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

sparker

Quote from: don1991 on May 30, 2020, 03:03:02 AM
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.

Question:  Is the current intent to continue the revised CA 58 west over Stockdale west of the CA 43 roundabout, or will it "jog" north on CA 43 to the current westward 58 alignment toward Buttonwillow? 


SeriesE

What was the original freeway plan for CA-58 west of CA-99 before Westside Parkway and Centennial Corridor?

sparker

Quote from: SeriesE on May 30, 2020, 06:56:07 PM
What was the original freeway plan for CA-58 west of CA-99 before Westside Parkway and Centennial Corridor?

There actually was no particular favored, much less adopted, alignment; prior to the Westside's development.  The most recent publicized CA 58 extension plans, circa 1990, included departing the CA 58 alignment between CA 184 and CA 204 (Union Ave.), looping around the north side of town, crossing CA 99 near the CA 65 interchange, and paralleling 7th Standard Road west to I-5 at an interchange just north of Buttonwillow.  CA 58 between the divergence point and CA 99 would have been redesignated.   That plan was favored by Bakersfield preservationists as being least disruptive to the city center (it also would have provided CA 178 with a direct freeway connection as well).  But those plans simply dissipated over time, likely because they were overly costly and ambitious, requiring numerous system interchanges plus a Kern River crossing.  Eventually the Westside locally-instigated plan was hatched, which effectively closed out the other options.     

don1991

Quote from: sparker on May 30, 2020, 05:58:53 PM
Quote from: don1991 on May 30, 2020, 03:03:02 AM
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.

Question:  Is the current intent to continue the revised CA 58 west over Stockdale west of the CA 43 roundabout, or will it "jog" north on CA 43 to the current westward 58 alignment toward Buttonwillow?

So far as I know, it is to continue straight along Stockdale to I-5.  I imagine the future freeway would roughly follow this same alignment but of course that would be subject to a full-on environmental and project study review before that was determined.  But it would be most likely something like this because Stockdale would be adopted as the new 58 by the legislature.  It hasn't yet but this is the intent.

don1991

Quote from: BakoCondors on February 29, 2020, 10:37:23 AM
Quote from: sparker on February 13, 2020, 05:58:15 PM
^^^^^^^^^^
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.

Agreed.  Exit numbers are always based on the entire state highway, not just the freeway portion.  The only way it would be different is if there was positive intent to abandon any portion of Route 58; I don't think there is any such intent.  The entire state highway serves an important purpose and none of it is just an ordinary urban street, which is the usual reason for turning over former state highways to counties or cities.

don1991

Quote from: sparker on May 30, 2020, 07:48:54 PM
Quote from: SeriesE on May 30, 2020, 06:56:07 PM
What was the original freeway plan for CA-58 west of CA-99 before Westside Parkway and Centennial Corridor?

There actually was no particular favored, much less adopted, alignment; prior to the Westside's development.  The most recent publicized CA 58 extension plans, circa 1990, included departing the CA 58 alignment between CA 184 and CA 204 (Union Ave.), looping around the north side of town, crossing CA 99 near the CA 65 interchange, and paralleling 7th Standard Road west to I-5 at an interchange just north of Buttonwillow.  CA 58 between the divergence point and CA 99 would have been redesignated.   That plan was favored by Bakersfield preservationists as being least disruptive to the city center (it also would have provided CA 178 with a direct freeway connection as well).  But those plans simply dissipated over time, likely because they were overly costly and ambitious, requiring numerous system interchanges plus a Kern River crossing.  Eventually the Westside locally-instigated plan was hatched, which effectively closed out the other options.     

There was also a "Kern River Freeway" at one point (1990s / 2000s).  This may have been the same as the one you are describing?  Once the Thomas road money came in, a number of different ideas developed.  Centennial actually was at one point more of a crosstown freeway concept including 178 (this is likely what you are describing below) but later morphed into the current version of connecting Westside Parkway (also part of Thomas Roads Improvement Program, or "TRIP") to CA-99.  Although Westside Parkway was always intended to form part of new 58 one way or the other with the intent of providing a continuous route one way or the other for Route 58.

sparker

Quote from: don1991 on May 30, 2020, 09:19:45 PM
There was also a "Kern River Freeway" at one point (1990s / 2000s).  This may have been the same as the one you are describing?  Once the Thomas road money came in, a number of different ideas developed.  Centennial actually was at one point more of a crosstown freeway concept including 178 (this is likely what you are describing below) but later morphed into the current version of connecting Westside Parkway (also part of Thomas Roads Improvement Program, or "TRIP") to CA-99.  Although Westside Parkway was always intended to form part of new 58 one way or the other with the intent of providing a continuous route one way or the other for Route 58.

