News:

why is this up in the corner now

Main Menu

Is CA 132 open yet in Modesto?

Started by thsftw, November 10, 2022, 06:22:33 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

thsftw

I was looking at planning a trip this weekend in Yosemite and I thought to avoid the annoyance of Tracy and Manteca to 99 that I'd take 132 since the new freeway alignment from North Dakota ave to 99 is complete, taking a ton of time off that trip direction...it seems like its however not actually open? Judging from posts on Facebook from angry Modestoans, it just...didn't open? Anyone know anything about why?


Max Rockatansky

CHP announced it as open west of CA 99 earlier this week.

Concrete Bob

Google Maps just added the new stretch of 132 a couple of hours ago.


Max Rockatansky

Took a drive on the new Super Two freeway this past weekend:

IMG_4906 by Max Rockatansky, on Flickr

IMG_4908 by Max Rockatansky, on Flickr

IMG_4909 by Max Rockatansky, on Flickr

IMG_4911 by Max Rockatansky, on Flickr

IMG_4914 by Max Rockatansky, on Flickr

IMG_4918 by Max Rockatansky, on Flickr

IMG_4919 by Max Rockatansky, on Flickr

IMG_4922 by Max Rockatansky, on Flickr

IMG_4923 by Max Rockatansky, on Flickr

IMG_4925 by Max Rockatansky, on Flickr

IMG_4927 by Max Rockatansky, on Flickr

IMG_4930 by Max Rockatansky, on Flickr

IMG_4931 by Max Rockatansky, on Flickr

IMG_4931 by Max Rockatansky, on Flickr

IMG_4934 by Max Rockatansky, on Flickr

IMG_4936 by Max Rockatansky, on Flickr

IMG_4938 by Max Rockatansky, on Flickr

rte66man

I've not seen a super-2 freeway like this before. I'm used to seeing one side or the other being done. Did CaDOT do this because they didn't have the money to make it a full freeway?
When you come to a fork in the road... TAKE IT.

                                                               -Yogi Berra

Max Rockatansky

It was built this way likely to get some fast traffic relief off of Maze.  Long term the corridor is planned to be constructed further west and tie into the existing highway closer to the San Joaquin River.  So far there is only one functional freeway to freeway movement between 132 east and 99 south.

FWIW the current freeway is wide enough for four lanes.  Some rando even passed me on the shoulder while I was taking my photos as if it was an actual active lane.

heynow415

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 24, 2024, 09:02:54 AMIt was built this way likely to get some fast traffic relief off of Maze.  Long term the corridor is planned to be constructed further west and tie into the existing highway closer to the San Joaquin River.  So far there is only one functional freeway to freeway movement between 132 east and 99 south.

FWIW the current freeway is wide enough for four lanes.  Some rando even passed me on the shoulder while I was taking my photos as if it was an actual active lane.

Looking at it in GEarth, it sure looks like there is supposed to be (or at least has the right of way for) a diamond interchange at Carpenter Road, but only on the north side/westbound.  Seems like there's an lot of development in that area that would benefit from an interchange. But I'm not seeing how eastbound ramps could be done without a lot of condemnation.  Perhaps the ultimate plans for the 99 interchange would include flyovers that would mean a Carpenter Road interchange would be too close to meet ramp distance separation standards? 

TheStranger

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 24, 2024, 09:02:54 AMIt was built this way likely to get some fast traffic relief off of Maze.  Long term the corridor is planned to be constructed further west and tie into the existing highway closer to the San Joaquin River.  So far there is only one functional freeway to freeway movement between 132 east and 99 south.

Looking at the current northbound-to-westbound configuration (which involves 132 west taking a ramp to an intersection with Neeedham Street, and traffic from 99 north also having to use Kansas Avenue in a pseudo-cloverleaf fashion)...

