Upgrading the James Dean Memorial Junction (Eastern Intersection of 41 and 46)

[dbz77]

https://www.bakersfield.com/news/highway-widening-gets-major-funding-including-a-full-interchange-at/article_347cc54c-2ef2-11e8-a720-ff6bd1251e75.html

There are plans for upgrading the James Dean memorial Junction, which is where the 41 and 46 diverge at Cholame, California.

What would be the best method of upgrading this junction, which currently only has yellow flashing warning lights? The hardware for an all-way stop is already there, as one merely has to change the yellow lights to red and install a few road signs. A traffic signal can utilize the existing masts and mast arms used for the blinking yellow light, although it would require more hardware. A roundabout would require quite a bit of construction, while a full high-speed interchange requires a lot more construction.

I am surprised though, that at least a roundabout, if not a fully signalized junction, had not been constructed there in the past sixty-four years.

[Max Rockatansky]

I was under the impression this would be a full flyover ramp for CA 41 northbound as it splits from CA 46 east?  Regardless my personal opinion is that 46 ought to be four laned east to I-5 and CA 41 north to CA 41. 

[dbz77]

I was under the impression this would be a full flyover ramp for CA 41 northbound as it splits from CA 46 east?  Regardless my personal opinion is that 46 ought to be four laned east to I-5 and CA 41 north to CA 41.

A roundabout wouls be cheaper, and could accommodate the traffic at that junction. There does not seem to be enough traffic to warrant a signalized junction much less a full freeway interchange.

[Concrete Bob]

My vote is on the grade-separated interchange:

https://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/article206310504.html

I am with Max on the 46 Expressway option.  I would continue with SR 46 as an expressway east to 99 (after 58 is finished as a freeway to I-5).  I would combine the 46 upgrades with a four-laned 41 expressway to Lemoore, followed by a full freeway on 41 north through Fresno to Route 145.

[dbz77]

My vote is on the grade-separated interchange:

https://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/article206310504.html

I am with Max on the 46 Expressway option.  I would continue with SR 46 as an expressway east to 99 (after 58 is finished as a freeway to I-5).  I would combine the 46 upgrades with a four-laned 41 expressway to Lemoore, followed by a full freway on 41 north through Fresno to Route 145.

I am surprised that there is not a traffic signal there already.

[Max Rockatansky]

My vote is on the grade-separated interchange:

https://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/article206310504.html

I am with Max on the 46 Expressway option.  I would continue with SR 46 as an expressway east to 99 (after 58 is finished as a freeway to I-5).  I would combine the 46 upgrades with a four-laned 41 expressway to Lemoore, followed by a full freway on 41 north through Fresno to Route 145.

I am surprised that there is not a traffic signal there already.

That intersection has been infamous for decades and got a ton of notoriety from the James Dean Accident when 46 was US 466.  The traffic is high enough to justify a full flyover ramp with how many vehicles make the turn north on CA 41 towards Fresno.  Here is the design for the new interchange which was recently approved:

https://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/article206310504.html

Daniel has a ton of detail on the improvements to CA 46 east of Paso Robles on his page:

https://www.cahighways.org/041-048.html#046

[skluth]

I voted for the full interchange. However, I think the planned trumpet will be adequate.

[sparker]

My vote is on the grade-separated interchange:

https://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/article206310504.html

I am with Max on the 46 Expressway option.  I would continue with SR 46 as an expressway east to 99 (after 58 is finished as a freeway to I-5).  I would combine the 46 upgrades with a four-laned 41 expressway to Lemoore, followed by a full freway on 41 north through Fresno to Route 145.

I am surprised that there is not a traffic signal there already.

That intersection has been infamous for decades and got a ton of notoriety from the James Dean Accident when 46 was US 466.  The traffic is high enough to justify a full flyover ramp with how many vehicles make the turn north on CA 41 towards Fresno.  Here is the design for the new interchange which was recently approved:

https://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/article206310504.html

Daniel has a ton of detail on the improvements to CA 46 east of Paso Robles on his page:

https://www.cahighways.org/041-048.html#046

I voted for the full interchange. However, I think the planned trumpet will be adequate.

Trumpet's fine -- except for that WB 46> NB 41 ramp, which looks like a simple right turn -- not the safest option for a high-speed facility.  I realize that movement, like its "loop" opposite number, will be carrying a relatively minimal level of traffic -- but still, drivers who do need to make that movement need to do so without creating an impediment to WB 46 traffic.  What's pictured is inadequate for that purpose. 