Quote from: sparker on May 30, 2020, 07:48:54 PM
Quote from: SeriesE on May 30, 2020, 06:56:07 PM
What was the original freeway plan for CA-58 west of CA-99 before Westside Parkway and Centennial Corridor?

There actually was no particular favored, much less adopted, alignment; prior to the Westside's development.  The most recent publicized CA 58 extension plans, circa 1990, included departing the CA 58 alignment between CA 184 and CA 204 (Union Ave.), looping around the north side of town, crossing CA 99 near the CA 65 interchange, and paralleling 7th Standard Road west to I-5 at an interchange just north of Buttonwillow.  CA 58 between the divergence point and CA 99 would have been redesignated.   That plan was favored by Bakersfield preservationists as being least disruptive to the city center (it also would have provided CA 178 with a direct freeway connection as well).  But those plans simply dissipated over time, likely because they were overly costly and ambitious, requiring numerous system interchanges plus a Kern River crossing.  Eventually the Westside locally-instigated plan was hatched, which effectively closed out the other options.     

IIRC, the "Kern River Freeway" would have been a linear extension of the original Westside alignment east on the riverbank to CA 99; one of the options there would have been to continue that trajectory northeast past Golden State Ave. (CA 204) and curling it down as an effective CA 178 extension.  CA 58 would have simply MPX'd south on CA 99 to its eastward alignment (like it has done for 41 years!).  That was one of the alternate options to the north loop/7th Standard alignment I described earlier; but that loop became the "last corridor standing" after studies showed that shoring up the Kern banks to support a freeway on a berm would be problematic in any situation exceeding a 25-year-flood standard (the '97 floods, definitely within that category, would have rendered such a road impassable during the event and requiring extensive repairs afterward).   But freeway plans in the area have always tended to favor the untenable (the costs of the north loop) over the merely doable -- the Westside Parkway was locally hatched to break that impasse and, regardless of jurisdiction, actually build something that could conceivably be extended (although the east end of the original parkway certainly didn't make an eastward connection easy!).

Regarding the new CA 43/CA 58 roundabout -- since CA 58 is part of a major interregional truck corridor, a roundabout with the capacity to handle tractor/trailer combos would surely be appropriate.  But D6, like a few others, seems intent on slapping down circles at every rebuild regardless of whether it's the best choice for a particular situation -- the classic case of a "prefab" solution looking for an identified problem.   But it would be amusingly ironic if CA 58 full freeway development out to I-5 were to be advanced by a series of incidents at said roundabout.  :cool:   

don1991

Quote from: sparker on May 31, 2020, 01:28:42 AM
Quote from: don1991 on May 30, 2020, 09:19:45 PM
There was also a "Kern River Freeway" at one point (1990s / 2000s).  This may have been the same as the one you are describing?  Once the Thomas road money came in, a number of different ideas developed.  Centennial actually was at one point more of a crosstown freeway concept including 178 (this is likely what you are describing below) but later morphed into the current version of connecting Westside Parkway (also part of Thomas Roads Improvement Program, or "TRIP") to CA-99.  Although Westside Parkway was always intended to form part of new 58 one way or the other with the intent of providing a continuous route one way or the other for Route 58.

Quote from: sparker on May 30, 2020, 07:48:54 PM
Quote from: SeriesE on May 30, 2020, 06:56:07 PM
What was the original freeway plan for CA-58 west of CA-99 before Westside Parkway and Centennial Corridor?

There actually was no particular favored, much less adopted, alignment; prior to the Westside's development.  The most recent publicized CA 58 extension plans, circa 1990, included departing the CA 58 alignment between CA 184 and CA 204 (Union Ave.), looping around the north side of town, crossing CA 99 near the CA 65 interchange, and paralleling 7th Standard Road west to I-5 at an interchange just north of Buttonwillow.  CA 58 between the divergence point and CA 99 would have been redesignated.   That plan was favored by Bakersfield preservationists as being least disruptive to the city center (it also would have provided CA 178 with a direct freeway connection as well).  But those plans simply dissipated over time, likely because they were overly costly and ambitious, requiring numerous system interchanges plus a Kern River crossing.  Eventually the Westside locally-instigated plan was hatched, which effectively closed out the other options.     