I recall that the grading has existed since around 1962 for a northbound-to-westbound flyover (as the 132 freeway here was originally planned in the 1950s as part of proposed I-5W).  Is there still enough room for that to ever be built or is the current surface-streets-required setup the likely permanent layout here?
Chris Sampang

Voyager

This freeway upsets me so much, I don't understand the design whatsoever because the ramps from 132 to 99 could easily be built...but weren't? There's so many unnecessary traffic routings that you wonder why they built the freeway at all (you still have to connect back to 99 from 132 going south by going a few blocks through the downtown street grid and taking a slip ramp to 99 south.

UGH.
AARoads Forum Original

Max Rockatansky

Quote from: TheStranger on December 24, 2024, 01:00:49 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 24, 2024, 09:02:54 AMIt was built this way likely to get some fast traffic relief off of Maze.  Long term the corridor is planned to be constructed further west and tie into the existing highway closer to the San Joaquin River.  So far there is only one functional freeway to freeway movement between 132 east and 99 south.

Looking at the current northbound-to-westbound configuration (which involves 132 west taking a ramp to an intersection with Neeedham Street, and traffic from 99 north also having to use Kansas Avenue in a pseudo-cloverleaf fashion)...

I recall that the grading has existed since around 1962 for a northbound-to-westbound flyover (as the 132 freeway here was originally planned in the 1950s as part of proposed I-5W).  Is there still enough room for that to ever be built or is the current surface-streets-required setup the likely permanent layout here?

Unless I'm missing something it doesn't appear the interchange is being upgraded any time soon.  It looks as though the Stanislaus County Supervisors want Caltrans to prioritize extending the new corridor west to the San Joaquin River.

https://www.cahighways.org/ROUTE132.html

Max Rockatansky

Quote from: Voyager on December 24, 2024, 01:17:24 PMThis freeway upsets me so much, I don't understand the design whatsoever because the ramps from 132 to 99 could easily be built...but weren't? There's so many unnecessary traffic routings that you wonder why they built the freeway at all (you still have to connect back to 99 from 132 going south by going a few blocks through the downtown street grid and taking a slip ramp to 99 south.

UGH.

FWIW this trip was a test run for me to see how viable taking 132 west from Modesto towards Tracy was.  I thought the new corridor even as it is presently constructed was an effective alternative to slogging down 120 and I-205.

Granted, I did use Kasson Road (County Routed J3 and J4) to reach Tracy Boulevard.  If I was looking to bypass Tracy completely taking 132 to/from I-580 is now a solid choice.

Voyager

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 24, 2024, 02:25:37 PM
Quote from: Voyager on December 24, 2024, 01:17:24 PMThis freeway upsets me so much, I don't understand the design whatsoever because the ramps from 132 to 99 could easily be built...but weren't? There's so many unnecessary traffic routings that you wonder why they built the freeway at all (you still have to connect back to 99 from 132 going south by going a few blocks through the downtown street grid and taking a slip ramp to 99 south.

UGH.

FWIW this trip was a test run for me to see how viable taking 132 west from Modesto towards Tracy was.  I thought the new corridor even as it is presently constructed was an effective alternative to slogging down 120 and I-205.

Granted, I did use Kasson Road (County Routed J3 and J4) to reach Tracy Boulevard.  If I was looking to bypass Tracy completely taking 132 to/from I-580 is now a solid choice.

I wanted to be able to use it as a Yosemite alternative as well instead of 120 which is a disaster and 205 which is also a disaster, not to mention the neverending 99 split lane construction zones, but as its currently built it doesn't seem like its that useful.
AARoads Forum Original

Max Rockatansky

#13
Quote from: Voyager on December 24, 2024, 03:03:02 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 24, 2024, 02:25:37 PM
Quote from: Voyager on December 24, 2024, 01:17:24 PMThis freeway upsets me so much, I don't understand the design whatsoever because the ramps from 132 to 99 could easily be built...but weren't? There's so many unnecessary traffic routings that you wonder why they built the freeway at all (you still have to connect back to 99 from 132 going south by going a few blocks through the downtown street grid and taking a slip ramp to 99 south.

UGH.

FWIW this trip was a test run for me to see how viable taking 132 west from Modesto towards Tracy was.  I thought the new corridor even as it is presently constructed was an effective alternative to slogging down 120 and I-205.

