.

However, as another example actually in the field, compare Kearny Villa Rd (former US 395, briefly I-15) with modern I-15: https://www.floodgap.com/roadgap/395/old/u3/#img_30

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?

No. The current postmile system didn't exist until the 1964 Great Renumbering. Prior to this the Division of Highways used station markers. Here's one on old US 399 next to an even older C-block in Taft: https://www.floodgap.com/roadgap/399/u6/#img_46

Thank you, these are both very helpful!  So if CA 58 from Barstow to CA 99 is made into I-40, it might get "L" prefixed numbers with the CA 58 mileage.  Then they'd just need exit numbers, but as pointed out there are not huge numbers of them.

[sprjus4]

Wouldn't it just be simpler to renumber all the mile markers and exits? There would be more cost upfront, but better in the long run, continuity, less confusion, etc.

[stevashe]

Wouldn't it just be simpler to renumber all the mile markers and exits? There would be more cost upfront, but better in the long run, continuity, less confusion, etc.

We are proposing to renumber all the exits. As for mile markers, Caltrans does not post them. If you're referring to post mile paddles, they're only really for maintenance purposes so lack of continuity isn't really an issue.

[sparker]

Wouldn't it just be simpler to renumber all the mile markers and exits? There would be more cost upfront, but better in the long run, continuity, less confusion, etc.

We are proposing to renumber all the exits. As for mile markers, Caltrans does not post them. If you're referring to post mile paddles, they're only really for maintenance purposes so lack of continuity isn't really an issue.

Caltrans has never bought into the need for mile markers -- hell, it wasn't until 1995 that they started to post exit numbers statewide on both Interstate and longer-distance state routes (as necessary for discontinuous freeways).  Part of the reasons for the reluctance to number exits was, frankly, to single out CA as a place where impersonal references such as exit numbers weren't particularly welcome; a phrase tossed around in CT's Sacramento HQ in the early '90's when pressure was being felt to capitulate to the national standard was: "Hey, we're NOT New Jersey!" in reference to the cliche' that NJ folks described their location by NJT exit numbers, as in "I live off Exit 7!".  But the argument regarding systemic consistency vs. iconoclasm eventually went in favor of the former.

That being said -- ironically, CA 58 is one of the few places where the mile-marker concept was tested (Mojave bypass, 2003) -- but not duplicated. 

[TheStranger]

Caltrans has never bought into the need for mile markers -- hell, it wasn't until 1995 that they started to post exit numbers statewide on both Interstate and longer-distance state routes (as necessary for discontinuous freeways).  Part of the reasons for the reluctance to number exits was, frankly, to single out CA as a place where impersonal references such as exit numbers weren't particularly welcome; a phrase tossed around in CT's Sacramento HQ in the early '90's when pressure was being felt to capitulate to the national standard was: "Hey, we're NOT New Jersey!" in reference to the cliche' that NJ folks described their location by NJT exit numbers, as in "I live off Exit 7!".  But the argument regarding systemic consistency vs. iconoclasm eventually went in favor of the former.

IIRC the first new exit numbering installations in California were ca. 2001 (I remember discussions about this on misc.transport.road back in that era).  Prior to that, there was an experimental program in the Los Angeles metro area in 1971 with center-tabbed mileage based numbers, some of which can still be found near downtown Los Angeles.  For the 1971 project, numbering was installed on the following:

- parts of the Harbor Freeway and Pasadena Freeway (Arroyo Seco Parkway) around the Four-Level Interchange

- the entirety of the US 101 segment of the Santa Ana Freeway

- the portion of Santa Ana Freeway/I-5 from US 101 to just before the Long Beach Freeway

- the San Bernardino Freeway from US 101 to about 5-10 miles east (though 1980s Rand McNally maps showed numbering further out, I can only remember seeing it go for a short distance east)