IIRC, the "Kern River Freeway" would have been a linear extension of the original Westside alignment east on the riverbank to CA 99; one of the options there would have been to continue that trajectory northeast past Golden State Ave. (CA 204) and curling it down as an effective CA 178 extension.  CA 58 would have simply MPX'd south on CA 99 to its eastward alignment (like it has done for 41 years!).  That was one of the alternate options to the north loop/7th Standard alignment I described earlier; but that loop became the "last corridor standing" after studies showed that shoring up the Kern banks to support a freeway on a berm would be problematic in any situation exceeding a 25-year-flood standard (the '97 floods, definitely within that category, would have rendered such a road impassable during the event and requiring extensive repairs afterward).   But freeway plans in the area have always tended to favor the untenable (the costs of the north loop) over the merely doable -- the Westside Parkway was locally hatched to break that impasse and, regardless of jurisdiction, actually build something that could conceivably be extended (although the east end of the original parkway certainly didn't make an eastward connection easy!).

Regarding the new CA 43/CA 58 roundabout -- since CA 58 is part of a major interregional truck corridor, a roundabout with the capacity to handle tractor/trailer combos would surely be appropriate.  But D6, like a few others, seems intent on slapping down circles at every rebuild regardless of whether it's the best choice for a particular situation -- the classic case of a "prefab" solution looking for an identified problem.   But it would be amusingly ironic if CA 58 full freeway development out to I-5 were to be advanced by a series of incidents at said roundabout.  :cool:   

Unfortunately the roundabout fetish is not just District 6, though they seem to be early adopters.   This is becoming a big thing in all of California.  Arizona is absolutely in love with them.  I don't like them - you feel almost dizzy if there are too many.  AZ-179 into Sedona (I go there a lot with extended family) is a terrible example - almost the entire route is littered with them.  When AZ-260 was widened into Cottonwood, AZ, it also received about 10 new roundabouts.  You really lose speed on what could otherwise be a nice 4-lane divided highway.

I much prefer signals.

sprjus4

Quote from: don1991 on May 31, 2020, 06:04:54 PM
Unfortunately the roundabout fetish is not just District 6, though they seem to be early adopters.   This is becoming a big thing in all of California.  Arizona is absolutely in love with them.  I don't like them - you feel almost dizzy if there are too many.  AZ-179 into Sedona (I go there a lot with extended family) is a terrible example - almost the entire route is littered with them.  When AZ-260 was widened into Cottonwood, AZ, it also received about 10 new roundabouts.  You really lose speed on what could otherwise be a nice 4-lane divided highway.

I much prefer signals.
You may not like Carmel, Indiana then.

Plutonic Panda

Quote from: sprjus4 on May 31, 2020, 06:09:47 PM
Quote from: don1991 on May 31, 2020, 06:04:54 PM
Unfortunately the roundabout fetish is not just District 6, though they seem to be early adopters.   This is becoming a big thing in all of California.  Arizona is absolutely in love with them.  I don't like them - you feel almost dizzy if there are too many.  AZ-179 into Sedona (I go there a lot with extended family) is a terrible example - almost the entire route is littered with them.  When AZ-260 was widened into Cottonwood, AZ, it also received about 10 new roundabouts.  You really lose speed on what could otherwise be a nice 4-lane divided highway.

I much prefer signals.
You may not like Carmel, Indiana then.
Holy shit! That is insane lol! Almost every single intersection is a roundabout. Wow

I have come around to roundabouts a bit and I wouldn't mind seeing them in certain places but overall I prefer signals as well.

Regarding 179, I have a love-hate relationship with that road. Why on earth it isn't two lanes each way throughout the town of Sedona is beyond me. The space exists. I always get stuck behind someone going 10 under(usually tourist) who often have a hard time negotiating a roundabout, not knowing where they want to go, or coming to a complete stop and getting mad when they honked at. Very bad move on AZ's part not making that road 4 lanes.

