"Temporary" postmile prefixes in California

[NE2]

A prefix of T is supposed to indicate that the alignment is temporary. Does anyone know what is or was planned to bypass the following? Many are pretty obvious freeway continuations, but some seem random.

1 almost the entire Castroville bypass (it's R to the south)
1 south end of Watsonville bypass (it's R to the north)
1 curve near Fort Ross (it's R to the south)
3 long piece south of Trinity-Siskiyou County line (it's R to the south for just a bit)
4 tiny bit between L Street and A Street in Antioch (it's R to the east)
4 curve west of San Joaquin River (presumably realignment became T because a freeway bypass of this whole segment is planned)
4 Fresno Avenue ramps west of I-5 in Stockton (it's R to the east)
4 tiny bit west of Stanislaus-Calaveras County line (it's R to the east)
8 ramps at west end
8U (old US 80) on Winterhaven Drive between 8 and the Colorado River
12 on Farmers Lane in Santa Rosa (it's R to the west)
13 tiny bit just north of 24 (it's R to the south)
14U near Placerita Canyon Road
15 tiny bit about halfway between 94 and 805 (it's R to the north)
16 on and west of old 50 in eastern Sacramento
16 tiny bit at Folsom South Canal (it's R to the east)
18 on Waterman Avenue (freeway planned to the east)
20 tiny bit east of Calpella (it's R to the west)
20 at both ends of Williams bypass (it's R in the middle)
22 tiny bit west of 605 (it's R to the east) (there appear to be provisions to the west for a realigned bridge over the San Gabriel River)
23 at Potrero Road (it's R to the north)
23 between 118 east and former 23 south (Spring Road) (it's R to the south)
33 tiny bit at north end of freeway (it's R to the south)
35 tiny bit where I-280 ramps transition into surface road (it's R to the south)
36 tiny bit west of Red Bluff (it's R to the east)
36 tiny bit west of Mineral (it's R to the west)
36 tiny bit east of Chester (it's R to the west)
36 tiny bit east of 44 (it's R to the west)
39 transition up in the hills near the unfinished work (it's R to the south)
41 tiny bit north end of freeway (it's R to the south)
54 east of 94 (freeway planned to the west)
55 at south end of freeway (it's R to the north)
58 freeway stub west of 99 (it's R to the east)
58 transitions at both ends of two-lane segment through Kramer (it's R on both sides)
58 tiny bit at east end of expressway west of Hinkley (it's R to the west)
65 south end of freeway near Marysville (it's R to the north)
68 east end of freeway west of Salinas (it's R to the west)
70 tiny bit west of Blairsden (it's R to the east)
71 tiny bit just south of Holt Avenue (it's R to the north)
78 on Broadway-Washington-Ash to Grand in Escondido (it's N to the west)
84 transition to surface road east of 680 (it's R to the west)
87 tiny bit at Airport Parkway bridge
89 at 28
90 Slauson Avenue ramps
92 from 35 north to 280 (it's R to the east)
94 tiny bit at Pine Lane/Florence Terrace shortly east of 54 (it's R to the west)
99 just north of 20 (it's R to the north)
99 around the curves at the north end of the freeway near Yuba City (it's R to the south)
99 transition at north end of freeway near Chico (it's R to the south)
101 tiny bit just north of former 1 south in Oxnard (it's R to the north)
101 tiny bit at north end of realignment at Mobil Pier (it's R to the south)
101 south end of freeway near Gilroy (it's R to the north)
101 on Mission and Van Ness south of Golden Gate (it's R to the south, since that part was originally 80)
101 transition at south end of Willits bypass (it's R to the south) (pre-bypass; this is now 20)
101 random tiny bit south of Laytonville
101 at north end of 1 (it's R to the south)
101 at north end of 271 (it's R to the south)
101 north of Big Lagoon (it's R to the south)
101 tiny bit just north of Klamath (it's R to the south)
108 east end of Sonora bypass (it's R to the west)
108 east end of realignment at Twain Harte (it's R to the west)
111 bypass around downtown Palm Springs
111 tiny bit where it hits the mountains north of Palm Springs (it's R to the north)
118 between 23 south and east of Collins Drive (it's R to the east)
120 at south 99 interchange (it's R to the west)
120 both ends of expressway east of Knights Ferry (it's R in between)
120 both ends of relocation on 49 overlap (it's R in between)
126 tiny bit just east of Sycamore Road, west of Fillmore (it's R to the west)
128 tiny bit west of 253 (it's R to the east)
132 east of 33 (it's R to the west for just a tiny bit to 33)
133 tiny bit south of 405 (it's R to the south)
138 at east end of realignment at 15 (it's R to the west)
139 tiny bit north of Canby (it's R to the south)
152 west of Lincoln Street in Watsonville
154 tiny bit east of Armour Ranch Road (it's R on both sides)
156 realignment at south interchange with 101
168 holy crap...all over the realignment near Toll House (it's L and R to the east and filling the gaps)
178 east end of freeway at Bakersfield (it's R to the west)
178 west end of freeway near Bodfish (it's R to the east)
198 east end of Hanford freeway (it's R to the west)
198 tiny bit just east of 245 (it's R to the west)
199 at south end
199 tiny bit just north of Gasquet (it's R to the north)
237 Serra Way to Main Street
244 ramps at east end
271 at north end
280 ramps to 6th Street (it's R to the south, since originally 280 was to use 1)
330 tiny bit at the east end of the freeway (it's R to the west)
380 ramps at 280
395 tiny bit at south end of realignment near Ridgecrest (it's R to the north)
395 north of Bishop (it's R to the north)
395 south of Lake Crowley (it's R to the north)
395 tiny bit north of 70 (it's R to the south)
710 ramps at Valley Boulevard and south of Green Street in Pasadena (it's R to the north) (obviously the freeway would go between the current ramps and frontage roads)