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^^^^
The current exit sign installation on the Santa Ana/I-5 Freeway was in process about the time I moved from Oregon down to Anaheim Hills in the spring of 1997; it had extended north onto the Golden State portion of I-5 by early 1998.  The 1970-71 Caltrans "experiment" with exit numbers did include portions of the I-10/San Bernardino Freeway, including the segment cited above; a second segment from the CA 57/71/(then) I-210 interchange near Pomona (which was only partially in use then) out to the L.A. County Line (the city limit line of Pomona and Montclair to the east in San Bernardino County) was likewise signed.  The signage commencing at US 101 extended east to the CA 19/Rosemead Blvd. interchange; it's likely it wasn't extended farther because the segment of that freeway through El Monte and West Covina was in the process of being widened at the time, and several ramp configurations were changed as well.   Curiously, the secondary signs on the Rosemead Blvd. C/D lanes straddling the main I-10 carriageways were changed in 1970 to read the actual legislated number of the surface road, CA 164 (although all the reassurance signage on Rosemead still read CA 19!).  That was corrected back to CA 19 in the fall of 1972, and hasn't changed since then, although much of CA 19 has been relinquished (depending upon the local jurisdictions' whims). 

[ClassicHasClass]

So if CA 58 from Barstow to CA 99 is made into I-40, it might get "L" prefixed numbers with the CA 58 mileage.

That's one possible solution (to use PMs for Route 40 with L mileage from Barstow west), but the L designation would only have to be to the Kern county line (i.e., Boron) since postmiles reset at county borders.

[sparker]

So if CA 58 from Barstow to CA 99 is made into I-40, it might get "L" prefixed numbers with the CA 58 mileage.

That's one possible solution (to use PMs for Route 40 with L mileage from Barstow west), but the L designation would only have to be to the Kern county line (i.e., Boron) since postmiles reset at county borders.

Since the Kern County portion of CA 58 begins at the San Luis Obispo/Kern county line west of McKittrick -- and it's likely I-40 wouldn't extend west of I-5, some 30-odd miles east of there, exit numbers would likely have to be changed in both affected counties -- along with the postmiles within Kern County (of course, the San Bernardino County section wouldn't change save combining the CA 58 and extant I-40 mileages).  But the postmile paddles would need to be themselves changed to reflect the numerical change from "58" to "40", so it's likely that a fresh calculus of mileages reflecting the route from I-5 to the county line near Boron would be reflected in the new set of white postings.  Knowing Caltrans' usual practice here, if the route number changed, new postmile indicators would be cobbled up at the D6 and D8 paint shops to replace the old markers -- a lot more efficient than altering the existing ones in the field.  If that is the case, letter prefixes such as "L" would be moot, at least in Kern County.     

[pderocco]

Why don't they just use negative mile numbers when the lengthen it to the west? I know there's no precedent for that, but hey, they're just numbers. You can still subtract to find the distance between any two exits.

[pderocco]

BTW, I drove through the construction zone on 2/15, and the Truxton Ave OC is structurally mostly done, but it ends in a big pile of dirt. Not much to show for the California Ave OC. It looks like the freeway will dip down in order to go underneath (I think) Marella Way. Not much work yet on the Stockdale Hwy OC, but the Real Rd OC is pretty far along.

All in all, it seems to be going pretty slowly, compared to the Kramer Junction Bypass project.

[sprjus4]

Why don't they just use negative mile numbers when the lengthen it to the west? I know there's no precedent for that, but hey, they're just numbers. You can still subtract to find the distance between any two exits.

Confusion with positive mile numbers.

[sparker]

Why don't they just use negative mile numbers when the lengthen it to the west? I know there's no precedent for that, but hey, they're just numbers. You can still subtract to find the distance between any two exits.

Confusion with positive mile numbers.