I would be much happier with roundabouts if they had a "bypass" in the form of an over or underpass on the heaviest traveled road. I'm not sure if anything like that exists.

sprjus4

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 08, 2020, 12:06:23 PM
I would be much happier with roundabouts if they had a "bypass" in the form of an over or underpass on the heaviest traveled road. I'm not sure if anything like that exists.
In Bakersfield in fact, there's at least one at SH-204 and Chester Ave.

Another example that comes to mind is I-85 Business / SH-56 in Spartanburg, SC.

Max Rockatansky

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 08, 2020, 12:06:23 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 31, 2020, 06:09:47 PM
Quote from: don1991 on May 31, 2020, 06:04:54 PM
Unfortunately the roundabout fetish is not just District 6, though they seem to be early adopters.   This is becoming a big thing in all of California.  Arizona is absolutely in love with them.  I don't like them - you feel almost dizzy if there are too many.  AZ-179 into Sedona (I go there a lot with extended family) is a terrible example - almost the entire route is littered with them.  When AZ-260 was widened into Cottonwood, AZ, it also received about 10 new roundabouts.  You really lose speed on what could otherwise be a nice 4-lane divided highway.

I much prefer signals.
You may not like Carmel, Indiana then.
Holy shit! That is insane lol! Almost every single intersection is a roundabout. Wow

I have come around to roundabouts a bit and I wouldn't mind seeing them in certain places but overall I prefer signals as well.

Regarding 179, I have a love-hate relationship with that road. Why on earth it isn't two lanes each way throughout the town of Sedona is beyond me. The space exists. I always get stuck behind someone going 10 under(usually tourist) who often have a hard time negotiating a roundabout, not knowing where they want to go, or coming to a complete stop and getting mad when they honked at. Very bad move on AZ's part not making that road 4 lanes.

I would be much happier with roundabouts if they had a "bypass" in the form of an over or underpass on the heaviest traveled road. I'm not sure if anything like that exists.

Amusingly I've always found AZ 260 and AZ 89A to be the faster way into Sedona over AZ 179.  Those roundabouts just made the gawking worse whereas the stop lights "mostly"  kept traffic focused.  AZ 179 is great now if you're a cyclist though.   

Plutonic Panda

I'm thinking of doing a cycling run with my friend from Phoenix to Flag stopping through Sedona will be a change of perspective I'm sure.

skluth

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 08, 2020, 12:06:23 PM
I would be much happier with roundabouts if they had a "bypass" in the form of an over or underpass on the heaviest traveled road. I'm not sure if anything like that exists.

It's not unusual around the DC area
Dupont Circle, DC
Washington Circle, DC
I-395/Shirlington in Arlington, VA

It's frequently seen in interchanges in Europe.
Hyde Park Corner, London
M1 near Nottingham
M1 near Rugby
AP-7 near Torremolinos
A-7 exit to Gibraltar
A 96 west of München
A20/E25 in Rotterdam

This is my favorite form of interchange for rural areas. The wide curve of these roundabouts allow trucks to navigate the curve better than the tighter curve of smaller roundabouts. It requires either an extra-long overpass above the roundabout or two bridges for the roundabout and often a little more right-of-way along the main road, so the designs can be more expensive than a simple diamond, A2/B2 parclo, SPUI, or DDI. The price should be comparable to anything more complex though. It can handle a lot of traffic with little slowing down for anyone using the roundabout. They usually don't require significantly more space than a traditional diamond, so they're good for handling a lot of traffic in tight spaces. Drivers going through the roundabout may complain about slowing down a bit, but it beats having a stoplight or all-way stop. I don't understand why we don't use these in the US more frequently instead of the accurately-named dumbbell interchanges, like this ugly mess near me at the Cabazon Outlet Mall.

sparker

Quote from: skluth on June 08, 2020, 04:43:50 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 08, 2020, 12:06:23 PM
I would be much happier with roundabouts if they had a "bypass" in the form of an over or underpass on the heaviest traveled road. I'm not sure if anything like that exists.

