CA 166 from U.S. 101 to Interstate 5 is two lanes, doesn't need to be widened.
This is NOT my idea, however it is my buddy friend Dexter Rickett's (Richard) idea to widen CA 166 between U.S. 101 to Interstate 5 to a 4 lane expressway, and like I stated before it is not the best way to get to Los Angeles, CA I don't think that the road needs to be widened to expressway standards.
Only CA 46 between U.S. 101 to Interstate 5 needs to be widened to a 4 lane expressway, becuase it was once a two lane road that killed the editor of the San Luis Obispo Tribune newspaper, about 20 years ago.
Scott C. Presnal
Morro Bay, CA
The proposal to widen CA 166 sounds like just one guy's opinion. Unless this guy is a Caltrans official or politician with the clout to make it happen, why bother posting about it here? It's probably going nowhere even without your (or our) help.
Quote from: oscar on July 07, 2016, 12:14:58 AM
The proposal to widen CA 166 sounds like just one guy's opinion. Unless this guy is a Caltrans official or politician with the clout to make it happen, why bother posting about it here? It's probably going nowhere even without your (or our) help.
SR 166 runs through some fairly mountainous terrain west of SR 33 that would make a four-lane project expensive if not infeasible for the short term. Quite a bit depends on traffic counts, and I think they are higher on SR 46 (but I haven't looked at the data to confirm my anecdotal suspicion).
This was not my idea, but my buddy friend Dexter Rickett's (Richard's) idea, and Richard is not an Caltrans employee. I see no reason that California state route 166 has to be widened between U.S. 101, near Nipomo & Santa Maria to Interstate 5, the Westside Freeway near Mettler, CA to a four lane expressway. I agree with Andy too in making this opinion saying it would be expensive.
Scott C. Presnal
Morro Bay
Quote from: ACSCmapcollector on July 08, 2016, 08:03:32 PM
I see no reason that California state route 166 has to be widened..
Then why bring it up in the first place? :confused: Just because it's your friend's opinion, doesn't mean you need to show us what his opinion is, unless you agree with it. Some things are better kept to ourselves.
Quote from: oscar on July 07, 2016, 12:14:58 AM
The proposal to widen CA 166 sounds like just one guy's opinion. Unless this guy is a Caltrans official or politician with the clout to make it happen, why bother posting about it here? It's probably going nowhere even without your (or our) help.
Agreed.
Quote from: compdude787 on August 07, 2016, 04:08:32 PM
Quote from: oscar on July 07, 2016, 12:14:58 AM
The proposal to widen CA 166 sounds like just one guy's opinion. Unless this guy is a Caltrans official or politician with the clout to make it happen, why bother posting about it here? It's probably going nowhere even without your (or our) help.
Agreed.
It was my buddy friend Dexter Ricketts (Richard) who suggest this widening of California state route 166, I am more in the favor of having California state route 46 widened between U.S. 101 at Paso Robles, CA to Interstate 5 the Westside Freeway. And having the soon to be future CA 58 Westside Parkway/Centennial Corridor completed between Interstate 5, and California state route 99, The Golden State Freeway in Bakersfield, CA.
Quote from: ACSCmapcollector on August 07, 2016, 04:19:36 PM
Quote from: compdude787 on August 07, 2016, 04:08:32 PM
Quote from: oscar on July 07, 2016, 12:14:58 AM
The proposal to widen CA 166 sounds like just one guy's opinion. Unless this guy is a Caltrans official or politician with the clout to make it happen, why bother posting about it here? It's probably going nowhere even without your (or our) help.
Agreed.
It was my buddy friend Dexter Ricketts (Richard) who suggest this widening of California state route 166, I am more in the favor of having California state route 46 widened between U.S. 101 at Paso Robles, CA to Interstate 5 the Westside Freeway. And having the soon to be future CA 58 Westside Parkway/Centennial Corridor completed between Interstate 5, and California state route 99, The Golden State Freeway in Bakersfield, CA.
