CA-169 gap in routing

[Quillz]

Having posted in Max's thread yesterday about the California county highways, it got me thinking about the gap in the routing of CA-169. Specifically, this is one of two gaps that I don't believe have ever had any serious attempt at connecting them (the other being the CA-168 gap).

Given CA-169 has actually been in the state highway system since the beginning, albeit as originally a western realignment of CA-96, I took a look at some very old maps, and sure enough, there are sometimes dotted lines, but oftentimes nothing. Makes me wonder what the original intent was, at all, to fill in this gap. Looking at the Yurok Indian Reservation, I can't find a single road anywhere near the Klamath River that would connect the gap. Some sources say there are logging roads, unsuitable for driving, that do in fact make a connection, but I can't see them on Google Maps.

As I noted in Max's thread, there is the nearby Bald Hills Road that, outside of a unpaved segment, is a good quality connection between US-101 and CA-169 (and ultimately CA-96). Seems that is the closest there will ever be to filling in the CA-169 gap.

[Max Rockatansky]

I want to say there was a survey or two that said it wasn't cost effective to complete the gap between the two segments because of the Klamath River flooding?  Really 169 is kind of one of those nothing roads that I'm sure that Caltrans would love to drop maintenance on given the location.  But then again it really can't cost all that much to maintain, if I remember correctly the southern stub was one of the single lane state highways?  Like you said there are plenty of decent alternatives for anyone who is comfortable with a good gravel road.

Here is the earliest implied routing I can find for the broken segment of CA 169 in 1938 when it was just LRN 46:

http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239588~5511892:Road-Map-of-the-State-of-California?sort=Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No&qvq=q:caltrans;sort:Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=69&trs=86

Oddly Bald Hills Road is shown on the state map even in the 1930s, it must have been a pretty significant little route when logging was big.

[Quillz]

I want to say there was a survey or two that said it wasn't cost effective to complete the gap between the two segments because of the Klamath River flooding?  Really 169 is kind of one of those nothing roads that I'm sure that Caltrans would love to drop maintenance on given the location.  But then again it really can't cost all that much to maintain, if I remember correctly the southern stub was one of the single lane state highways?  Like you said there are plenty of decent alternatives for anyone who is comfortable with a good gravel road.

Here is the earliest implied routing I can find for the broken segment of CA 169 in 1938 when it was just LRN 46:

http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239588~5511892:Road-Map-of-the-State-of-California?sort=Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No&qvq=q:caltrans;sort:Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=69&trs=86

I drove on the southern half yesterday, and it did have some lane-and-a-half segments.

Given it's one of the few state highways to serve some communities along the Klamath and Trinity Rivers, it probably is significant enough to keep in the state highway system. (At least the southern half). Most of the surrounding roads are either no paved or single-laned, so having at least one good quality road is important.

[Quillz]

Here is the earliest implied routing I can find for the broken segment of CA 169 in 1938 when it was just LRN 46:

http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239588~5511892:Road-Map-of-the-State-of-California?sort=Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No&qvq=q:caltrans;sort:Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=69&trs=86

Some of that implied routing does exist, since CA-169 extends for about another 20 miles north of Bald Hills Road, to near Johnson's. It's there any physical road ends, and nothing follows the Klamath River. Even maps as late as 1963 show that same implied routing.

You're probably correct that periodic flooding of the Klamath River is the reason a connection was never built. Many other rivers in the area can catastrophically flood, washing out roads and entire towns. The general downturn of the lumber industry probably had something to do with it, too.

[Max Rockatansky]

Here is the earliest implied routing I can find for the broken segment of CA 169 in 1938 when it was just LRN 46:

http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239588~5511892:Road-Map-of-the-State-of-California?sort=Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No&qvq=q:caltrans;sort:Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=69&trs=86

Some of that implied routing does exist, since CA-169 extends for about another 20 miles north of Bald Hills Road, to near Johnson's. It's there any physical road ends, and nothing follows the Klamath River. Even maps as late as 1963 show that same implied routing.

You're probably correct that periodic flooding of the Klamath River is the reason a connection was never built. Many other rivers in the area can catastrophically flood, washing out roads and entire towns. The general downturn of the lumber industry probably had something to do with it, too.

Actually the Klamath River did wipe out an entire the town of Klamath in 1964 when it flooded.  I would have to imagine that was a huge deterrent to really getting anything motivated to complete 169:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_flood_of_1964

Sadly there was nothing really left to see of the original town, I found the location last March but it was all just over grown streets.  I want to say it was mostly on Chapman Street near the Klamath River bed?

[sparker]

Actually the Klamath River did wipe out an entire the town of Klamath in 1964 when it flooded.  I would have to imagine that was a huge deterrent to really getting anything motivated to complete 169:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_flood_of_1964

All of the above is quite correct; add to that the reluctance of the Hoopa & Yurok tribes, still the primary residents of the lower Klamath River canyon, to sign off on finishing CA 169 through their reserved territory, which includes the entire canyon from CA 96 NW to US 101.     

[Max Rockatansky]

Actually the Klamath River did wipe out an entire the town of Klamath in 1964 when it flooded.  I would have to imagine that was a huge deterrent to really getting anything motivated to complete 169:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_flood_of_1964

All of the above is quite correct; add to that the reluctance of the Hoopa & Yurok tribes, still the primary residents of the lower Klamath River canyon, to sign off on finishing CA 169 through their reserved territory, which includes the entire canyon from CA 96 NW to US 101.   

You'd think they would want that road though, maybe as an evacuation route?  I always kind of gathered both those tribes weren't really into the tourism the area tends to attract due to the redwoods.

[sparker]

Actually the Klamath River did wipe out an entire the town of Klamath in 1964 when it flooded.  I would have to imagine that was a huge deterrent to really getting anything motivated to complete 169:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_flood_of_1964

All of the above is quite correct; add to that the reluctance of the Hoopa & Yurok tribes, still the primary residents of the lower Klamath River canyon, to sign off on finishing CA 169 through their reserved territory, which includes the entire canyon from CA 96 NW to US 101.   

You'd think they would want that road though, maybe as an evacuation route?  I always kind of gathered both those tribes weren't really into the tourism the area tends to attract due to the redwoods.

The two tribes seem to be self-isolating; they derive income primarily from the salmon trade and local salmon-related products (smoked, jerky, etc.), especially since the logging industry in the region, which brought them employment as well, has been scaled back.  They likely don't want tourists and casual fishermen lining the banks of the lower portion of the river and interfering with their livelihood -- hence no through CA 169, no tourist path.