It's not unusual around the DC area
Dupont Circle, DC
Washington Circle, DC
I-395/Shirlington in Arlington, VA

It's frequently seen in interchanges in Europe.
Hyde Park Corner, London
M1 near Nottingham
M1 near Rugby
AP-7 near Torremolinos
A-7 exit to Gibraltar
A 96 west of München
A20/E25 in Rotterdam

This is my favorite form of interchange for rural areas. The wide curve of these roundabouts allow trucks to navigate the curve better than the tighter curve of smaller roundabouts. It requires either an extra-long overpass above the roundabout or two bridges for the roundabout and often a little more right-of-way along the main road, so the designs can be more expensive than a simple diamond, A2/B2 parclo, SPUI, or DDI. The price should be comparable to anything more complex though. It can handle a lot of traffic with little slowing down for anyone using the roundabout. They usually don't require significantly more space than a traditional diamond, so they're good for handling a lot of traffic in tight spaces. Drivers going through the roundabout may complain about slowing down a bit, but it beats having a stoplight or all-way stop. I don't understand why we don't use these in the US more frequently instead of the accurately-named dumbbell interchanges, like this ugly mess near me at the Cabazon Outlet Mall.

That type of interchange would be a godsend for many urban/suburban situations.  Large enough circle radius to ameliorate severe slowing issues while providing enough peripheral length to allow maneuvering to get where one wants to go.  But today's Caltrans seems to be in the thrall of planners whose goal appears to be a general slowing of traffic, whether in urban or rural situations (the CA 12/113 roundabout west of Rio Vista is a prime example of that "philosophy" manifested).  IMO the roundabout concept as an alternative to signals is eminently workable in an urban setting -- but since Caltrans is also busy shedding urban mileage, they seem to be satisfying their "solution looking for a problem" mode by utilizing the concept for rural situations better served by other methods.  Some ideas just aren't all that "portable"! :banghead:

don1991

Quote from: sparker on June 08, 2020, 10:40:35 PM
Quote from: skluth on June 08, 2020, 04:43:50 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 08, 2020, 12:06:23 PM
I would be much happier with roundabouts if they had a "bypass" in the form of an over or underpass on the heaviest traveled road. I'm not sure if anything like that exists.

It's not unusual around the DC area
Dupont Circle, DC
Washington Circle, DC
I-395/Shirlington in Arlington, VA

It's frequently seen in interchanges in Europe.
Hyde Park Corner, London
M1 near Nottingham
M1 near Rugby
AP-7 near Torremolinos
A-7 exit to Gibraltar
A 96 west of München
A20/E25 in Rotterdam

This is my favorite form of interchange for rural areas. The wide curve of these roundabouts allow trucks to navigate the curve better than the tighter curve of smaller roundabouts. It requires either an extra-long overpass above the roundabout or two bridges for the roundabout and often a little more right-of-way along the main road, so the designs can be more expensive than a simple diamond, A2/B2 parclo, SPUI, or DDI. The price should be comparable to anything more complex though. It can handle a lot of traffic with little slowing down for anyone using the roundabout. They usually don't require significantly more space than a traditional diamond, so they're good for handling a lot of traffic in tight spaces. Drivers going through the roundabout may complain about slowing down a bit, but it beats having a stoplight or all-way stop. I don't understand why we don't use these in the US more frequently instead of the accurately-named dumbbell interchanges, like this ugly mess near me at the Cabazon Outlet Mall.

That type of interchange would be a godsend for many urban/suburban situations.  Large enough circle radius to ameliorate severe slowing issues while providing enough peripheral length to allow maneuvering to get where one wants to go.  But today's Caltrans seems to be in the thrall of planners whose goal appears to be a general slowing of traffic, whether in urban or rural situations (the CA 12/113 roundabout west of Rio Vista is a prime example of that "philosophy" manifested).  IMO the roundabout concept as an alternative to signals is eminently workable in an urban setting -- but since Caltrans is also busy shedding urban mileage, they seem to be satisfying their "solution looking for a problem" mode by utilizing the concept for rural situations better served by other methods.  Some ideas just aren't all that "portable"! :banghead:

A big issue with roundabouts in urban areas is real estate.  Especially for wide-radius circles.  Also, it interferes with shopping center driveways / gas station driveways that we often see in urban setting intersections.  I think they are favored more in rural settings.  That being said, they are used on the semi-urban intersections in the Village of Oak Creek and Sedona along AZ-179, where ADOT and the locals fell in love with them.

don1991

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 08, 2020, 12:46:11 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 08, 2020, 12:06:23 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 31, 2020, 06:09:47 PM
Quote from: don1991 on May 31, 2020, 06:04:54 PM
Unfortunately the roundabout fetish is not just District 6, though they seem to be early adopters.   This is becoming a big thing in all of California.  Arizona is absolutely in love with them.  I don't like them - you feel almost dizzy if there are too many.  AZ-179 into Sedona (I go there a lot with extended family) is a terrible example - almost the entire route is littered with them.  When AZ-260 was widened into Cottonwood, AZ, it also received about 10 new roundabouts.  You really lose speed on what could otherwise be a nice 4-lane divided highway.

