CA-58 and I-40

[andy3175]

The Westview Parkway will start off as an unnumbered freeway but is planned to become part of California 58 once adjoining segments are completed:

http://www.bakersfieldcalifornian.com/local/x837005773/Ask-The-Californian-Will-the-Westside-Parkway-be-numbered-like-other-freeways

The Westside Parkway, from Truxtun Avenue to Stockdale Highway/Heath Road, will be a city-owned and operated facility when it first opens later this year. Route numbers are assigned by the state or federal governments for highway and freeway facilities they operate and maintain, so initially there will not be any number associated with the Westside Parkway freeway.

Caltrans is the lead agency for the proposed Centennial Corridor project, which would link State Route 58 east of State Route 99 with the Westside Parkway freeway at Truxtun Avenue.

The Centennial Corridor project would be an extension of State Route 58; so upon approval, this project along with the Westside Parkway would become the new alignment for State Route 58, and the Westside Parkway would become part of the state-owned and operated freeway system.

West of Heath Road, the westerly terminus of the Westside Parkway freeway, traffic would use Stockdale Highway to access Interstate 5; and so along with the Westside Parkway, this portion of Stockdale Highway would then also become designated as State Route 58.

The portion of existing State Route 58 (Rosedale Highway) between Mohawk Street and Allen Road is already operated and maintained by either the city or the county. This portion of the roadway was previously relinquished by Caltrans to the city and county to facilitate the TRIP project to widen Rosedale Highway.

But even with that relinquishment, this portion of the roadway currently remains identified as State Route 58, so there is not any confusion to the traveling public.

Once the Westside Parkway and Stockdale Highway are designated as State Route 58, the remaining un-relinquished portions of the current alignment of State Route 58 between State Route 99 and Interstate 5 would then also become city- and county-operated and maintained roadways (except for the short north-south segment of roadway that State Routes 58 and 43 share, which would remain under state jurisdiction as State Route 43).

Regards,
Andy

[jfs1988]

Is it possible to upgrade CA-58 in the Temblor Range to expressway standards? I-40 could be a coast to coast highway.

[NE2]

Does a bear draw lines on a map in the woods?

[english si]

Is it possible to upgrade CA-58 in the Temblor Range to expressway standards? I-40 could be a coast to coast highway.

Just let the events of Earthquake 10.5 happen and you'd have I-40 as coast to coast without any construction...

[agentsteel53]

Is it possible to upgrade CA-58 in the Temblor Range to expressway standards? I-40 could be a coast to coast highway.

possible, but pointless.  traffic counts on CA-58 are among the absolute lowest in the state. 

[Henry]

Is it possible to upgrade CA-58 in the Temblor Range to expressway standards? I-40 could be a coast to coast highway.

possible, but pointless.  traffic counts on CA-58 are among the absolute lowest in the state. 

Maybe so, but that hasn't stopped the fantasy highway makers from upgrading the Bakersfield-Barstow portion into I-40. Not to mention the added incentive of upgrading CA 99 into I-9 (or I-7, take your pick).

[agentsteel53]

Maybe so, but that hasn't stopped the fantasy highway makers from upgrading the Bakersfield-Barstow portion into I-40. Not to mention the added incentive of upgrading CA 99 into I-9 (or I-7, take your pick).

we're talking about different segments.  the Temblor range is west of Bakersfield.  east of Bakersfield, the 58 expressway certainly could use some upgrading... a climbing lane for the slow slow trucks, some left turn at-grades closed off or turned into grade separations, etc. 

[myosh_tino]

Is it possible to upgrade CA-58 in the Temblor Range to expressway standards? I-40 could be a coast to coast highway.

possible, but pointless.  traffic counts on CA-58 are among the absolute lowest in the state. 

Maybe so, but that hasn't stopped the fantasy highway makers from upgrading the Bakersfield-Barstow portion into I-40. Not to mention the added incentive of upgrading CA 99 into I-9 (or I-7, take your pick).

Might I suggest you head over to the Fictional Highways board where the idea of extending I-40 to US 101 has been discussed numerous times.

Edit: Never mind.  Looks like you already found the discussions.

[mrsman]

What types of signs are currently signed to guide traffic to and fro the Parkway?  My guess is that there should be some sort of signage from the California exit of 99 and perhaps some guide signs along Truxton from Downtown Bakersfield.

[BakoCondors]

What types of signs are currently signed to guide traffic to and fro the Parkway?  My guess is that there should be some sort of signage from the California exit of 99 and perhaps some guide signs along Truxton from Downtown Bakersfield.

