News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

Old CA 180 and 41 in Fresno

Started by Max Rockatansky, September 13, 2017, 06:47:48 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Max Rockatansky

I figured since I had already done US 99 and CA 168 in recent months why not complete the whole circuit of previous Fresno surface highway alignments?  Pictures, maps, road history, and all can be found on the Road Blog I just created:

http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2017/09/old-ca-180-and-ca-41-surface-alignments.html

But if you're here just for the maps and pictures the full album can be found here:

https://flic.kr/s/aHsm537Qgs

Or if you just want the maps for CA 180 and 41, here they are staring with CA 180:

Map1 by Max Rockatansky, on Flickr

Map2 by Max Rockatansky, on Flickr

Map3 by Max Rockatansky, on Flickr

And CA 41:

Map1 by Max Rockatansky, on Flickr

Map2 by Max Rockatansky, on Flickr

Map3 by Max Rockatansky, on Flickr

And just because I think they are cool, the bridges on Stanislaus in addition to Tuolumne which carried CA 180 over the Southern Pacific from the 1950s:

IMG_6886 by Max Rockatansky, on Flickr

IMG_6895 by Max Rockatansky, on Flickr


Max Rockatansky

I completely forgot to talk about this in the original post...  I thought about doing something for the gradual alignment shifts for 180 and 41 onto the freeways but I don't have enough maps from the 1970s onward to do that properly.  If anyone happens to know of a good resource for California State Highway maps from the 1970s onward to modern times it would greatly be appreciated.  Right now I have 2-7 gaps from 1970 onward with the current David Rumsey resources I'm using.

The maps I used for this thread and road blog are as follows:

1938 State Highway Map City Insert
https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239590~5511893:-Verso--Road-Map-of-the-State-of-Ca?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=70&trs=86

1956 State Highway Map Insert
https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239551~5511867:-Verso--Road-Map-of-the-State-of-Ca?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=44&trs=86

1957 State Highway Map

https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239548~5511865:-Verso--Road-Map-of-the-State-of-Ca?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=42&trs=86

1958 State Highway Map

https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239545~5511863:-Verso--Road-Map-of-the-State-of-Ca?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=40&trs=86

1959 State Highway Map

https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239542~5511861:-Verso--Road-Map-of-the-State-of-Ca?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=38&trs=86

1961 State Highway Map

https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239536~5511857:-Verso--State-Highway-Map,-Californ?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=34&trs=86

mrsman

I find it very interesting that the section of old 180 east of Downtown is almost a perfect straight line with 180 west of Downtown.  And that old 41 north of town is in a near perfect line with old 41 south of town.  The only problem is that the orientation of Downtown Fresno is crooked with respect to a N_S_E_W grid (but parallel and perpendicular to 99's path) so that these roads had to detour to some extent from their natural path.

It is also interesting to note how many turns the roads had to make to transverse downtown Fresno.  It would seem to me to be more efficient to make as few right angle turns as possible.  (The obtuse angled turns are somewhat necessary due to the change in orientation from downtown to the rest of the city and over time have come to just follow the contours of the street.)  So for 41, for instance, even though the original routing was Blackstone-Stanislaus-(rt angle)Broadway-(rt angle)Fresno-(rt angle)C-Elm, a number of those right angle turns could be avoided and traffic could just simply follow Blackstone-O-(rt angle)Fresno-(rt angle)C-Elm.  [It seems like the 1958 routing did something along those lines essentially Blackstone-O-Ventura-C (with a parallel set along Abby and P to account for one-ways). and this routing appears to have been available even in 1938] 

Great pictures and research as always.

Max Rockatansky

Quote from: mrsman on September 15, 2017, 10:30:10 AM
I find it very interesting that the section of old 180 east of Downtown is almost a perfect straight line with 180 west of Downtown.  And that old 41 north of town is in a near perfect line with old 41 south of town.  The only problem is that the orientation of Downtown Fresno is crooked with respect to a N_S_E_W grid (but parallel and perpendicular to 99's path) so that these roads had to detour to some extent from their natural path.