I much prefer signals.
You may not like Carmel, Indiana then.
Holy shit! That is insane lol! Almost every single intersection is a roundabout. Wow

I have come around to roundabouts a bit and I wouldn't mind seeing them in certain places but overall I prefer signals as well.

Regarding 179, I have a love-hate relationship with that road. Why on earth it isn't two lanes each way throughout the town of Sedona is beyond me. The space exists. I always get stuck behind someone going 10 under(usually tourist) who often have a hard time negotiating a roundabout, not knowing where they want to go, or coming to a complete stop and getting mad when they honked at. Very bad move on AZ's part not making that road 4 lanes.

I would be much happier with roundabouts if they had a "bypass" in the form of an over or underpass on the heaviest traveled road. I'm not sure if anything like that exists.

Amusingly I've always found AZ 260 and AZ 89A to be the faster way into Sedona over AZ 179.  Those roundabouts just made the gawking worse whereas the stop lights "mostly"  kept traffic focused.  AZ 179 is great now if you're a cyclist though.

It was pure politics.  Sedona fought a 4-lane highway tooth and nail so the compromise allowed two one-lane sections in areas and the two lanes with bike lanes and wide sidewalks in others - with roundabouts everywhere.  It really is awful during holidays and other peak tourist times.  It can take 1/2 hour sometimes to go the 10 miles or so from the Village of Oak Creek to Sedona.

My parents often rent a family set of timeshares in the Village.  If going there, I use AZ-179.  If Sedona, then you are right - often AZ-260 to AZ-89A is faster.  Or, go up AZ-179 to County Road 78 West and cut up to AZ-89 eastbound.   Almost every time I go, I curse the lack of 4 lanes on 179.

Even worse is when they began urbanizing AZ-89A east of AZ-179 in Downtown Sedona and tearing up the pavement, putting in more bulb-outs, parking, etc.  A real mess.  It isn't a lot of fun going through that area in a car.

skluth

Quote from: don1991 on June 09, 2020, 01:37:10 AM
Quote from: sparker on June 08, 2020, 10:40:35 PM
Quote from: skluth on June 08, 2020, 04:43:50 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 08, 2020, 12:06:23 PM
I would be much happier with roundabouts if they had a "bypass" in the form of an over or underpass on the heaviest traveled road. I'm not sure if anything like that exists.

It's not unusual around the DC area
Dupont Circle, DC
Washington Circle, DC
I-395/Shirlington in Arlington, VA

It's frequently seen in interchanges in Europe.
Hyde Park Corner, London
M1 near Nottingham
M1 near Rugby
AP-7 near Torremolinos
A-7 exit to Gibraltar
A 96 west of München
A20/E25 in Rotterdam

This is my favorite form of interchange for rural areas. The wide curve of these roundabouts allow trucks to navigate the curve better than the tighter curve of smaller roundabouts. It requires either an extra-long overpass above the roundabout or two bridges for the roundabout and often a little more right-of-way along the main road, so the designs can be more expensive than a simple diamond, A2/B2 parclo, SPUI, or DDI. The price should be comparable to anything more complex though. It can handle a lot of traffic with little slowing down for anyone using the roundabout. They usually don't require significantly more space than a traditional diamond, so they're good for handling a lot of traffic in tight spaces. Drivers going through the roundabout may complain about slowing down a bit, but it beats having a stoplight or all-way stop. I don't understand why we don't use these in the US more frequently instead of the accurately-named dumbbell interchanges, like this ugly mess near me at the Cabazon Outlet Mall.