Is this Dexter on this forum or works for a Caltrans District? As far as I know there was never any movement on updating 166 at all. I mean...what's with the name drop otherwise?
Quote from: ACSCmapcollector on August 07, 2016, 05:11:34 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 07, 2016, 04:56:17 PM
Quote from: ACSCmapcollector on August 07, 2016, 04:19:36 PM
Quote from: compdude787 on August 07, 2016, 04:08:32 PM
Quote from: oscar on July 07, 2016, 12:14:58 AM
The proposal to widen CA 166 sounds like just one guy's opinion. Unless this guy is a Caltrans official or politician with the clout to make it happen, why bother posting about it here? It's probably going nowhere even without your (or our) help.
Agreed.
It was my buddy friend Dexter Ricketts (Richard) who suggest this widening of California state route 166, I am more in the favor of having California state route 46 widened between U.S. 101 at Paso Robles, CA to Interstate 5 the Westside Freeway. And having the soon to be future CA 58 Westside Parkway/Centennial Corridor completed between Interstate 5, and California state route 99, The Golden State Freeway in Bakersfield, CA.
Is this Dexter on this forum or works for a Caltrans District? As far as I know there was never any movement on updating 166 at all. I mean...what's with the name drop otherwise?
No, Max he isn't on this forum, and he doesn't work for Caltrans either. He is just a buddy friend of mine that lives in [REDACTED].
So why not just use "my buddy," "my friend," "my bro," "my homie," or anything else other than the guy's full name on top of NOW where he lives?....in addition to who he lives with? Regardless I'm pretty sure your bud didn't sign off on all that personal information about him you just disclosed.
Anyways...I digress neither route warrants upgrade. I'd like to see something done about 198 and 152 if we're talking about east/west routes in Central California.
MOD NOTE: Edited quote to redact personal information. –Roadfro
Quote from: ACSCmapcollector on August 07, 2016, 05:57:42 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 07, 2016, 05:25:21 PM
Quote from: ACSCmapcollector on August 07, 2016, 05:11:34 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 07, 2016, 04:56:17 PM
Quote from: ACSCmapcollector on August 07, 2016, 04:19:36 PM
Quote from: compdude787 on August 07, 2016, 04:08:32 PM
Quote from: oscar on July 07, 2016, 12:14:58 AM
The proposal to widen CA 166 sounds like just one guy's opinion. Unless this guy is a Caltrans official or politician with the clout to make it happen, why bother posting about it here? It's probably going nowhere even without your (or our) help.
Agreed.
It was my buddy friend Dexter Ricketts (Richard) who suggest this widening of California state route 166, I am more in the favor of having California state route 46 widened between U.S. 101 at Paso Robles, CA to Interstate 5 the Westside Freeway. And having the soon to be future CA 58 Westside Parkway/Centennial Corridor completed between Interstate 5, and California state route 99, The Golden State Freeway in Bakersfield, CA.
Is this Dexter on this forum or works for a Caltrans District? As far as I know there was never any movement on updating 166 at all. I mean...what's with the name drop otherwise?
No, Max he isn't on this forum, and he doesn't work for Caltrans either. He is just a buddy friend of mine that lives in [REDACTED].
So why not just use "my buddy," "my friend," "my bro," "my homie," or anything else other than the guy's full name on top of NOW where he lives?....in addition to who he lives with? Regardless I'm pretty sure your bud didn't sign off on all that personal information about him you just disclosed.
Anyways...I digress neither route warrants upgrade. I'd like to see something done about 198 and 152 if we're talking about east/west routes in Central California.
Well that would be enough for now, Max, please.
How you figure? Because you said so?
198 would be pretty useful westward as expressway to I-5. The 152 bypass of Los Banos is long overdue and would help relieve traffic in both directions. If I recall there was already some talk on merit of 152 being a toll facility to upgrade it to a freeway or expressway. If anything 152 is where the real impact ought to be. I don't see any real value in 166 or 46....