[Quillz]

Anything involving 23 was the never-built Decker Freeway that was supposed to connect PCH (CA-1) to US-101.

[coatimundi]

Wow, this is opening a whole can of worms. It'll be an interesting thread.

A prefix of T is supposed to indicate that the alignment is temporary. Does anyone know what is or was planned to bypass the following? Many are pretty obvious freeway continuations, but some seem random.

1 almost the entire Castroville bypass (it's R to the south)
1 south end of Watsonville bypass (it's R to the north)

Elkhorn Slough bypass. Still on the books and there have been some recent studies on it. No one seems to know what to do with this section of road: the slough is too environmentally sensitive for it to be built but the current roadway is too crowded and too dangerous for it to be kept in its current state. A little bit of an impasse.
The Castroville bypass itself was supposed to be part of the 1/156/183 interchange (a cloverleaf, IIRC) a bit northeast of there, but it was scrapped when 183 wasn't built out as a freeway.
But it's shown on a lot of maps. This was in a thread a few months ago. Sparker had some personal insight on it.

68 east end of freeway west of Salinas (it's R to the west)

68 was supposed to be built as a freeway between 1 & 101. While the section between 1 and the existing freeway would have followed the existing routing through Canyon del Rey, it would have turned east at its current eastern end, bypass Spreckels just to its west and roughly followed Harkins Road up to 101. This is, at least, the alignment I've seen on the only map I've seen that shows it: the 1937 Monterey County map on Rumsey's site.

84 transition to surface road east of 680 (it's R to the west)

84 just east of 680 is a freeway. IIRC, the whole thing was supposed to be a freeway to connect to the unbuilt tollway in the hills (I don't recall the number off the top of my head).

101 south end of freeway near Gilroy (it's R to the north)

Not sure about this, but I'm surprised that there's nothing on 101 around Prunedale, since that was supposed to be bypassed and was on the books for many years.

[myosh_tino]

84 transition to surface road east of 680 (it's R to the west)

84 just east of 680 is a freeway. IIRC, the whole thing was supposed to be a freeway to connect to the unbuilt tollway in the hills (I don't recall the number off the top of my head).

I think you're thinking about Route 239 but that was supposed to be assigned to a spur of the Mid-State Tollway that connected with I-580 and I-205 west of Tracy.  According to Daniel Faigin's website, the actual Mid-State Tollway was supposed to be Route 84.