[Kniwt]

Unfortunately, there's been another fatality (with eight others injured) at this junction:
https://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/article233658742.html

... Pan entered the left turn lane at the intersection of Highway 46 and Highway 41, known as the Cholame "Y,"  but didn't see the pickup approaching the intersection, according to the CHP.

As Pan turned onto Highway 41 to head north toward Fresno, he drove into the path of the pickup, which was unable to stop in time, the CHP said. The vehicles collided, and both came rest in a westerly direction on the north shoulder of Highway 46 within the intersection.

The Tribune has this aerial file photo of the junction:

[Max Rockatansky]

Here is what the junction looks like on the surface heading into 41 northbound.  Kind of hard to miss that traffic heading downhill from 46 west but yet so many people do:

https://flic.kr/p/TjjXHj

[dbz77]

Here is what the junction looks like on the surface heading into 41 northbound.  Kind of hard to miss that traffic heading downhill from 46 west but yet so many people do:

https://flic.kr/p/TjjXHj

I am surprised no one bothered putting up a traffic signal...

[Max Rockatansky]

Here is what the junction looks like on the surface heading into 41 northbound.  Kind of hard to miss that traffic heading downhill from 46 west but yet so many people do:

https://flic.kr/p/TjjXHj

I am surprised no one bothered putting up a traffic signal...

True, it's quite the sight to see trucks have to make that turn to beat oncoming traffic sometimes. 

[roadfro]

Here is what the junction looks like on the surface heading into 41 northbound.  Kind of hard to miss that traffic heading downhill from 46 west but yet so many people do:

https://flic.kr/p/TjjXHj

I am surprised no one bothered putting up a traffic signal...

Not sure that it would meet signal warrants. But on a high speed rural highway, a traffic signal (without adequate advance warning features) could cause an increase in rear end collisions.

[Max Rockatansky]

Here is what the junction looks like on the surface heading into 41 northbound.  Kind of hard to miss that traffic heading downhill from 46 west but yet so many people do:

https://flic.kr/p/TjjXHj

I am surprised no one bothered putting up a traffic signal...

Not sure that it would meet signal warrants. But on a high speed rural highway, a traffic signal (without adequate advance warning features) could cause an increase in rear end collisions.

I mean more in the context that the public outcry against that junction has always been fairly strong given the number of accidents that happen there.  That turn lane would need to be significantly deeper than it presently is and would require a very long light.  The new junction will be a huge improvement, especially on 41 north.  Really 41 north to 198 and 46 east to I-5 ought to be up for consideration to upgrade to full expressway status with the traffic volumes they draw. 

[dbz77]

Here is what the junction looks like on the surface heading into 41 northbound.  Kind of hard to miss that traffic heading downhill from 46 west but yet so many people do:

https://flic.kr/p/TjjXHj

I am surprised no one bothered putting up a traffic signal...

Not sure that it would meet signal warrants. But on a high speed rural highway, a traffic signal (without adequate advance warning features) could cause an increase in rear end collisions.

I mean more in the context that the public outcry against that junction has always been fairly strong given the number of accidents that happen there.  That turn lane would need to be significantly deeper than it presently is and would require a very long light.

A 3-way signal would be appropriate.

[mrsman]

A little GSV'ing in the area allows me to notice some major improvements in the general area done over the last few years.

CA-46 to the east and west of here used to be 1-1, with an occasional left turn lane all the way to Paso Robles.  It is being upgraded to 2-2 with turn lanes and a sizable median.  (This work isn't that recent, but for someone who hasn't been on the stretch in 10 years, it is a vast improvement.)

Similarly, major improvement to the 46/33 intersection.  Used to be stop-signs on 33, no-stop on 46.  Now has a traffic signal, with Caltrans standard left turns on arrows only on all approaches.

The accident history at 41/46 clearly indicates a need for an improvement.  The best improvement will be a full-fledged interchange with appropriate road widening.  But a traffic signal should be the first step.

[Max Rockatansky]

Most of the new expressway from the CA 41 split in Shandon east to James Dean Memorial Junction was constructed in the past three years.   Even the current improvement have had a massive effect smoothing out the traffic flow considerably.  I usually head down to Paso Robles and Cambria every other month, the work has been surprisingly fast paced. 