Also, I'm fairly certain you're violating forum rules by disclosing where people are and by name. You might want to consider going back and making some edits.
MOD NOTE: Edited quote to redact personal information. –Roadfro
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 07, 2016, 06:04:37 PM
Quote from: ACSCmapcollector on August 07, 2016, 05:57:42 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 07, 2016, 05:25:21 PM
Quote from: ACSCmapcollector on August 07, 2016, 05:11:34 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 07, 2016, 04:56:17 PM
Quote from: ACSCmapcollector on August 07, 2016, 04:19:36 PM
Quote from: compdude787 on August 07, 2016, 04:08:32 PM
Quote from: oscar on July 07, 2016, 12:14:58 AM
The proposal to widen CA 166 sounds like just one guy's opinion. Unless this guy is a Caltrans official or politician with the clout to make it happen, why bother posting about it here? It's probably going nowhere even without your (or our) help.
Agreed.
It was my buddy friend Dexter Ricketts (Richard) who suggest this widening of California state route 166, I am more in the favor of having California state route 46 widened between U.S. 101 at Paso Robles, CA to Interstate 5 the Westside Freeway. And having the soon to be future CA 58 Westside Parkway/Centennial Corridor completed between Interstate 5, and California state route 99, The Golden State Freeway in Bakersfield, CA.
Is this Dexter on this forum or works for a Caltrans District? As far as I know there was never any movement on updating 166 at all. I mean...what's with the name drop otherwise?
No, Max he isn't on this forum, and he doesn't work for Caltrans either. He is just a buddy friend of mine that lives in [REDACTED].
So why not just use "my buddy," "my friend," "my bro," "my homie," or anything else other than the guy's full name on top of NOW where he lives?....in addition to who he lives with? Regardless I'm pretty sure your bud didn't sign off on all that personal information about him you just disclosed.
Anyways...I digress neither route warrants upgrade. I'd like to see something done about 198 and 152 if we're talking about east/west routes in Central California.
Well that would be enough for now, Max, please.
How you figure? Because you said so?
198 would be pretty useful westward as expressway to I-5. The 152 bypass of Los Banos is long overdue and would help relieve traffic in both directions. If I recall there was already some talk on merit of 152 being a toll facility to upgrade it to a freeway or expressway. If anything 152 is where the real impact ought to be. I don't see any real value in 166 or 46....
Also, I'm fairly certain you're violating forum rules by disclosing where people are and by name. You might want to consider going back and making some edits.
The messages containing the information has been deleted, Max by me. Back to normal.
MOD NOTE: Edited quote to redact personal information. –Roadfro
Jeez, now that we can no longer mock Mr. Presnel in a now-locked thread, it seems we're looking through his other threads, so maybe we can run them into the ground too.
Let's give him a chance to learn from his mistakes. If he continues them in new threads, let the beatings resume. Otherwise, let's move along.
AFAIK, the only expansion activity -- or planning for such -- on any state highway crossing the Coast Range south of San Jose has been with CA 152 and CA 46. 166, 58, and 198 aren't on anyone's radar for anything beyond repaving, spot repairs or safety-related minimal modifications. There is so little commercial traffic flow on these routes that substantial upgrades are unwarranted. The only activities I can recall are the addition of left-turn channelization on that part of 166 that multiplexes with 33; the last major activity on 198 was the realignment of the western terminus away from San Lucas back in 1973 when the US 101 freeway was completed through the area (the original 198 alignment zig-zagged through San Lucas streets east of the original US 101).
Quote from: sparker on August 07, 2016, 06:48:11 PM
AFAIK, the only expansion activity -- or planning for such -- on any state highway crossing the Coast Range south of San Jose has been with CA 152 and CA 46. 166, 58, and 198 aren't on anyone's radar for anything beyond repaving, spot repairs or safety-related minimal modifications. There is so little commercial traffic flow on these routes that substantial upgrades are unwarranted. The only activities I can recall are the addition of left-turn channelization on that part of 166 that multiplexes with 33; the last major activity on 198 was the realignment of the western terminus away from San Lucas back in 1973 when the US 101 freeway was completed through the area (the original 198 alignment zig-zagged through San Lucas streets east of the original US 101).