It is also interesting to note how many turns the roads had to make to transverse downtown Fresno.  It would seem to me to be more efficient to make as few right angle turns as possible.  (The obtuse angled turns are somewhat necessary due to the change in orientation from downtown to the rest of the city and over time have come to just follow the contours of the street.)  So for 41, for instance, even though the original routing was Blackstone-Stanislaus-(rt angle)Broadway-(rt angle)Fresno-(rt angle)C-Elm, a number of those right angle turns could be avoided and traffic could just simply follow Blackstone-O-(rt angle)Fresno-(rt angle)C-Elm.  [It seems like the 1958 routing did something along those lines essentially Blackstone-O-Ventura-C (with a parallel set along Abby and P to account for one-ways). and this routing appears to have been available even in 1938] 

Great pictures and research as always.

Thanks, it was certainly fun exploring the city given that the weird right angle alignments.  Oddly I haven't seen too many things written on the topic which isn't something I would have expected for a city as large as Fresno.

The one that gets me is why would the Division of Highways ever think it was a good idea to route 41 down Broadway along US 99 to get to Ventura in 1957?  180 had already moved to the more efficient O/P Street configuration by 1956 and it was clear that with the freeway configuration of US 99 being built that Broadway was going to become increasingly irrelevant.  Obviously the Division of Highways got their act together with 41 in 1958 which would be the same year that the downtown freeway configuration of US 99 would have opened as well.

The configuration of the US 99 freeway with the Tuolumne/Stanislaus routing of 180 wasn't exactly something that would make a multiplex on 41 west through the city something that would be easy to construct, but likely would have been more efficient.  What I find really interesting is that the implied routings of the 41, 180, and 168 freeways appear on 1965 State Highway Map City insert:

https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239524~5511849:-Verso--State-Highway-Map,-Californ?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=26&trs=86

Granted the 168 freeway was a little far flung for the 1960s but 41 and 180 certainly weren't!  Fresno had 134k residents roughly by 1960, traffic must have been a nightmare with all those right angled highway turns in downtown.  My understanding is that there was a freeway revolt with 41 and 180 which I find odd given the size of the city at the time.  41 appears to have been a bigger priority given the northward sprawl out of downtown Fresno which led to it being built well before 180 was upgraded to a freeway.  Just odd to see that the Division of Highways definitely had an idea what corridors were going to grow and be a problem all the way back in the 1960s. 

It makes me wonder though, with the metro area of Fresno closing in the on the San Joaquin River will that ever lead to something like the extension of CA 65 north from CA 198 ever be explored again?  The implied routing between the two segments of 65 appears on that same 1965 state highway map running northwest through the outskirts of Clovis to CA 145.  Might make for a handy expressway alignment some day in the outskirts especially if 145 ever got the same same treatment from 41 west to Madera.

sparker

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 15, 2017, 11:32:34 AM
Quote from: mrsman on September 15, 2017, 10:30:10 AM
I find it very interesting that the section of old 180 east of Downtown is almost a perfect straight line with 180 west of Downtown.  And that old 41 north of town is in a near perfect line with old 41 south of town.  The only problem is that the orientation of Downtown Fresno is crooked with respect to a N_S_E_W grid (but parallel and perpendicular to 99's path) so that these roads had to detour to some extent from their natural path.

It is also interesting to note how many turns the roads had to make to transverse downtown Fresno.  It would seem to me to be more efficient to make as few right angle turns as possible.  (The obtuse angled turns are somewhat necessary due to the change in orientation from downtown to the rest of the city and over time have come to just follow the contours of the street.)  So for 41, for instance, even though the original routing was Blackstone-Stanislaus-(rt angle)Broadway-(rt angle)Fresno-(rt angle)C-Elm, a number of those right angle turns could be avoided and traffic could just simply follow Blackstone-O-(rt angle)Fresno-(rt angle)C-Elm.  [It seems like the 1958 routing did something along those lines essentially Blackstone-O-Ventura-C (with a parallel set along Abby and P to account for one-ways). and this routing appears to have been available even in 1938] 

Great pictures and research as always.