[andy3175]

78 on Broadway-Washington-Ash to Grand in Escondido (it's N to the west)

I am not surprised that this is postmiled as "T" but don't know whether there are any plans to extend the freeway eastward or otherwise reroute SR 78 through Escondido. Given the lack of any planning to relocate SR 78, it seems like this will be the routing for some time.

Many of these appear to be the interim transitions between freeway/expressway and standard highway, and these transitions may well be permanent if the adjoining piece of freeway or expressway is never constructed.

[DTComposer]

101 tiny bit just north of former 1 south in Oxnard (it's R to the north)

That's where northbound the freeway ended and dropped to two lanes before the recent construction, so I assume the T mileage was to cover a potential small realignment when the expansion happened. Now that it's complete I wonder if the T mileage goes away.

237 Serra Way to Main Street

I would assume this has something to do with the dormant proposal to build a freeway between 880 and 680 somewhere in the 237 or 262 corridors. On this corridor a bridge would be built over Abel Street connecting to the viaduct to the east, replacing the T mileage.

244 ramps at east end

That's interesting - the T miles start before the lanes diverge from the mainline concrete. I would have thought the T miles would start at 0.89 or so. It does seem to correspond to where westbound picks up the third lane, so maybe the rationale is that's where the freeway becomes "whole."

[nexus73]

This is the one which interests me:

101 north of Big Lagoon (it's R to the south)

It would be nice to see this as a precursor for a new section of freeway 101.

Rick

[coatimundi]

Coming back to this because I like these proposal threads.

14U near Placerita Canyon Road

I was poking at it, and it looks to go between Placerita Canyon Road and Dockweiler. It also goes R very briefly after the T section. This is right where the road crosses the LA Aqueduct and goes through some oil fields. I wonder if there was a plan at one time to just completely get rid of the roadway since it's so close to the freeway and Dockweiler didn't even exist until fairly recently.
There was a realignment just south of there, with the intersection at San Fernando Road. The intersection used to be more angled but was pushed west between '65 and '70 (before the freeway) to make a 90-degree intersection. You can still clearly see the old alignments on aerials. The Sierra Highway alignment looks like it's being used to store dumpsters or something.

41 tiny bit north end of freeway (it's R to the south)

There's a proposal to widen it, so this may include a slight realignment.

120 at south 99 interchange (it's R to the west)

I had always thought 120 was supposed to be extended east to meet up with the other segment and, as such, the interchange with 99 was to be reconstructed.

152 west of Lincoln Street in Watsonville

152 is up for relinquishment within Watsonville. So that it doesn't just dead end, they may route it down Lincoln to end at 129. There was also a Watsonville bypass proposed for a time, but I've never seen an alignment on a map, however documents talk about it going on the northwest side of the city.

156 realignment at south interchange with 101

156 west of 101 has always had a freeway proposal tagged to it. With the last sales tax increase voted in this November, TAMC may very well be able to eventually finance it. Their list of proposals that would be financed by this was pretty vague, but "intersection improvements" would definitely occur at Castroville Boulevard, and this could be the start of getting rid of the grade intersections near 101 (mainly Meridian).

168 holy crap...all over the realignment near Toll House (it's L and R to the east and filling the gaps)

There's always been a freeway bypass proposed here, and it wouldn't follow the Miller Canyon routing. It would probably cut over the hills between that and Tollhouse, thus basically dooming the project forever.

380 ramps at 280

The fabled 380 extension. The mainlanes would have gone between the ramps, so the ramps would no longer carry 380.

[JasonOfORoads]

395 tiny bit north of 70 (it's R to the south)

IIRC the T mileage is where 395 goes from 4 lanes to 2, in anticipation of running a freeway further north at some point in the future.

[andy3175]

A few more comments based on memory; I could probably dig around a bit to get more specific citations on some of these:

4 tiny bit between L Street and A Street in Antioch (it's R to the east)

Is this the older route perhaps unrelinquished now that SR 4 moved to the new freeway alignment? Or is this on the new freeway?

4 Fresno Avenue ramps west of I-5 in Stockton (it's R to the east)

This looks like the under construction SR 4, so the old route will likely shift back to city maintenance whenever the freeway is fully extended between I-5 and SR 4. Was it R mileage to the west of this point?