In the Diablos west of Coalinga, hell no on 198 but west of the Air Station to I-5? That section has a ton of truck traffic from the local farmers heading mostly west to I-5. I think you and I discussed this in another thread but Kings County just lost out on an Amazon DC because 198 wasn't a "freeway" to I-5. Now granted I think the demands Amazon had about 198, 43, and 41 were way unreasonable on the whole but I could see a legitimate full expressway on 198 from I-5 to CA 99....41 sure needs that upgrade all the way between Fresno and Lemoore.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 07, 2016, 06:58:44 PM
Quote from: sparker on August 07, 2016, 06:48:11 PM
AFAIK, the only expansion activity -- or planning for such -- on any state highway crossing the Coast Range south of San Jose has been with CA 152 and CA 46. 166, 58, and 198 aren't on anyone's radar for anything beyond repaving, spot repairs or safety-related minimal modifications. There is so little commercial traffic flow on these routes that substantial upgrades are unwarranted. The only activities I can recall are the addition of left-turn channelization on that part of 166 that multiplexes with 33; the last major activity on 198 was the realignment of the western terminus away from San Lucas back in 1973 when the US 101 freeway was completed through the area (the original 198 alignment zig-zagged through San Lucas streets east of the original US 101).
In the Diablos west of Coalinga, hell no on 198 but west of the Air Station to I-5? That section has a ton of truck traffic from the local farmers heading mostly west to I-5. I think you and I discussed this in another thread but Kings County just lost out on an Amazon DC because 198 wasn't a "freeway" to I-5. Now granted I think the demands Amazon had about 198, 43, and 41 were way unreasonable on the whole but I could see a legitimate full expressway on 198 from I-5 to CA 99....41 sure needs that upgrade all the way between Fresno and Lemoore.
Not unless you have the California state route 152 bypass of Los Banos, CA built too.
Quote from: ACSCmapcollector on August 07, 2016, 08:35:34 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 07, 2016, 06:58:44 PM
In the Diablos west of Coalinga, hell no on 198 but west of the Air Station to I-5? That section has a ton of truck traffic from the local farmers heading mostly west to I-5. I think you and I discussed this in another thread but Kings County just lost out on an Amazon DC because 198 wasn't a "freeway" to I-5. Now granted I think the demands Amazon had about 198, 43, and 41 were way unreasonable on the whole but I could see a legitimate full expressway on 198 from I-5 to CA 99....41 sure needs that upgrade all the way between Fresno and Lemoore.
Not unless you have the California state route 152 bypass of Los Banos, CA built too.
Looking at Google Maps, I think Los Banos has gotten a bit too large to be bypassed. The northern bypass, which has been discussed in the past by local governments and Caltrans would be 7-8 miles in length and supposedly be very close to some sensitive wildlife areas.
Quote from: myosh_tino on August 07, 2016, 10:46:30 PM
Quote from: ACSCmapcollector on August 07, 2016, 08:35:34 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 07, 2016, 06:58:44 PM
In the Diablos west of Coalinga, hell no on 198 but west of the Air Station to I-5? That section has a ton of truck traffic from the local farmers heading mostly west to I-5. I think you and I discussed this in another thread but Kings County just lost out on an Amazon DC because 198 wasn't a "freeway" to I-5. Now granted I think the demands Amazon had about 198, 43, and 41 were way unreasonable on the whole but I could see a legitimate full expressway on 198 from I-5 to CA 99....41 sure needs that upgrade all the way between Fresno and Lemoore.
Not unless you have the California state route 152 bypass of Los Banos, CA built too.
Looking at Google Maps, I think Los Banos has gotten a bit too large to be bypassed. The northern bypass, which has been discussed in the past by local governments and Caltrans would be 7-8 miles in length and supposedly be very close to some sensitive wildlife areas.