The signage directing traffic from Truxtun out of downtown west onto the Parkway starts just past Empire Dr., about a quarter-mile from the Parkway's start (roughly half a mile west of Truxtun & Oak, the nearest major intersection). Two overhead signs directing traffic to the right two lanes of Truxtun.

Currently, there is no signage indicating the Westside Parkway's existence on CA-99, much less how to get there. As you indicate, California Ave would be the most appropriate exit to direct traffic from CA-99 to the WSP.

[mgk920]

Checking over the Google Maps aerial images, maps, steetview, etc, I'm wondering how well things are going with the part of the Westside Parkway (future CA 58) that is planned to connect the section that recently opened and CA 99 - that looks like a very nice, intact neighborhood through which that ROW is planned to go.

(Note, if you zoom the Google map of that gap in far enough, it shows the planned routing.)

Mike

[Indyroads]

Checking over the Google Maps aerial images, maps, steetview, etc, I'm wondering how well things are going with the part of the Westside Parkway (future CA 58) that is planned to connect the section that recently opened and CA 99 - that looks like a very nice, intact neighborhood through which that ROW is planned to go.

(Note, if you zoom the Google map of that gap in far enough, it shows the planned routing.)

Mike

Sounds like a great job for another big dig... maybe use TBMs to bore tunnels uber-expensive. seems like destroying the neighborhood is the most cost effective. no doubt that will be popular.  Kern County and CalTrans should have preserved ROW.

[DTComposer]

Two thoughts regarding this:

-As mentioned, the Caltrans preferred alignment goes straight through a neighborhood...would it make more sense to take the Parkway due east (just south of the railroad, taking out what seems to be an industrial office park), then south along CA-99, maybe a dual freeway design, maybe subsuming Oak Street and the businesses along there, but I would think it would be cheaper (and cause less consternation)?

-For the eventual westward extension of the Parkway to I-5, I notice the alignment veers towards the southwest as it approaches I-5. Since I would think most of the traffic using this connection would be coming from the north, or going towards the north (if they were heading south they'd just take CA-99), shouldn't this alignment actually veer towards the northwest?

[kkt]

Checking over the Google Maps aerial images, maps, steetview, etc, I'm wondering how well things are going with the part of the Westside Parkway (future CA 58) that is planned to connect the section that recently opened and CA 99 - that looks like a very nice, intact neighborhood through which that ROW is planned to go.

(Note, if you zoom the Google map of that gap in far enough, it shows the planned routing.)

Mike

Sounds like a great job for another big dig... maybe use TBMs to bore tunnels uber-expensive. seems like destroying the neighborhood is the most cost effective. no doubt that will be popular.  Kern County and CalTrans should have preserved ROW.

This is just Bakersfield... not full of historical and archeological treasures like old Boston.  Yes, it should have obvious to everyone since I-5 was in the planning stages that a westward extension of CA-58 would be needed.

[TheStranger]

This is just Bakersfield... not full of historical and archeological treasures like old Boston.  Yes, it should have obvious to everyone since I-5 was in the planning stages that a westward extension of CA-58 would be needed.

IIRC, in 1968, Route 58 between I-5 and I-15 was submitted to the Interstate system but rejected:
http://cahighways.org/itypes.html

Looking at old topographic maps on Historicaerials, the area to the immediate west of today's 58/99 junction was developed some time between 1950 and 1955.  I wonder if anything would have been built west of 99 back in the 1960s had 58 been approved as an Interstate.

[andy3175]

Checking over the Google Maps aerial images, maps, steetview, etc, I'm wondering how well things are going with the part of the Westside Parkway (future CA 58) that is planned to connect the section that recently opened and CA 99 - that looks like a very nice, intact neighborhood through which that ROW is planned to go.

Sure enough, it looks like a lawsuit to protect those houses is underway:

http://www.bakersfieldcalifornian.com/local/x558590944/City-Council-continues-highway-projects-despite-lawsuit-threat

The secretary for the Westpark Home Owners Association, a group of residents whose houses would be destroyed if the Centennial Corridor freeway segment is built, threatened the Bakersfield City Council with a lawsuit Wednesday if the project continues.

"If you approve the validation action this evening, we will take you to court," WHOA secretary Marc Caputo told the council as more than 40 Westpark residents sat and listened to council members share their doubts about going into debt to pay Bakersfield's share of the federally funded Thomas Roads Improvement Program.

After more than an hour of debate, the council voted 6-1 to approve a validation action.