Granted, I did use Kasson Road (County Routed J3 and J4) to reach Tracy Boulevard.  If I was looking to bypass Tracy completely taking 132 to/from I-580 is now a solid choice.

I wanted to be able to use it as a Yosemite alternative as well instead of 120 which is a disaster and 205 which is also a disaster, not to mention the neverending 99 split lane construction zones, but as its currently built it doesn't seem like its that useful.

132 east of urban Modesto is very sparsely traveled.  In the La Grange area there is a couple worthwhile older bridges on the current highway and nearby older alignments.  J132 out of Coulterville is one of the more handy County Routes since it gets you east of the Priest Grades by the time it hits 120.

Voyager

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 24, 2024, 03:12:00 PM
Quote from: Voyager on December 24, 2024, 03:03:02 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 24, 2024, 02:25:37 PM
Quote from: Voyager on December 24, 2024, 01:17:24 PMThis freeway upsets me so much, I don't understand the design whatsoever because the ramps from 132 to 99 could easily be built...but weren't? There's so many unnecessary traffic routings that you wonder why they built the freeway at all (you still have to connect back to 99 from 132 going south by going a few blocks through the downtown street grid and taking a slip ramp to 99 south.

UGH.

FWIW this trip was a test run for me to see how viable taking 132 west from Modesto towards Tracy was.  I thought the new corridor even as it is presently constructed was an effective alternative to slogging down 120 and I-205.

Granted, I did use Kasson Road (County Routed J3 and J4) to reach Tracy Boulevard.  If I was looking to bypass Tracy completely taking 132 to/from I-580 is now a solid choice.

I wanted to be able to use it as a Yosemite alternative as well instead of 120 which is a disaster and 205 which is also a disaster, not to mention the neverending 99 split lane construction zones, but as its currently built it doesn't seem like its that useful.

132 east of urban Modesto is very sparsely traveled.  In the La Grange area there is a couple worthwhile older bridges on the current highway and nearby older alignments.  J132 out of Coulterville is one of the more handy County Routes since it gets you east of the Priest Grades by the time it hits 120.

I usually do 580/205/5/120/99/140 when I go to yosemite if I'm not taking the 120 way into the park - 132 hypothetically would make that trip so much faster if it was fully built to freeway status, but after you get to the end of the current freeway that starts on the 580 side, things slow down very fast (I got stuck behind a tractor once). Add in the weird way you have to get onto 99 in Modesto (which is still the same alignment even with the new freeway section), I don't really feel like its useful for thru traffic. Maybe when they extend the freeway it will be, but there's a reason that 120 freeway is still overused and this one gets barely any traffic.
AARoads Forum Original

Max Rockatansky

#15
Quote from: Voyager on December 24, 2024, 03:51:54 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 24, 2024, 03:12:00 PM
Quote from: Voyager on December 24, 2024, 03:03:02 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 24, 2024, 02:25:37 PM
Quote from: Voyager on December 24, 2024, 01:17:24 PMThis freeway upsets me so much, I don't understand the design whatsoever because the ramps from 132 to 99 could easily be built...but weren't? There's so many unnecessary traffic routings that you wonder why they built the freeway at all (you still have to connect back to 99 from 132 going south by going a few blocks through the downtown street grid and taking a slip ramp to 99 south.

UGH.

FWIW this trip was a test run for me to see how viable taking 132 west from Modesto towards Tracy was.  I thought the new corridor even as it is presently constructed was an effective alternative to slogging down 120 and I-205.

Granted, I did use Kasson Road (County Routed J3 and J4) to reach Tracy Boulevard.  If I was looking to bypass Tracy completely taking 132 to/from I-580 is now a solid choice.

I wanted to be able to use it as a Yosemite alternative as well instead of 120 which is a disaster and 205 which is also a disaster, not to mention the neverending 99 split lane construction zones, but as its currently built it doesn't seem like its that useful.