Then California 152 over in Los Banos needs to be converted to freeway over there.
Mod Note: Fixed quoting. –Roadfro
Quote from: ACSCmapcollector on August 07, 2016, 10:48:58 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on August 07, 2016, 10:46:30 PM
Quote from: ACSCmapcollector on August 07, 2016, 08:35:34 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 07, 2016, 06:58:44 PM
In the Diablos west of Coalinga, hell no on 198 but west of the Air Station to I-5? That section has a ton of truck traffic from the local farmers heading mostly west to I-5. I think you and I discussed this in another thread but Kings County just lost out on an Amazon DC because 198 wasn't a "freeway" to I-5. Now granted I think the demands Amazon had about 198, 43, and 41 were way unreasonable on the whole but I could see a legitimate full expressway on 198 from I-5 to CA 99....41 sure needs that upgrade all the way between Fresno and Lemoore.
Not unless you have the California state route 152 bypass of Los Banos, CA built too.
Looking at Google Maps, I think Los Banos has gotten a bit too large to be bypassed. The northern bypass, which has been discussed in the past by local governments and Caltrans would be 7-8 miles in length and supposedly be very close to some sensitive wildlife areas.
Then California 152 over in Los Banos needs to be converted to freeway over there.
While a freeway would be nice, I think it's overkill. A 4-lane expressway with interchanges at major intersections would be more than sufficient.
I wonder if Caltrans ever studied a southern bypass that parallels Pioneer Rd which would be 6 miles in length and avoid the sensitive wildlife areas northeast of town.
I for one certainly wouldn't mind seeing CA 198 become at least an expressway from I-5 eastward; the combined populations of Hanford and Visalia would certainly justify an upgraded connection to I-5. My earlier comments concerned only 198 from Coalinga west to US 101 -- the part that actually traverses the Coast Range.
In regards to earlier comments about a southern Los Banos bypass, the eastern approach into town on 152 has "ghost lanes" diverging southward into a field; apparently, these were graded in the 1960's (they were there when I first drove on the road in 1968) about the time that 152 was "twinned" east of town. The grading has since become overgrown; not surprising, as the latest proposed bypass (perpetually kicked down the road) does follow an arc north of town. IIRC, there were also "ghost lanes" on the west side of town circa '68; that section today is overrun with roadside development.
Quote from: myosh_tino on August 07, 2016, 11:45:31 PM
Quote from: ACSCmapcollector on August 07, 2016, 10:48:58 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on August 07, 2016, 10:46:30 PM
Quote from: ACSCmapcollector on August 07, 2016, 08:35:34 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 07, 2016, 06:58:44 PM
In the Diablos west of Coalinga, hell no on 198 but west of the Air Station to I-5? That section has a ton of truck traffic from the local farmers heading mostly west to I-5. I think you and I discussed this in another thread but Kings County just lost out on an Amazon DC because 198 wasn't a "freeway" to I-5. Now granted I think the demands Amazon had about 198, 43, and 41 were way unreasonable on the whole but I could see a legitimate full expressway on 198 from I-5 to CA 99....41 sure needs that upgrade all the way between Fresno and Lemoore.
Not unless you have the California state route 152 bypass of Los Banos, CA built too.
Looking at Google Maps, I think Los Banos has gotten a bit too large to be bypassed. The northern bypass, which has been discussed in the past by local governments and Caltrans would be 7-8 miles in length and supposedly be very close to some sensitive wildlife areas.
Then California 152 over in Los Banos needs to be converted to freeway over there.
While a freeway would be nice, I think it's overkill. A 4-lane expressway with interchanges at major intersections would be more than sufficient.
I wonder if Caltrans ever studied a southern bypass that parallels Pioneer Rd which would be 6 miles in length and avoid the sensitive wildlife areas northeast of town.
