CA 58

[Occidental Tourist]

^^^^^^^
D6 is one of the few districts that actually seems to promote a reasonable level of continuity with relinquished highways; the retained 178 signage through downtown Bakersfield exemplifies that.  I haven't heard any reportage from the area regarding the level of signage on those relinquished sections of 58 on Rosedale Highway within the city limits; if it follows the previous example, there still will be regular reassurance shielding.  But with the other item mentioned -- I'd simply route CA 178 over the northern portion of CA 204 to CA 99, and use the connecting surface streets to access southward 99.  A lot closer and more in line with the E-W 178 trajectory.  CA 204 may as well be relinquished south of 178; it really doesn't serve a purpose (and is signed as Business 99 in any case); just another one of those "we own it therefore it's signed" Caltrans situations.  But the northern part does serve as a reasonable connector to CA 99 (particularly northward). 

This.  I imagine it's faster on both directions of 99 to use 204 to get to 178 than to go through downtown.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^
D6 is one of the few districts that actually seems to promote a reasonable level of continuity with relinquished highways; the retained 178 signage through downtown Bakersfield exemplifies that.  I haven't heard any reportage from the area regarding the level of signage on those relinquished sections of 58 on Rosedale Highway within the city limits; if it follows the previous example, there still will be regular reassurance shielding.  But with the other item mentioned -- I'd simply route CA 178 over the northern portion of CA 204 to CA 99, and use the connecting surface streets to access southward 99.  A lot closer and more in line with the E-W 178 trajectory.  CA 204 may as well be relinquished south of 178; it really doesn't serve a purpose (and is signed as Business 99 in any case); just another one of those "we own it therefore it's signed" Caltrans situations.  But the northern part does serve as a reasonable connector to CA 99 (particularly northward). 

This.  I imagine it's faster on both directions of 99 to use 204 to get to 178 than to go through downtown.

I've done it -- and the answer is considerably!.   Downtown via the surface signed 178 is a bit of a slog; the only immediately apparent reason (aside from nostalgia for formerly vital downtown districts!) to utilize it would be go get to the Amtrak station a few blocks to the south. 

[Max Rockatansky]

^^^^^^^
D6 is one of the few districts that actually seems to promote a reasonable level of continuity with relinquished highways; the retained 178 signage through downtown Bakersfield exemplifies that.  I haven't heard any reportage from the area regarding the level of signage on those relinquished sections of 58 on Rosedale Highway within the city limits; if it follows the previous example, there still will be regular reassurance shielding.  But with the other item mentioned -- I'd simply route CA 178 over the northern portion of CA 204 to CA 99, and use the connecting surface streets to access southward 99.  A lot closer and more in line with the E-W 178 trajectory.  CA 204 may as well be relinquished south of 178; it really doesn't serve a purpose (and is signed as Business 99 in any case); just another one of those "we own it therefore it's signed" Caltrans situations.  But the northern part does serve as a reasonable connector to CA 99 (particularly northward). 

This.  I imagine it's faster on both directions of 99 to use 204 to get to 178 than to go through downtown.

I've done it -- and the answer is considerably!.   Downtown via the surface signed 178 is a bit of a slog; the only immediately apparent reason (aside from nostalgia for formerly vital downtown districts!) to utilize it would be go get to the Amtrak station a few blocks to the south.

I can also attest any direction on 204 is way more efficient than taking old 178 through downtown.  Even Union Avenue south of downtown has a pretty swift traffic flow to it with a pretty large capacity. 

[TJS23]

I had the chance to drive the route from 101 to 33, it was a very interesting road, especially the part in the plains which were sort of like a roller coaster. There was nobody around so it was possible to go pretty fast in that part, it would be an interesting race track. I was also shocked that after there was the whole windy drop into McKittrick. I agree that there's no need to extend any interstate this way, but 40 should definitely be extended to at least Bakersfield and even 5. It was a pretty long detour and pretty tiring, I kept going on 33 which was a mistake because it got dark and I missed all the mountain scenery on that route. I think I'm sticking to 5 for my SF to LA trips for the time being Anyway just thought I'd share my thoughts, I've been inspired by the forum to try new routes but honestly it was pretty similar to 198 and I wouldn't take it again.

[kkt]

I think I'm sticking to 5 for my SF to LA trips for the time being

Oh, don't stop exploring, just be conscious of what time sunset is going to be. 

Regarding an interstate to US 101 in the south Central Valley, if (and it's a big if) this is ever needed, CA 46 would be the obvious choice.  Gentler grades and it's mostly 4-lane expressway already.

[Max Rockatansky]

I think I'm sticking to 5 for my SF to LA trips for the time being

Oh, don't stop exploring, just be conscious of what time sunset is going to be. 

Regarding an interstate to US 101 in the south Central Valley, if (and it's a big if) this is ever needed, CA 46 would be the obvious choice.  Gentler grades and it's mostly 4-lane expressway already.

Worth noting that 166 is also decidedly less curvy than 58 and 198.  But yes, 46 is the obvious main corridor for a reason.