Thanks, it was certainly fun exploring the city given that the weird right angle alignments.  Oddly I haven't seen too many things written on the topic which isn't something I would have expected for a city as large as Fresno.

The one that gets me is why would the Division of Highways ever think it was a good idea to route 41 down Broadway along US 99 to get to Ventura in 1957?  180 had already moved to the more efficient O/P Street configuration by 1956 and it was clear that with the freeway configuration of US 99 being built that Broadway was going to become increasingly irrelevant.  Obviously the Division of Highways got their act together with 41 in 1958 which would be the same year that the downtown freeway configuration of US 99 would have opened as well.

The configuration of the US 99 freeway with the Tuolumne/Stanislaus routing of 180 wasn't exactly something that would make a multiplex on 41 west through the city something that would be easy to construct, but likely would have been more efficient.  What I find really interesting is that the implied routings of the 41, 180, and 168 freeways appear on 1965 State Highway Map City insert:

https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239524~5511849:-Verso--State-Highway-Map,-Californ?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=26&trs=86

Granted the 168 freeway was a little far flung for the 1960s but 41 and 180 certainly weren't!  Fresno had 134k residents roughly by 1960, traffic must have been a nightmare with all those right angled highway turns in downtown.  My understanding is that there was a freeway revolt with 41 and 180 which I find odd given the size of the city at the time.  41 appears to have been a bigger priority given the northward sprawl out of downtown Fresno which led to it being built well before 180 was upgraded to a freeway.  Just odd to see that the Division of Highways definitely had an idea what corridors were going to grow and be a problem all the way back in the 1960s. 

It makes me wonder though, with the metro area of Fresno closing in the on the San Joaquin River will that ever lead to something like the extension of CA 65 north from CA 198 ever be explored again?  The implied routing between the two segments of 65 appears on that same 1965 state highway map running northwest through the outskirts of Clovis to CA 145.  Might make for a handy expressway alignment some day in the outskirts especially if 145 ever got the same same treatment from 41 west to Madera.

IIRC, the alignments for all the Fresno freeways, including 168, had been formally adopted by no later than 1963, allowing both state and local maps to indicate the location of those future corridors.  The "east side" CA 65 corridor, an exact alignment for which was never formally adopted (but always shown going through such reference points as the 41/145 junction and the north end of CA 59 near Snelling), was originally outlined in the initial 1959 California Freeway & Expressway system as LRN 249, terminating at the south at the (current) CA 65/198 interchange north of Exeter and with its north end at I-80 near Rocklin (to tie in with the north CA 65 -- then LRN 3 and US 99E).  While some sections of this corridor might function well as "SIU's" in their own right (I'm thinking of from CA 63 near Orosi north to the 41/145 junction as at least an expressway to serve the growing areas east of Fresno, as Max has opined might be appropriate).  Back in the late '60's Sunrise Blvd. from CA 16 north to US 50 in Sacramento County (south of Rancho Cordova) was adopted as part of CA 65; it was mileposted but never signed (the white overpass sign on US 50 at Sunrise listed the bridge as the "65/50 separation").  That adoption was rescinded circa 1976 under the Gianturco regime at Caltrans; in a rather bizarre set of proceedings, the pointedly anti-car Gianturco suggested to the Sacramento County supervisors that they request that the route be permanently rescinded as part of her Sacramento corridor truncations lest future Caltrans administrations attempt to push the CA 65 corridor through the east side of metro Sacramento.  By hook & crook the legal definition of CA 65 was altered to end at the San Joaquin/Sacramento county line with a codicil that the route never be reinstated within Sacramento County.  So far, successive Caltrans leadership has never sought to reverse that piece of administrative law, primarily because development in the general corridor area (more or less between Citrus Heights and Folsom) has since become so dense that property acquisition would be prohibitive.  Thus the odds against the two segments of CA 65 ever being joined are overwhelming.  A Fresno-area "SIU" is much more likely to occur in the foreseeable future -- if, of course, local support can be obtained and funding identified.