That type of interchange would be a godsend for many urban/suburban situations.  Large enough circle radius to ameliorate severe slowing issues while providing enough peripheral length to allow maneuvering to get where one wants to go.  But today's Caltrans seems to be in the thrall of planners whose goal appears to be a general slowing of traffic, whether in urban or rural situations (the CA 12/113 roundabout west of Rio Vista is a prime example of that "philosophy" manifested).  IMO the roundabout concept as an alternative to signals is eminently workable in an urban setting -- but since Caltrans is also busy shedding urban mileage, they seem to be satisfying their "solution looking for a problem" mode by utilizing the concept for rural situations better served by other methods.  Some ideas just aren't all that "portable"! :banghead:

A big issue with roundabouts in urban areas is real estate.  Especially for wide-radius circles.  Also, it interferes with shopping center driveways / gas station driveways that we often see in urban setting intersections.  I think they are favored more in rural settings.  That being said, they are used on the semi-urban intersections in the Village of Oak Creek and Sedona along AZ-179, where ADOT and the locals fell in love with them.

I moved here from St Louis. MoDOT has been installing the smaller, dumbbell-style roundabouts at freeway exits everywhere. (I also have to deal with them when I go back to my hometown, including this cluster along Shawano Ave/ Cardinal Lane about two miles from my brother's home.) I really hate them, because they're usually a bad solution in search of a problem to fix. A wide-radius roundabout interchange is really not much more real estate than a diamond or DDI, although they can't be squeezed into a lot of urban areas due to pre-existing road patterns. They actually use less real estate than most other interchanges, including parclos, because much of the extra roadway is in the freeway ROW.  It's a shame DOTs don't consider them very often, as they can be very practical.

CtrlAltDel

While browsing You Tube, I came across the following video, showing drone footage of the progress that has been made on the Centennial Corridor.



As you can see, it's overall a raised freeway, and I'm amazed at the dirt they've placed for the project. 
Interstates clinched: 4, 57, 275 (IN-KY-OH), 465 (IN), 640 (TN), 985
State Interstates clinched: I-26 (TN), I-75 (GA), I-75 (KY), I-75 (TN), I-81 (WV), I-95 (NH)

sparker

Quote from: CtrlAltDel on April 29, 2021, 04:02:20 PM
While browsing You Tube, I came across the following video, showing drone footage of the progress that has been made on the Centennial Corridor.



As you can see, it's overall a raised freeway, and I'm amazed at the dirt they've placed for the project. 
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on April 29, 2021, 04:02:20 PM
While browsing You Tube, I came across the following video, showing drone footage of the progress that has been made on the Centennial Corridor.



As you can see, it's overall a raised freeway, and I'm amazed at the dirt they've placed for the project. 

Nice footage; wish it had gone further northwest toward the Kern River.  Has anyone in a position to know forwarded a completion date (even an approximation would be welcome) for the project?  Seems like it's been a couple of years since the first posted drone pass-over during the ROW clearance process; while there's been a lot of progress, the whole project seems to be dragging on a bit.  Also -- any plans been released/posted for a full build-out west to I-5?  Certainly hope that laurels will not be rested upon when the in-town connection is opened -- particularly since the remainder of CA 58 out in the desert is now fully 4-lane freeway/expressway; it would seem a shame to procrastinate this relatively small corridor remnant!   

Concrete Bob

There are long-term plans to extend the freeway on the Centennial Corridor from its current western terminus out to I-5.  It's in the 2018 Kern County Regional Transportation Plan.  The future freeway will be located a bit south of the existing Stockdale Highway, and curve a bit to the southwest as it gets closer to I-5.  The connection is projected to be built after 2030.

https://www.kerncog.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/2018_RTP.pdf

stevashe

As for the timeline of the current construction, this article from February says the Centennial Corridor is projected to be complete in Fall 2022.

kkt

Quote from: Concrete Bob on April 30, 2021, 12:24:17 AM
There are long-term plans to extend the freeway on the Centennial Corridor from its current western terminus out to I-5.  It's in the 2018 Kern County Regional Transportation Plan.  The future freeway will be located a bit south of the existing Stockdale Highway, and curve a bit to the southwest as it gets closer to I-5.  The connection is projected to be built after 2030.

https://www.kerncog.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/2018_RTP.pdf