[skluth]

Big bump for new info

Caltrans looking for feedback on Highway 46 widening project

Caltrans is continuing work to widen Highway 46, and they're asking for the public's input.

The agency wants to hear from drivers, businesses, and people who live in Shandon and surrounding areas.

The feedback will be used in the next phase of widening work.

"Currently, we're in the final phases of design for the Antelope Grade segment and what we're trying to do is compile information from travelers and people in the area,"  said Alexa Bertola, public information officer for Caltrans District 5.

The agency has launched an online survey that takes about two minutes to complete.

The five-question survey asks where drivers have experienced issues with traffic, among other questions.

"With this survey, we plan on doing more outreach–we have it on social media,"  said Bertola. "Today, we were out on the Shandon roadside rest area speaking to people in the community, encouraging them to take part in the survey."

Caltrans is currently working to expand Highway 46 to four lanes in and around the Cholame Y.

The next phase is the Antelope Grade just to the east of the Y. Results of the survey will be used in the final design phase of that widening project.

"We're heading over to Cambria and so far, the experience has been good coming over from Los Angeles,"  said Toby Kopp who is visiting from Los Angeles.

Highway 46 is a busy corridor connecting the Central Coast and the Central Valley.

Traffic was moving smoothly Friday evening as visitors flock to the area.

"I travel this one or twice a year but in my experience, it hasn't really bottlenecked,"  added Kopp.

The survey will be up through mid-October. The goal is to understand the priorities of drivers who take highway 46.

Article linked in headline. Survey linked in article.

[Max Rockatansky]

District 5 had the survey on their Facebook page also. 

[pderocco]

How about this: Create a 4-lane divided Y, with one grade separation. Then, swing Cholame Rd further E, and give it a separate diamond interchange with 41 and with 46. That would make a triangle, with the diamonds for the less used connections.

[MrAndy1369]

If 46 will eventually be part of I-40 in the vast future (if that even comes to fruition), then I'd assume a full freeway trumpet interchange would make the most sense. 46 east of the 46/41 intersection is already being upgraded to expressway standards, so that'd be the most practical solution.

[Max Rockatansky]

If 46 will eventually be part of I-40 in the vast future (if that even comes to fruition), then I'd assume a full freeway trumpet interchange would make the most sense. 46 east of the 46/41 intersection is already being upgraded to expressway standards, so that'd be the most practical solution.

It won't, CA 58 west of Barstow was last requested to become an Interstate in 1968.  I blame sites like Freewayjim and Roadgeekery for spread the myth that I-40 is destined to reach I-5. 

[dbz77]

If 46 will eventually be part of I-40 in the vast future (if that even comes to fruition), then I'd assume a full freeway trumpet interchange would make the most sense. 46 east of the 46/41 intersection is already being upgraded to expressway standards, so that'd be the most practical solution.

It won't, CA 58 west of Barstow was last requested to become an Interstate in 1968.  I blame sites like Freewayjim and Roadgeekery for spread the myth that I-40 is destined to reach I-5.

The marginal utilty of grade-separated interchanges on the 58 diminishes to nil west of the Bakersfield city limits.

[Max Rockatansky]

If 46 will eventually be part of I-40 in the vast future (if that even comes to fruition), then I'd assume a full freeway trumpet interchange would make the most sense. 46 east of the 46/41 intersection is already being upgraded to expressway standards, so that'd be the most practical solution.

It won't, CA 58 west of Barstow was last requested to become an Interstate in 1968.  I blame sites like Freewayjim and Roadgeekery for spread the myth that I-40 is destined to reach I-5.

The marginal utilty of grade-separated interchanges on the 58 diminishes to nil west of the Bakersfield city limits.

Correct, the corridor of 46 west of Bakersfield is by far the busiest cross-coast range route heading northward until one gets to 152.  Even 46 west of 5 has several at-grade intersections that would never be anything but at-grade.

[pderocco]

The marginal utilty of grade-separated interchanges on the 58 diminishes to nil west of the Bakersfield city limits.

This would be a good example of induced demand. If CA-58 isn't made a freeway to I-5, then there will be no need for an interchange at CA-43. If it is made a freeway, it will become a very heavily trafficked road, and the interchange at CA-43 won't seem useless at all. Indeed, I could even imagine a flyover from I-5 south to CA-58.