If the number "40" is applied to the entirety of CA 58 -- regardless of the final configuration of the Westside -- it'll likely include a resetting of mileage-based exit numbers to the 5/40 interchange, wherever that is, and proceeding east from there all the way to the AZ state line, like with all Interstates.  CA doesn't worry about mileposts, so it's just the exit numbers that would be affected -- and there are damn few of them currently posted between I-15 and AZ.  That being said -- all this is purely speculative; if Caltrans can't be bothered to sign currently appropriate Interstate mileage (do remember that much of that is in D8, the home of most of CA 210!), the prospects for an I-40 are indeed presently "fictional" in nature -- especially since it isn't all freeway, and plans to upgrade it to such don't currently exist.  The chances of my avatar being posted west of Barstow are under today's circumstances slim and none! 

[BakoCondors]

^^^^^^^^^^
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...

I would think they would. The existing signage has space reserved for exit numbers. My guess based on the 58/99 interchange currently being exit 110: the exits at Mohawk St would be 108, Coffee Rd 107, Calloway Dr 105 and Allen Rd 104. That's incumbent on the Parkway being transferred from City of Bakersfield to CalTrans control.

[coatimundi]

^^^^^^^^^^
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...

I would think they would. The existing signage has space reserved for exit numbers. My guess based on the 58/99 interchange currently being exit 110: the exits at Mohawk St would be 108, Coffee Rd 107, Calloway Dr 105 and Allen Rd 104. That's incumbent on the Parkway being transferred from City of Bakersfield to CalTrans control.

And maybe I'm missing in this thread where the info is on Caltrans (or anyone) actually wishing CA 58 to be moved. Because it's not just about putting it onto the Westside Parkway, but also onto Stockdale Highway, which would be a big deal considering that Stockdale is a county road and not really up to state highway standards in a lot of places. I think Caltrans is just as cognizant as others as to the fact that route numbers are less significant than they once were since most people will just plug it in to their GPS. Personally, I think the exit numbers of the Westside Parkway will be sequential, going east to west, for a long time after it's finished. I realize that will create a discrepancy between the numbers west of 99 and east of 99, but they won't overlap, and I don't think anyone will be too confused by it.

[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...

I would think they would. The existing signage has space reserved for exit numbers. My guess based on the 58/99 interchange currently being exit 110: the exits at Mohawk St would be 108, Coffee Rd 107, Calloway Dr 105 and Allen Rd 104. That's incumbent on the Parkway being transferred from City of Bakersfield to CalTrans control.

And maybe I'm missing in this thread where the info is on Caltrans (or anyone) actually wishing CA 58 to be moved. Because it's not just about putting it onto the Westside Parkway, but also onto Stockdale Highway, which would be a big deal considering that Stockdale is a county road and not really up to state highway standards in a lot of places. I think Caltrans is just as cognizant as others as to the fact that route numbers are less significant than they once were since most people will just plug it in to their GPS. Personally, I think the exit numbers of the Westside Parkway will be sequential, going east to west, for a long time after it's finished. I realize that will create a discrepancy between the numbers west of 99 and east of 99, but they won't overlap, and I don't think anyone will be too confused by it.

If the Westside Freeway were to continue to exist as a stand-alone locally maintained facility, I'd venture that it wouldn't employ exit numbers at all.  But because it's going to be a functional western extension of CA 58 when the connecting freeway is finished, it'll likely simply use exit numbers counting backwards, mileage-wise, from 110, the current 58/99 interchange number from the 58 POV.  Whether those numbers will post only over the new section under construction at this time or extend over the previously constructed Westside all the way out to the terminus at Stockdale will likely depend upon any maintenance negotiations between the city and Caltrans.   

[BakoCondors]

Stockdale Hwy is is much better condition that the current two-lane 58 west of Bakersfield. If it's not up to state highway standards, it's close to them. I've driven it many times. It wouldn't take much work or dollars to bring it up to standard. Rerouting 58 onto Stockdale would also eliminate the discontinuity at Enos Lane (Hwy 43).

I'll have to do some research to confirm but I believe the plan for the Parkway has always been transferring operational control to CalTrans upon the completion of the Centennial Corridor. We'll see...