8 ramps at west end

Long standing plans call for the signalized intersection between I-8, Sunset Cliffs Blvd, and Nimitz Blvd to become grade separated. I am not sure if those plans are still the plan or not, as I've not heard much about this in years.

8U (old US 80) on Winterhaven Drive between 8 and the Colorado River

Wow, I didn't realize this segment of Business Loop 8 was still state maintained. I will have to look for state signage when I travel through Winterhaven and Yuma.

12 on Farmers Lane in Santa Rosa (it's R to the west)

This is a legacy of the incomplete SR 12 freeway that will probably not be built anytime soon.

13 tiny bit just north of 24 (it's R to the south)

I am not certain, but wasn't there a plan to extend the SR 13 freeway north and west of SR 24?

14U near Placerita Canyon Road

Does SR 14U have any "normal" mileage or is it all seen as temporary?

15 tiny bit about halfway between 94 and 805 (it's R to the north)

My guess is that the final SR 15-94 interchange will require movement of the main lanes of SR 15 as well as replacement of the 94w-15s and 94e-15n movements (left exits). The SANDAG project to add bus rapid transit lanes onto SR 94 will expand SR 94 but also will eventually modify and extend HOV lanes south along I-/SR 15 at some point. That SANDAG project may also address the left exits, but that's not yet a certainty.

20 tiny bit east of Calpella (it's R to the west)

I think there is a long-term interest to extend SR 20 as four lanes east from US 101 toward Lake County, but I don't think it is funded. The four-lane highway would transition onto SR 29 and SR 53 and rejoin SR 20 to make the loop around the southern edge of Clear Lake. Most of the four-laning has been focused on the SR 29 segment in recent years, and the reason SR20-29-53-20 is the preferred through route past Clear Lake is so that trucks and hazardous cargo stay off the north shore of Clear Lake, where SR 20 hugs the shoreline in various spots.

20 at both ends of Williams bypass (it's R in the middle)

That same four-lane segment coming out of Lake County would eventually connect with the Williams bypass. Building that expanded road would be very costly, and I don't know if it's even a viable project these days.

22 tiny bit west of 605 (it's R to the east) (there appear to be provisions to the west for a realigned bridge over the San Gabriel River)

That is correct; SR 22 was intended to continue as a freeway west to join a proposed/unconstructed SR 1 freeway that would have gone east-west across Long Beach. Neither the SR 22 western extension nor the realigned SR 1 freeway are in any current freeway plans nowadays.

33 tiny bit at north end of freeway (it's R to the south)

I think at one time there was a plan to build a bypass of Ojai, but I don't think that's in the plans anymore.

54 east of 94 (freeway planned to the west)

The long-term SANDAG plans used to call for a new expressway alignment for SR 54 between SR 94 and I-8, but I am not sure if that is still planned or if there is identified right of way for it. I think the intent for the current alignment is to remove it from state inventory once the county takes over responsibility for its portion just north of SR 94. The city of El Cajon took over its portion previously and signed it as "Business Route 54" in an Interstate Business Loop shield route marker from the city limits north to I-8.

58 freeway stub west of 99 (it's R to the east)

I guess the Centennial Corridor will change this.

89 at 28

Aren't they putting in a traffic circle or roundabout here? I think I read something about this. Gonealookin can probably tell us.

99 just north of 20 (it's R to the north)

This is where the SR 99 freeway resumes, so perhaps this is for an eventual full interchange between SR 99 and SR 20?

101 at north end of 1 (it's R to the south)

Perhaps this is intended to someday become a full interchange rather than at-grade intersection?

108 east end of Sonora bypass (it's R to the west)

The long-term goal is for the Sonora bypass to connect with the SR 108 expressway-freeway leading east toward Twain Harte. I am not sure whether there's funding for that given how long it's taken to extend the Sonora Bypass as far east as it goes now.

111 bypass around downtown Palm Springs

The original route of SR 111 is signed as a business route. I am surprised Caltrans even maintains the "bypass" route. It seems like all of SR 111 through the cities of the Coachella Valley will eventually be returned to city maintenance, and an open question is whether SR 111 by the Salton Sea will have any signed link with the spur segment of SR 111 near Whitewater. I guess we'll see.