132 east of urban Modesto is very sparsely traveled.  In the La Grange area there is a couple worthwhile older bridges on the current highway and nearby older alignments.  J132 out of Coulterville is one of the more handy County Routes since it gets you east of the Priest Grades by the time it hits 120.

I usually do 580/205/5/120/99/140 when I go to yosemite if I'm not taking the 120 way into the park - 132 hypothetically would make that trip so much faster if it was fully built to freeway status, but after you get to the end of the current freeway that starts on the 580 side, things slow down very fast (I got stuck behind a tractor once). Add in the weird way you have to get onto 99 in Modesto (which is still the same alignment even with the new freeway section), I don't really feel like its useful for thru traffic. Maybe when they extend the freeway it will be, but there's a reason that 120 freeway is still overused and this one gets barely any traffic.

I can't say I've ever had much issue passing cars on the two lane segments of 132 on either side of Modesto.  I definitely have issues passing though on two lane portions of 120/108 due to the higher traffic count.  140 in your case seems like a pretty steep southward drop unless you are after the scenery on the Yosemite All-Year Highway (which I'll say is pretty top notch).

Regarding J132, that affords a unique opportunity if you have a high clearance vehicle.  From Coulterville it is pretty easy to branch off onto the Old Coulterville Road into Foresta.  That is the only accessible road corridor (I'm not counting the closed/abandoned portion of Foresta Road to El Portal) that avoids any of the pay stations and seasonal reservation system. 

My usual Yosemite Trip involves getting the park boundary via CA 41 and the Wawona Road just before sunrise.  I typically bail out on CA 140 and number of choice corridors south of Mariposa.  Ben Hur Road and Madera County Road 600 are particularly useful for avoiding pesky tourist traffic.  I've been pondering over how viable Road 800 given how much of a quality dirt road I've found that to be.

TheStranger

Quote from: Voyager on December 24, 2024, 03:51:54 PM132 hypothetically would make that trip so much faster if it was fully built to freeway status, but after you get to the end of the current freeway that starts on the 580 side, things slow down very fast (I got stuck behind a tractor once). Add in the weird way you have to get onto 99 in Modesto (which is still the same alignment even with the new freeway section), I don't really feel like its useful for thru traffic. Maybe when they extend the freeway it will be, but there's a reason that 120 freeway is still overused and this one gets barely any traffic.

Looking at Google Maps, I did see a random divided boulevard (Briggsmore Avenue) that starts where Carpenter hits 99, then continues east to Wellsford Road which connects back to 132.  Not sure how effective this would be as a bypass given it's still all surface road, but an intriguing thought based on how it avoids Modesto's center.  (Could also work to get to Oakdale while mostly bypassing 120 or 108)
Chris Sampang

Voyager

Quote from: TheStranger on December 24, 2024, 04:06:27 PM
Quote from: Voyager on December 24, 2024, 03:51:54 PM132 hypothetically would make that trip so much faster if it was fully built to freeway status, but after you get to the end of the current freeway that starts on the 580 side, things slow down very fast (I got stuck behind a tractor once). Add in the weird way you have to get onto 99 in Modesto (which is still the same alignment even with the new freeway section), I don't really feel like its useful for thru traffic. Maybe when they extend the freeway it will be, but there's a reason that 120 freeway is still overused and this one gets barely any traffic.

Looking at Google Maps, I did see a random divided boulevard (Briggsmore Avenue) that starts where Carpenter hits 99, then continues east to Wellsford Road which connects back to 132.  Not sure how effective this would be as a bypass given it's still all surface road, but an intriguing thought based on how it avoids Modesto's center.  (Could also work to get to Oakdale while mostly bypassing 120 or 108)

At least (eventually) there will be a mostly freeway connection from 99 to Oakdale. Seems like it was supposed to start a while ago and still hasn't, though.

https://catc.ca.gov/-/media/ctc-media/documents/programs/local-partnership-program/competitive/cycle-3-project-fact-sheets/35-lpp-c-fact-sheet-stanislaus-co-north-county-corridor
AARoads Forum Original



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.