[skluth]

And maybe I'm missing in this thread where the info is on Caltrans (or anyone) actually wishing CA 58 to be moved. Because it's not just about putting it onto the Westside Parkway, but also onto Stockdale Highway, which would be a big deal considering that Stockdale is a county road and not really up to state highway standards in a lot of places. I think Caltrans is just as cognizant as others as to the fact that route numbers are less significant than they once were since most people will just plug it in to their GPS.

Honestly, I don't think it matters if anyone wants CA 58 or a new number on the Westside Parkway and Stockdale Highway. You're right that it doesn't matter if GPS units direct drivers to the route and make it the de facto route. I'm more concerned as to whether the current Stockdale Highway will be able to handle the increased traffic, especially truck traffic which might outstrip the current road's design. 

[sparker]

And maybe I'm missing in this thread where the info is on Caltrans (or anyone) actually wishing CA 58 to be moved. Because it's not just about putting it onto the Westside Parkway, but also onto Stockdale Highway, which would be a big deal considering that Stockdale is a county road and not really up to state highway standards in a lot of places. I think Caltrans is just as cognizant as others as to the fact that route numbers are less significant than they once were since most people will just plug it in to their GPS.

Honestly, I don't think it matters if anyone wants CA 58 or a new number on the Westside Parkway and Stockdale Highway. You're right that it doesn't matter if GPS units direct drivers to the route and make it the de facto route. I'm more concerned as to whether the current Stockdale Highway will be able to handle the increased traffic, especially truck traffic which might outstrip the current road's design. 

Truck traffic has been using CA 58 between I-5 and CA 99 for 40+ years now, including the "jog" on CA 43 requiring a couple of right-angle turns.  Unless the underpinning of Stockdale is significantly less robust than that of the current highway, there should be no issues (save some as of yet unknown loss of business for the roadside businesses at the current 5/58 junction) with trucks using Stockdale west to I-5.  But with Caltrans' historic reluctance to assume maintenance of county roads, I wouldn't be at all surprised if, at least in the interim until plans for the Westside to extend all the way to I-5 are finalized, they only assume ownership of Stockdale west to CA 43, functionally extending the aforementioned "jog" southward, which would, if some traffic continues to use the signed route, keep the Buttonwillow businesses happy for the time being -- although many GPS-equipped folks, commercial drivers included, may simply stay on Stockdale to I-5 anyway.  At that point Caltrans could go ahead and relinquish all of present 58 between 43 and 99, not just that segment within Bakersfield city limits. 

[coatimundi]

And maybe I'm missing in this thread where the info is on Caltrans (or anyone) actually wishing CA 58 to be moved. Because it's not just about putting it onto the Westside Parkway, but also onto Stockdale Highway, which would be a big deal considering that Stockdale is a county road and not really up to state highway standards in a lot of places. I think Caltrans is just as cognizant as others as to the fact that route numbers are less significant than they once were since most people will just plug it in to their GPS.

Honestly, I don't think it matters if anyone wants CA 58 or a new number on the Westside Parkway and Stockdale Highway. You're right that it doesn't matter if GPS units direct drivers to the route and make it the de facto route. I'm more concerned as to whether the current Stockdale Highway will be able to handle the increased traffic, especially truck traffic which might outstrip the current road's design.

I would imagine the people who bought into that stretch of Stockdale west of the parkway's current end would be pretty resistant to the concept of increased truck traffic behind them. There are some very nice houses over there, and that money would cause a lot of noise. At the same time,

Stockdale Highway was a grade railroad crossing, and I think that alone would be too much for the state to take on considering the engineering changes. Just looking at it, and the fact that it's diagonal (which changes the design guidelines), you can already see the sight lines aren't there, but I'm sure there's a lot more. If they ever build the freeway to I-5, there's a chance of routing change for 58 since an overpass would be necessary anyway, but I still think there would be a lot noise from the local residents.

[Bobby5280]

What's going on with the plots of farm land to the South of Stockdale Highway immediately West of the Westside Parkway end? Are those already being gobbled up by retail/residential real estate developers?