Caltrans did an environmental impact statement in 2005 that considered three possible bypass routes. Two on the south side of town: one just north of Copa de Oro Ave., and one just south of Pioneer Rd. And one on the north side of town, reaching just south of Henry Miller Rd. http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist6/environmental/envdocs/d10/sr152_losbanos_bypass.pdf
It would have to be either a toll road or funded by building impact fees, or possibly both. But neither of those funding mechanisms shows any sign of happening in the near future.
Quote from: kkt on August 08, 2016, 01:55:56 AM
Quote from: myosh_tino on August 07, 2016, 11:45:31 PM
While a freeway would be nice, I think it's overkill. A 4-lane expressway with interchanges at major intersections would be more than sufficient.
I wonder if Caltrans ever studied a southern bypass that parallels Pioneer Rd which would be 6 miles in length and avoid the sensitive wildlife areas northeast of town.
Caltrans did an environmental impact statement in 2005 that considered three possible bypass routes. Two on the south side of town: one just north of Copa de Oro Ave., and one just south of Pioneer Rd. And one on the north side of town, reaching just south of Henry Miller Rd. http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist6/environmental/envdocs/d10/sr152_losbanos_bypass.pdf
It would have to be either a toll road or funded by building impact fees, or possibly both. But neither of those funding mechanisms shows any sign of happening in the near future.
Looks like I was wrong. The sensitive wildlife areas are southeast of town, not northeast which basically eliminates all of the southern alternatives. In the end, it probably doesn't matter because of the lack of funding for this project. I don't see this being built for quite some time.
I think widening CA-198 to a 4-lane expressway is a far more likely than the CA-152 bypass around Los Banos.
Quote from: myosh_tino on August 08, 2016, 04:05:16 AM
Quote from: kkt on August 08, 2016, 01:55:56 AM
Quote from: myosh_tino on August 07, 2016, 11:45:31 PM
While a freeway would be nice, I think it's overkill. A 4-lane expressway with interchanges at major intersections would be more than sufficient.
I wonder if Caltrans ever studied a southern bypass that parallels Pioneer Rd which would be 6 miles in length and avoid the sensitive wildlife areas northeast of town.
Caltrans did an environmental impact statement in 2005 that considered three possible bypass routes. Two on the south side of town: one just north of Copa de Oro Ave., and one just south of Pioneer Rd. And one on the north side of town, reaching just south of Henry Miller Rd. http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist6/environmental/envdocs/d10/sr152_losbanos_bypass.pdf
It would have to be either a toll road or funded by building impact fees, or possibly both. But neither of those funding mechanisms shows any sign of happening in the near future.
Looks like I was wrong. The sensitive wildlife areas are southeast of town, not northeast which basically eliminates all of the southern alternatives. In the end, it probably doesn't matter because of the lack of funding for this project. I don't see this being built for quite some time.
I think widening CA-198 to a 4-lane expressway is a far more likely than the CA-152 bypass around Los Banos.
I agree too that CA 198 needs to be converted to 4 lane expressway between Lemoore Naval Air Station and Interstate 5, the Westside Freeway because of the truck traffic. Caltrans recently opened a new expressway between Hanford and CA 99/Visalia as the Hanford Expressway too just recently.
The big advantage 198 has is that it really just traverses farm land west of Lemoore to I-5. Really the only semi-significant crossing would be CA 269 but that could be handled with a traffic light if funding was a problem for an overpass. Really it would likely resemble how 198 looks between CA 43 and CA 99, not a single traffic light with plenty of turn-offs for the local roads or farms.
Given Caltrans' proclivities re expressways in the Valley, the 198/269 junction would likely be the only place that would get an interchange (as the only state highway crossing along the I-5 to CA 41 stretch); local/farm roads would likely receive channelization at best. OK, maybe the Harris Ranch restaurant would get an interchange -- but only if the I-5/CA 198 interchange were expanded into a cloverleaf or a flyover configuration. Both 198 and 41 in that part of the Valley remind me of North Midwest (Iowa, Wisconsin) configurations: freeway segments around significant towns (Lemoore, Hanford, Visalia) and expressway elsewhere, except for interchanges at crossing state/US highways. Always seemed to be a reasonable and workable (and with future expandability) solution to capacity enhancement.