244 ramps at east end

Most of what was to be SR 244 was eliminated, and I imagine the original plans called for an interchange at Auburn Blvd rather than an at-grade intersection had the SR 244 freeway been built.

Thanks again NE2 for researching this and placing it into a list. Great stuff!

[coatimundi]

4 Fresno Avenue ramps west of I-5 in Stockton (it's R to the east)

This looks like the under construction SR 4, so the old route will likely shift back to city maintenance whenever the freeway is fully extended between I-5 and SR 4. Was it R mileage to the west of this point?

My understanding was that the freeway extension to Navy Drive was not going to be part of SR 4 as it will not loop back to it and will not provide an easy way to reach it. Its main goal is stated to provide easier access to the Port of Stockton.
I think the original intention was to finally bridge that gap but, at some point, the scope changed and instead of "State Route 4 Extension," it became "Crosstown Freeway Ramp Extension."

[andy3175]

4 Fresno Avenue ramps west of I-5 in Stockton (it's R to the east)

This looks like the under construction SR 4, so the old route will likely shift back to city maintenance whenever the freeway is fully extended between I-5 and SR 4. Was it R mileage to the west of this point?

My understanding was that the freeway extension to Navy Drive was not going to be part of SR 4 as it will not loop back to it and will not provide an easy way to reach it. Its main goal is stated to provide easier access to the Port of Stockton.
I think the original intention was to finally bridge that gap but, at some point, the scope changed and instead of "State Route 4 Extension," it became "Crosstown Freeway Ramp Extension."

You are correct, it is the Crosstown Freeway Ramp Extension. A project page is set up at http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist10/environmental/projects/sr4crosstown/. I have not yet been able to confirm it, but I believe the extended "ramp extension" will carry SR 4 postmiles and be labeled as realigned rather than temporary. The longer-term plan is to connect the "ramp extension" to mainline SR 4. The question is when that might happen. It might yet be awhile.

[Milliontown]

101 at north end of 1 (it's R to the south)

Perhaps this is intended to someday become a full interchange rather than at-grade intersection?

There was a planned bypass/Freeway from Route 1/Leggett to the current section of 4 lane just north of the Confusion Hill bridges.  Right-of-way was purchased, land cleared, and rough grading was done for an overcrossing of SR 1 and a Bypass on the other side of the Eel River.  This can still be seen in satellite photos of the area, where the future alignment curves left.

I believe it was stopped in the 70s, and a feasibility study done in the early 2000s basically ruled out the bypass/Freeway alternative for good.

The same basically goes for 101 at north end of 271 (it's R to the south).  A Bypass was planned around Richardson Grove, but opposition stopped it, and a feasibility study in the early 2000s also ruled this out.

[DTComposer]

22 tiny bit west of 605 (it's R to the east) (there appear to be provisions to the west for a realigned bridge over the San Gabriel River)

That is correct; SR 22 was intended to continue as a freeway west to join a proposed/unconstructed SR 1 freeway that would have gone east-west across Long Beach. Neither the SR 22 western extension nor the realigned SR 1 freeway are in any current freeway plans nowadays.

But I'm not sure the T mileage has to do with the proposed continuation of the freeway further west - it all appears to be within the footprint of the 22/405/605 complex. I'm wondering if it has more to do with the proposed extension of the San Gabriel River Freeway (as CA-240) south to CA-1 and the interchange modifications that would be required. The northwest corner of Leisure World (along Nassau Drive) seems to curve to suggest the alignment CA-240 would have taken from the interchange.

The realigned bridge that NE2 refers to is the concrete that veers northeast just east of Studebaker, then rejoins the current alignment near the I-605 ramp. It infers that the current westbound bridge over the San Gabriel River was going to carry the eastbound lanes, and a new bridge was going to carry the westbound lanes.

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7740728,-118.0970311,723m/data=!3m1!1e3

Further west, the proposed freeway wouldn't have left the current alignment until Bixby Terrace Drive, curving to the south over what is now Parima Street.