As long as a bunch of new properties didn't immediately pop up on that land it would seem possible to sink a new freeway extension into a trench and/or erect sound walls. The existing Stockdale Highway could be converted into a parallel service road for that stretch. But if the South side of Stockdale Highway is going to get quickly covered up by a bunch of new properties that would make it a whole lot harder to create an Interstate quality connection between I-5 and Westside Parkway. That would be too bad for everyone because heavy trucks are still going to be on that route big time.

[sparker]

What's going on with the plots of farm land to the South of Stockdale Highway immediately West of the Westside Parkway end? Are those already being gobbled up by retail/residential real estate developers?

As long as a bunch of new properties didn't immediately pop up on that land it would seem possible to sink a new freeway extension into a trench and/or erect sound walls. The existing Stockdale Highway could be converted into a parallel service road for that stretch. But if the South side of Stockdale Highway is going to get quickly covered up by a bunch of new properties that would make it a whole lot harder to create an Interstate quality connection between I-5 and Westside Parkway. That would be too bad for everyone because heavy trucks are still going to be on that route big time.

Since the City of Bakersfield-controlled (at least until ceded to Caltrans) Westside Parkway leaves the city limits to terminate in an unincorporated area of Kern County, there may be no existing agreement to preserve ROW west of the present terminus -- which is definitely a problem.  OTOH, any developer with triple-digit IQ would realize that the area's property values would only increase once the Westside is extended west to I-5 and would hedge their bets by either (a) arranging for an ample corridor for the facility between their developable tracts or (b) simply working with Caltrans, the Kern/Bakersfield MPO, and any other relevant agency to hold off actual housing/commercial construction until an alignment was finalized.  The (b) choice would be optimal -- and likely the choice of all concerned, including Caltrans and the local jurisdiction, but unless they act promptly to reserve their choice of alignment, the owners of the land can and probably will act within their legal rights.  Being a locally-initiated facility rather as part of a longer pre-planned Caltrans corridor is definitely a drawback here, since it doesn't seem to have incorporated definitive extension plans into its "brief". 

[don1991]

And maybe I'm missing in this thread where the info is on Caltrans (or anyone) actually wishing CA 58 to be moved. Because it's not just about putting it onto the Westside Parkway, but also onto Stockdale Highway, which would be a big deal considering that Stockdale is a county road and not really up to state highway standards in a lot of places. I think Caltrans is just as cognizant as others as to the fact that route numbers are less significant than they once were since most people will just plug it in to their GPS.

Honestly, I don't think it matters if anyone wants CA 58 or a new number on the Westside Parkway and Stockdale Highway. You're right that it doesn't matter if GPS units direct drivers to the route and make it the de facto route. I'm more concerned as to whether the current Stockdale Highway will be able to handle the increased traffic, especially truck traffic which might outstrip the current road's design.

Westside Parkway and the Centennial Corridor under construction definitely will become CA-58 upon completion.  Because the 99 / 58 interchange will be missing a couple of connectors, there will be some use of Rosedale Highway to Mohawk until those connectors are eventually built (there are no firm plans for those missing connectors right now).  I have read about the decision though I can't find the source as of right now.  Also, notice that the signs on Westside Parkway have the greened out areas ready for the exit numbers once the freeway is complete and the state takes over maintenance.  Rosedale Hwy has already been decommissioned, though as I noted, portions will be used as a de facto route until the missing connectors are built.

Stockdale Highway will become the new 58 once the freeway ends.  That is one reason for the new round-a-bout at CA-43 Enos Lane and Stockdale Highway.  Stockdale Hwy will be 58 until the freeway is completed to I-5.  There are no current firm plans for that freeway yet nor will there be ROW preservation (for now) but the intent is there to finish the 58 to I-5.

[don1991]

By the way, if you search on YouTube, there is a local resident who flies a drone over the entire Centennial construction corridor about once a month or so and provides excellent overhead views of the construction.  His last update was just 4 days ago.  Very cool since I haven't had the time to go up there lately.  They are quite deep into the construction at this point.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lpEtF74NqI