Max Rockatansky

Found a CA 180 paddle on Kings Canyon Road between Clovis Avenue and Fowler Avenue today. 

180CAa by Max Rockatansky, on Flickr

Wasn't there some dispute after the CA 180 freeway was built regarding the surface route being relinquished?  Still weird to see a 180 paddle out on the surface alignment after all these years.

sparker

Quote from: mrsman on September 15, 2017, 10:30:10 AM
I find it very interesting that the section of old 180 east of Downtown is almost a perfect straight line with 180 west of Downtown.  And that old 41 north of town is in a near perfect line with old 41 south of town.  The only problem is that the orientation of Downtown Fresno is crooked with respect to a N_S_E_W grid (but parallel and perpendicular to 99's path) so that these roads had to detour to some extent from their natural path.

It is also interesting to note how many turns the roads had to make to transverse downtown Fresno.  It would seem to me to be more efficient to make as few right angle turns as possible.  (The obtuse angled turns are somewhat necessary due to the change in orientation from downtown to the rest of the city and over time have come to just follow the contours of the street.)  So for 41, for instance, even though the original routing was Blackstone-Stanislaus-(rt angle)Broadway-(rt angle)Fresno-(rt angle)C-Elm, a number of those right angle turns could be avoided and traffic could just simply follow Blackstone-O-(rt angle)Fresno-(rt angle)C-Elm.  [It seems like the 1958 routing did something along those lines essentially Blackstone-O-Ventura-C (with a parallel set along Abby and P to account for one-ways). and this routing appears to have been available even in 1938] 

Great pictures and research as always.

The odd street arrangement in Fresno was due to the downtown area being developed at right-angles to the original Southern Pacific RR main line, which was more or less SSE>NNW through the region, although within the Fresno metro area is was a little more toward direct SE>NW (looks like about a 32-degree angle off vertical).  When the city expanded, it shifted to follow the land-grant lines of the county, which were essentially N-S/E-W.  As a result, any through highway alignments via the downtown area were intrinsically convoluted.  It's likely the vertical trajectory of both SSR 41/LRN 125 and the corresponding horizontal one of SSR 180/LRN 41 through town were deliberately aligned on the same longitudinal and latitudinal axes so that once away from the angled downtown area they'd line up the same.  To my knowledge, the Division of Highways was never that exacting elsewhere in the SJ Valley; while Merced also features both N-S (CA 59) and E-W (CA 140) routes, they certainly don't maintain equivalent lines once outside of downtown (it's close, but no cigar!), probably because the easterly CA 140 was aligned to follow the ATSF (now BNSF) rail line southeast of town, while northerly CA 59 (LRN 123) followed the now long-removed SP Snelling branch line, offset well to the west of the N-S line taken by the route south of Merced. 

This arrangement typified virtually every town along the old SP line (paralleled by US/CA 99, of course), but since the Division of Highways/Caltrans never had the intention to commission & maintain more Valley connectors than they ever actually did, the state/US highway convolutions in the various cities along the corridor were kept to a minimum.   

   

Max Rockatansky

Found two additional 180 Mileage paddles on Kings Canyon Road in eastern Fresno, this one was at Temperance Avenue looking westbound:

IMG_8028 by Max Rockatansky, on Flickr

Directly one mile to the west at Fowler Avenue is another 180 paddle with a mileage of 64.5.  It would seem that somehow Caltrans still possibly hasn't relinquished Kings Canyon Road from Sunnyside Avenue east to where it is now cut off by the 180 freeway.  I drove all of Kings Canyon Road from CA 41 east to Clovis Avenue over the weekend and didn't see any additional paddles deeper into the city.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.