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

[TheStranger]

I was more confused why the exit number for Ming on 99 is mentioned on route along EB58. 

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

This reminds me of how CalTrans in Sacramento has assigned an exit number from Route 51/Business I-80 for a ramp that can ONLY be accessed by Route 99 north...(T Street)

[pderocco]

The glaring problem I see is that you can no longer get onto 99 NB from Ming, and then get off at 58 EB. You have to go west to Mohawk on 58, north to California on 99, or south to White Ln on 99, and then turn around. That's on top of the inconvenience that Truxton is connected to 58 but not 99, and California to 99 but not 58, so there's no easy connection between north 99 and west 58.

[roadfro]

I was more confused why the exit number for Ming on 99 is mentioned on route along EB58. 

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

Caltrans seems to like to do this. I feel like I've seen similar signing practice once or twice in NorCal.

I-80 WB in Sacramento approaching the Biz 80 split has something similar. That Biz 80 exit has a slip ramp to Watt Ave coming off the flyover. The Biz 80 ramp is I-80 exit 95, and Watt Ave is exit 14B along Biz 80. The Watt Ave exit is signed as exit 14B on I-80 WB along with Biz 80 upstream of the exit point. The interesting part here is that Watt Ave also has an interchange with mainline I-80, so this could have easily been labeled as Exit 94A to be less confusing.


Nevada DOT doesn't do this. The one similar situation I can think of is Martin L King Blvd from NB I-15 (where its main interchange is with US 95 at exit 76C), MLK is just listed along with US 95 north under exit 42A.

[FredAkbar]

I was able to stay on EB 99 just fine...

Now that would require some signage

[roadfro]

I was able to stay on EB 99 just fine...

Now that would require some signage

Whoops... Edited original post.

[mrsman]

But the "lack of signage" on EB 58 before the exits to 99 and Ming... I dunno what to tell you, man. Two giant overhead signs weren't enough?

If you're on EB 58, do you really need a sign to tell you how to stay on EB 58...? Just don't exit!

Technically, if they used two APLs upstream, they also should have installed an APL at the actual exit. But the lane positioning guidance is clearly available upstream—and you'd have to be a moron to not know how this works by the time you get to the gore point.


What I think is more interesting and probably could have been done differently, is that from the actual theoretical gore point, there's a long painted gore, followed by a 'physical gore' of a different pavement material, before you get to the actual barrier wall that separates off the SB 99 ramp. (see https://maps.app.goo.gl/qQbczpMxb4RHGZdp9) To me, that barrier wall should extend further out to physically separate the traffic earlier, and provide an earlier indication more apparent to drivers where the actual split occurs.


But hey, I didn't notice all this when I drove the segment during the Bakersfield meet. I was able to stay on EB 58 just fine...

Agree that the signage from 58 E to Ming or 99 S is fine.  Sure, it can be better by putting another sign to indicate left lanes for Mojave and Tehachapi at the exit point, but otherwise fine.

Removing the 58 signage via Mohawk is correct.

Is there any signage guiding the missing move between 58 east to 99 north, or the reverse move of 99 south to 58 west?  This should be done.  Probably using Mohawk and California is the best routing.  But to me, it seems like a huge oversight in not providing ramps to WB 58 from California, which could avoid a lot of travel on the local streets.

[cahwyguy]

Probably using Mohawk and California is the best routing.  But to me, it seems like a huge oversight in not providing ramps to WB 58 from California, which could avoid a lot of travel on the local streets.

Quite likely, traffic studies probably showed there wouldn't be sufficient traffic to justify the ROW and paperwork costs, and so surface routing was acceptable (especially if they were short on funds).

[ClassicHasClass]

99 south to 58 west?

Currently CA 58 WB is still signed on the Rosedale Hwy exit from CA 99 SB (at the same exit as TO CA 178), and you'd go down Mohawk to pick it up the freeway alignment. If you go down to the CA 58 EB exit (which has always been split between CA 58 EB and Stockdale Hwy), the Stockdale Hwy exit is still there, but does not have a CA 58 shield or "TO CA 58."

[cahwyguy]

Currently CA 58 WB is still signed on the Rosedale Hwy exit from CA 99 SB (at the same exit as TO CA 178), and you'd go down Mohawk to pick it up the freeway alignment.

Not only signed. It is still in the PostMile system along Rosedale (not Mohawk). See https://gisdata-caltrans.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/77f2d7ba94e040a78bfbe36feb6279da_0/explore?location=35.352157%2C-119.002976%2C13.61

[Max Rockatansky]

That could just be the database not being updated.  All those necro-routes like the stub of 225 that used to be in the Postmile Tool were recently updated out.

[cahwyguy]

Possibly, but it is the most authoritative source that we have.

[FredAkbar]

If you go down to the CA 58 EB exit (which has always been split between CA 58 EB and Stockdale Hwy), the Stockdale Hwy exit is still there, but does not have a CA 58 shield or "TO CA 58."

But, are they still planning to permanently close that Stockdale ramp? The last I saw was some articles saying the closure had been delayed until some later undetermined time.

[pderocco]

If you go down to the CA 58 EB exit (which has always been split between CA 58 EB and Stockdale Hwy), the Stockdale Hwy exit is still there, but does not have a CA 58 shield or "TO CA 58."

But, are they still planning to permanently close that Stockdale ramp? The last I saw was some articles saying the closure had been delayed until some later undetermined time.

I imagine they'll close it when they need that space for the ramp from 99S to 58W.