If this were upgraded to an expressway to I-5, I don't think 269 would get an interchange. It would just be a signalized intersection.
But the traffic counts don't warrant an expressway. Based on those, it looks like traffic is doubling after that Huron turn-off (which makes sense given Huron's nature), and even after that almost doubling you're still at only about 1/5 of the counts on the Hanford bypass.
I mean, I drive 198 a lot to the Central Valley because it's just a lot more pleasant than my alternatives. Widening through the mountains right now is totally absurd. You can pull off on that road and not see another car for 15 minutes. The only vehicles I've ever passed were large trucks going to and from a quarry in the area (i.e. - local and temporary traffic). Even east of I-5, I just never see the traffic. If the farm traffic is headed south then it would use 41. If it's headed north, then maybe it would use 198, but it doesn't seem like there's much of it to begin with, let alone enough so that half or less (it seems like most traffic from there goes south) would warrant a 4-lane divided roadway.
But can we talk about the fact that the I-5/198 interchange is a parclo, versus both 41 and 46 that are both just a regular diamond despite being a lot more congested? I mean, what's up with that? Was Caltrans being optimistic? Maybe they thought the commercial development at that intersection would be a lot more than what it is?
I'd venture an educated guess that the parclo is due to influence by the Harris Ranch folks, who likely have over the years envisioned some sort of roadside development at or near the 5/198 junction and applied the necessary pressure to get a higher-capacity interchange deployed at that location. Certainly it's not to accommodate an expansion of Coalinga out to that area (as if that would ever occur absent a gold/oil strike in the area -- or some previous undisclosed plans for localized fracking operations). There doesn't seem to be anything in the current STIP that indicates that 198 west of Lemoore is slated for substantial upgrading, so just about everything said about that route, including my own comments, is simply speculative at this point.
In the hills west of Coalinga, 198 is most certainly adequate as is; the last time I was on that road, about 4 years ago, I drove (WB) for about 10 miles without seeing any vehicles coming in the opposite direction -- and that was a UPS van! The only thing needed on that road is to restore the signage at the 198/25 junction, which seems to have vanished into thin air!
Quote from: sparker on August 09, 2016, 05:59:06 PM
I'd venture an educated guess that the parclo is due to influence by the Harris Ranch folks, who likely have over the years envisioned some sort of roadside development at or near the 5/198 junction and applied the necessary pressure to get a higher-capacity interchange deployed at that location.
That was kinda my thought as well. Can't plow through Central California without a stop at Harris Ranch! Except that you totally can!
Always been curious about that hotel. It just looks like kind of a dump and seems to be mostly local contractors and workers staying there.
Quote from: sparker on August 09, 2016, 05:59:06 PM
Certainly it's not to accommodate an expansion of Coalinga out to that area
If Coalinga grows, then the rest of this state is doomed. Something just seems so apocalyptic about letting that town get out of its squalid corner of desert.
Quote from: sparker on August 09, 2016, 05:59:06 PM
so just about everything said about that route, including my own comments, is simply speculative at this point.
The speculation even running dry in California gives even the ultra speculator who started this thread some level of credence. It just gets boring otherwise. Gotta have a highway project somewhere!
As long as there's In-N-Outs at Kettleman and Terra Bella there's no need to snag overpriced ground beef at Harris Ranch! Fries are better as well! Harris Ranch is basically a cookie-cutter coffee shop with a modicum of pretense added on for good measure! But it's still the Taj Mahal of I-5 (alright, Andersen's Pea Soup in Terra Bella comes in a close 2nd -- if it's still there; I usually make my exit at 152, so haven't been north of there in a few years) -- at least compared with the other stuff strung out along the freeway.