Regards,
Andy

[BakoCondors]

Sounds like a great job for another big dig... maybe use TBMs to bore tunnels uber-expensive. seems like destroying the neighborhood is the most cost effective. no doubt that will be popular.  Kern County and CalTrans should have preserved ROW.

Shortsightedness, particularly when it comes to infrastructure, is a hallmark of Bakersfield's history.

[BakoCondors]

This is just Bakersfield... not full of historical and archeological treasures like old Boston.

"Just Bakersfield?"

Why I oughta...

[TheStranger]

Sounds like a great job for another big dig... maybe use TBMs to bore tunnels uber-expensive. seems like destroying the neighborhood is the most cost effective. no doubt that will be popular.  Kern County and CalTrans should have preserved ROW.

Shortsightedness, particularly when it comes to infrastructure, is a hallmark of Bakersfield's history.

Interesting to see some of that analyzed (to a degree) on the Wikipedia article for the West Bakersfield Interchange:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Bakersfield_Interchange

This talks about a future Route 178 connector to the Westside Parkway - any planning maps showing this?

[Quillz]

Checking over the Google Maps aerial images, maps, steetview, etc, I'm wondering how well things are going with the part of the Westside Parkway (future CA 58) that is planned to connect the section that recently opened and CA 99 - that looks like a very nice, intact neighborhood through which that ROW is planned to go.

(Note, if you zoom the Google map of that gap in far enough, it shows the planned routing.)

Mike

Sounds like a great job for another big dig... maybe use TBMs to bore tunnels uber-expensive. seems like destroying the neighborhood is the most cost effective. no doubt that will be popular.  Kern County and CalTrans should have preserved ROW.

This is just Bakersfield... not full of historical and archeological treasures like old Boston.  Yes, it should have obvious to everyone since I-5 was in the planning stages that a westward extension of CA-58 would be needed.

But at the end of the day, whether it's Boston, Bakersfield or Boring, Oregon, you're still talking about houses that people are living in. It's always going to be a hot issue, no matter where it is.

[I94RoadRunner]

I have often thought that while Caltrans likes to number potential extensions to the interstate system as the state road number of the interstate sought for extension like CA 15 and CA 210, then maybe they should follow suit with I-40 and renumber CA 58 between Barstow and CA 99 as CA 40, leaving the existing CA 58 from I-40 west as is. As the Westside Parkway in Bakersfield gets extended to meet I-9 (I am thinking that it will take that long to finish), then number it as CA 40 as well, eventually ending at I-5

[emory]

If the plan is to eventually call CA 58 Interstate 40, I'd rather they not waste tax dollars on a new set of signs which will only be thrown away.

[I94RoadRunner]

If I recall the story correctly, Caltrans wanted to use nuclear bombs to excavate through the Tehachapi Pass. When that didn't pan out, they backed-off on the interstate idea.

The 4-lane expressway/freeway will be a vast improvement between Bakersfield and Barstow. However, I don't know of any serious plans to extend the CA58 to I-5 in the central valley.

The Westside Parkway is the beginning of the extension westward between CA 99/Future I-9 and I-5. The Centennial Connector will connect the existing interchange between CA 58 and CA 99 to the start of the Westside Parkway in the future. There is strong local opposition of the homeowners in its path though, so expect some lawsuits!

Also, CA HSR will run though Mojave and Palmdale, and there's already talk of building a spur to Las Vegas here.

[Henry]

I have often thought that while Caltrans likes to number potential extensions to the interstate system as the state road number of the interstate sought for extension like CA 15 and CA 210, then maybe they should follow suit with I-40 and renumber CA 58 between Barstow and CA 99 as CA 40, leaving the existing CA 58 from I-40 west as is. As the Westside Parkway in Bakersfield gets extended to meet I-9 (I am thinking that it will take that long to finish), then number it as CA 40 as well, eventually ending at I-5

There are some exceptions to the rule: For example, what is now I-880 was originally CA 17 because (until 1982) there was an I-880 in Sacramento; it is now part of a rerouted I-80, where the original alignment is a Business loop.

[TheStranger]

There are some exceptions to the rule: For example, what is now I-880 was originally CA 17 because (until 1982) there was an I-880 in Sacramento; it is now part of a rerouted I-80, where the original alignment is a Business loop.

And the Nimitz Freeway was not added to the Interstate system until 1984 (around the same time as 710); the 80/old 880 switch only occurred due to the cancellation of a realigned/upgraded I-80 routing through North Sacramento in 1979. 

There was at least a two year period (1982-1984) where 880 was not in use in California.