[nexus73]

101 at north end of 1 (it's R to the south)

Perhaps this is intended to someday become a full interchange rather than at-grade intersection?

There was a planned bypass/Freeway from Route 1/Leggett to the current section of 4 lane just north of the Confusion Hill bridges.  Right-of-way was purchased, land cleared, and rough grading was done for an overcrossing of SR 1 and a Bypass on the other side of the Eel River.  This can still be seen in satellite photos of the area, where the future alignment curves left.

I believe it was stopped in the 70s, and a feasibility study done in the early 2000s basically ruled out the bypass/Freeway alternative for good.

The same basically goes for 101 at north end of 271 (it's R to the south).  A Bypass was planned around Richardson Grove, but opposition stopped it, and a feasibility study in the early 2000s also ruled this out.

This road improvement cancellation brought to you by Progressives Against Progress...LOL!  It looks like we'll have to wait until the 22nd century to see US 101 in NorCal brought up to a solid second half of the 20th century standard. 

Rick

[gonealookin]

A few more comments based on memory; I could probably dig around a bit to get more specific citations on some of these:

89 at 28

Aren't they putting in a traffic circle or roundabout here? I think I read something about this. Gonealookin can probably tell us.

Where there is currently one decrepit bridge over the outlet of Lake Tahoe, the Truckee River at Tahoe City, there will be two shiny new bridges in a couple years.  A new bridge is being built several hundred yards downstream (southwest) of the existing bridge, the "Fanny Bridge", which carries CA 89 over the river; this new bridge will carry CA 89.  So that shortens CA 89 by maybe more than half a mile, and CA 28 will have to be correspondingly lengthened those several hundred yards, taking over a portion of the current CA 89, to the roundabout which will be at the west end of the new bridge.

Upon completion of the new bridge, the Fanny Bridge will be torn down and replaced, and that will be a local street, not part of the state highway system.  Having two bridges could be critical in something like a forest fire emergency.

Link to PDF map of the project here; construction starts in spring 2017 and should be completed late in 2018.

[coatimundi]

Upon completion of the new bridge, the Fanny Bridge will be torn down and replaced, and that will be a local street, not part of the state highway system.

The good news is that, according to this site, I-89 is coming to California: http://www.tahoetransportation.org/fanny-new-1

Not doubting you on this, but do you have a link to a project document that talks about this?
It seems like relinquishing maintenance is Caltrans preferred MO these days, Caltrans is the first in the list of construction partners, so I assume they're bearing the brunt of this project. It wouldn't surprise me at all to see this segment resigned as a "289" or such, seeing that it continues to provide a link to the larger state highway system (circling Lake Tahoe).

[myosh_tino]

This road improvement cancellation brought to you by Progressives Against Progress...LOL!  It looks like we'll have to wait until the 22nd century to see US 101 in NorCal brought up to a solid second half of the 20th century standard. 

Rick

Really?  You want to bring politics into this discussion as well?

FWIW, I'm glad Caltrans is keeping US 101 just as it is (a mixture of freeway, expressway and conventional 2-lane highway).  You don't need to make all of US 101 an f-ing freeway in that part of California just to make a few folks in Oregon happy.

[gonealookin]

Upon completion of the new bridge, the Fanny Bridge will be torn down and replaced, and that will be a local street, not part of the state highway system.

...
Not doubting you on this, but do you have a link to a project document that talks about this?
It seems like relinquishing maintenance is Caltrans preferred MO these days, Caltrans is the first in the list of construction partners, so I assume they're bearing the brunt of this project. It wouldn't surprise me at all to see this segment resigned as a "289" or such, seeing that it continues to provide a link to the larger state highway system (circling Lake Tahoe).

I was going by the info on the cahighways.org Highway 89 page which includes this statement and map.

After construction of the new Route 89 alignment, and with the Commission's approval, a small portion of this route will be redesignated as Route 28 extension and a segment of the existing Route 89 from north of Fanny Bridge to the new intersection south of the bridge will be relinquished to the County. The County has signed a relinquishment agreement and is receiving a transfer of possession and control of the new Fanny Bridge as part of their inventory, post construction.