I see not wanting to rebuild the Stockdale Highway interchange, but if I were doing it I'd put the new interchange north of Stockdale Highway and south of where CA 58 is now.  Most of the traffic from Bakersfield to I-5 will be turning north.  Most of the traffic heading for the south from Bakersfield would head south on CA 99 instead of heading west to I-5.  That way for the primary travel direction it's a little shorter, and a gentler curve from westbound Centennial Corridor to northbound I-5 and vice versa.

sparker

Quote from: kkt on April 30, 2021, 04:09:33 AM
Quote from: Concrete Bob on April 30, 2021, 12:24:17 AM
There are long-term plans to extend the freeway on the Centennial Corridor from its current western terminus out to I-5.  It's in the 2018 Kern County Regional Transportation Plan.  The future freeway will be located a bit south of the existing Stockdale Highway, and curve a bit to the southwest as it gets closer to I-5.  The connection is projected to be built after 2030.

https://www.kerncog.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/2018_RTP.pdf

I see not wanting to rebuild the Stockdale Highway interchange, but if I were doing it I'd put the new interchange north of Stockdale Highway and south of where CA 58 is now.  Most of the traffic from Bakersfield to I-5 will be turning north.  Most of the traffic heading for the south from Bakersfield would head south on CA 99 instead of heading west to I-5.  That way for the primary travel direction it's a little shorter, and a gentler curve from westbound Centennial Corridor to northbound I-5 and vice versa.


OTOH, if the proposed alignment curves somewhat in a SW direction as it approaches I-5, that seems to indicate that it may well be a free-flow/reasonably high-speed interchange; possibly a trumpet -- with enough distance from the current Stockdale interchange as not to impinge upon the small business center in the SE quadrant.  If "normal" Caltrans practice is applied, the WB 58>NB 5 movement would become an additional lane on I-5 exiting at Stockdale, and the SB on-ramp from Stockdale would become a dedicated exit lane to EB 58.  While the overall multiplexed distance of I-5 with CA 58 would be a mile or so longer, it would slightly shorten the alignment of the CA 58/Westside freeway -- likely one of the rationales for such a configuration.  Too bad it's at least nine years away from development! 

brad2971

Quote from: sparker on April 30, 2021, 05:08:20 AM
Quote from: kkt on April 30, 2021, 04:09:33 AM
Quote from: Concrete Bob on April 30, 2021, 12:24:17 AM
There are long-term plans to extend the freeway on the Centennial Corridor from its current western terminus out to I-5.  It's in the 2018 Kern County Regional Transportation Plan.  The future freeway will be located a bit south of the existing Stockdale Highway, and curve a bit to the southwest as it gets closer to I-5.  The connection is projected to be built after 2030.

https://www.kerncog.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/2018_RTP.pdf

I see not wanting to rebuild the Stockdale Highway interchange, but if I were doing it I'd put the new interchange north of Stockdale Highway and south of where CA 58 is now.  Most of the traffic from Bakersfield to I-5 will be turning north.  Most of the traffic heading for the south from Bakersfield would head south on CA 99 instead of heading west to I-5.  That way for the primary travel direction it's a little shorter, and a gentler curve from westbound Centennial Corridor to northbound I-5 and vice versa.


OTOH, if the proposed alignment curves somewhat in a SW direction as it approaches I-5, that seems to indicate that it may well be a free-flow/reasonably high-speed interchange; possibly a trumpet -- with enough distance from the current Stockdale interchange as not to impinge upon the small business center in the SE quadrant.  If "normal" Caltrans practice is applied, the WB 58>NB 5 movement would become an additional lane on I-5 exiting at Stockdale, and the SB on-ramp from Stockdale would become a dedicated exit lane to EB 58.  While the overall multiplexed distance of I-5 with CA 58 would be a mile or so longer, it would slightly shorten the alignment of the CA 58/Westside freeway -- likely one of the rationales for such a configuration.  Too bad it's at least nine years away from development! 

Considering that Kern County is the home of the current House GOP leader (Kevin McCarthy), and considering that earmarks are likely coming back, that 9-year timeframe could be greatly shortened. Because frankly, that west end of the Parkway will be quite the traffic mess within a few months of the Centennial corridor opening. Especially with the development at the end of the Parkway: https://www.google.com/maps/@35.3551869,-119.1755325,3a,15y,242.16h,88.37t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sDblzDiCJRariXBVmlJ8aBw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DDblzDiCJRariXBVmlJ8aBw%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D126.065125%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192



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.