Actually by technical definition Coalinga would be in a desert given it that it receives about 8.3 inches of rain a year. Most of San Joaquin Valley is slightly over 10 inches which puts it as "semi-arid." Feels plenty like a desert down by me, just slightly cooler than what I'm used to from the Sonoran Desert. Apparently Coalinga is about to crest 17,000 people...not bad for a town that has a Kmart as it's commerce hub and is loosely named after a coaling station. I wouldn't say it was enough to justify an upgrade on 198/33 just yet but it seems to be one of the in vogue places to move the last two decades.
I always like the burgers at Harris Ranch, usually I was transporting someone up north when I've been in recently...so at least I didn't have to pay. Usually I cut back over on 198 to get to either 43 or 99 on the way home and there is certainly a wealth of food options.
As far as 198 west of Coalinga, man that is one of the real underrated fun drives in the state. It's just challenging enough to keep your attention but kind of peaceful given the lack of other vehicles.
Speaking (peripherally) of food in the San Joaquin Valley, do any posters remember the late, great Imperial Dynasty restaurant in Hanford? Closed in 2006 after 55 years in business when the owner and chef, the late Richard Wing, became too ill to work regularly. Was considered, at least in the '70's and early '80's, to be the best Mandarin-style restaurant in California, if not the whole western U.S. My ex, who was a regular (her dad was Wing's lawyer!), introduced me to the place back when we started dating back in '81. Having become accustomed to "hot & spicy" Szechuan and Hunan cuisines by that time, I was skeptical at first -- but the subtleties of flavor -- even with simple war-won-ton soup, were amazing. As time went by, Wing integrated some more popular spicy dishes (like kung pao chicken and hot & sour soup) into his menu, but his specialty remained Mandarin-style dishes like braised whole chicken (yum!).
Apparently some Wing family members have established a small "tea room" near the site of the former restaurant, and are starting to reintroduce some of the Dynasty's more popular dishes. The Wing family also owns the appropriately named Wing's restaurant here in San Jose on Jackson and North 4th Street -- but the last time I dined there the menu selections bore no resemblance to the Dynasty's fare.
If any Valley-based posters are in the position to check out the Hanford restaurant, a brief note as to status of such would be greatly appreciated. Apparently there's also a local revival of the old Hanford "Chinatown", called China Alley; this is the likely location of the Wing continuation "tearoom".
Wasn't that in China Alley right behind 7th Street? I remember seeing the place once decades ago on TD and may or may not have actually eaten there. I thought it was strange that a smaller city in the Valley like Hanford actually had a "China Town" which literally was just a back alley.
http://www.chinaalley.com/index.php?section=about
The Dynasty was actually on 7th. The "alley" originally contained numerous Chinese specialty shops -- a miniature version of Grant Ave. in S.F. My ex collected Asian lacquer pieces, so I've spent an inordinate amount of time in Chinese neighborhoods all over California, including the one in Hanford (circa early-to-mid 80's). Lunchtime made the shopping trips at least tolerable!
Just looked it up on Google Maps, I did in fact eat there once back in the 90s...go figure. Apparently the tea room actually has pretty decent reviews:
https://www.google.com/search?q=L+T+Sue+Co.Tea+Room,+402+E+7th+St,+Hanford,+CA+93230&ludocid=17545388438543098856#lrd=0x8094c37c84959eab:0xf37dbdd34d9b63e8,1,
Looks like everything in that back alley and along 7th in general has fallen into disrepair. So much for that actually being a true "business route" nowadays. Hell might be worth a trip back up there some time just to check out China Alley sometime. I have so many photos of old historic buildings, ghost towns, engineering structures, roads, and what not that something other than Allensworth in San Joaquin Valley might be a nice addition.
Looked at their site & the Yelp review; looks like they're offering a standard lunch menu, but with the addition of some Asian soups -- probably to "test the waters" re adding more entrée dishes. I have to make a trip down to Hesperia to get some stuff out of storage in November or December (don't do the desert in summer if I can help it!), might just make a Hanford stop to check the place out. I'd ask my ex if she's been there recently, but I don't want to be on the phone for 3 hours! Thanks for the info!