CA 166 from U.S. 101 to Interstate 5 is two lanes, doesn't need to be widened.

[ACSCmapcollector]

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

[oscar]

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.

[andy3175]

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).

[ACSCmapcollector]

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

[national highway 1]

I see no reason that California state route 166 has to be widened..

Then why bring it up in the first place? 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.

[compdude787]

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.

[ACSCmapcollector]

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.

[Max Rockatansky]

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?

[coatimundi]

what's with the name drop otherwise?

Gousha

[Max Rockatansky]

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

[Max Rockatansky]

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

[ACSCmapcollector]

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

[oscar]

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.

[sparker]

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).     

[Max Rockatansky]

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. 

[ACSCmapcollector]

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.

[myosh_tino]

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.

[ACSCmapcollector]

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

[myosh_tino]

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.

[sparker]

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.   

[kkt]

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.

[myosh_tino]

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.

[ACSCmapcollector]

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.

[Max Rockatansky]

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.

[sparker]

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.