AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: County Route J1  (Read 1993 times)

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4256
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 07:57:29 AM
County Route J1
« on: December 14, 2016, 10:06:52 PM »

Continuing on with the Diablo Range road theme I needed a more interesting way back to San Joaquin Valley that wasn't CA 152.  So basically this would be a different topic for a different road, but a continuation of the CA 130/Mount Hamilton thread:

http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=19345.msg2192677#new

Had to get from San Jose to J1 basically I ended up taking US 101 to CA 25.  Grabbed as many new route shields I haven't posted before starting with some button-copy I-280 and I-680:



Kind of made up for not picking up CA 82 and CA 85 when I was out at Big Basin earlier this year:




Maybe some day I'll actually get interested in seeing how the construction was going over Pacheco Pass....for now CA 152 can just go to hell:



Weird how the exit sign for CA 25 still says "Pinnacles National Monument" instead of "Park."  This is actually a pretty easy fix that has been effect since 2013:



I'll have to remember "Market 25" for whenever someone updates the "Businesses with Highway Numbers" thread:



First reassurance marker for CA 25:



I'm fairly certain I've never posted a CA 156 on the forum before:



South of Hollister you get this little nugget of a sign warning about services.  Given that CA 25 is only 74 miles where is the extra two miles coming from?  There sure as hell isn't any services at the southern terminus on CA 198 either, make it more like 90-100 miles:



Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4256
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 07:57:29 AM
Re: County Route J1
« Reply #1 on: December 14, 2016, 10:34:58 PM »

I didn't expect the J1 shield to be here still given...well San Benito County.  Weird even still that Panoche and Idria are still listed as control cities:



J1 is deceptive, so I'll throw out a word of caution.  This route looks pretty good from Fresno County west from I-5 for a couple miles and east from CA 25 in San Benito County but really isn't.  This is the second longest signed county route in California at 70 miles only behind J16.  J1 basically is falling apart and is in terrible shape, you're in for a hell of a drive if you come this way:



J1 gets pretty nasty eastwards after the first one-lane bridge about a half dozen miles from CA 25.  Panoche Pass Summit is only 2,250 feet above sea level but the road is in terrible shape getting there.  The advertised limit is 55 MPH but 35-45 MPH is really all you ought to be going for in the straights.  The pavement is bad enough shape that 20-25 MPH is often necessary in sharp turns.  If you're a one-lane bridge fan this is your road:





The descent down to Panoche Valley is in even worse shape and largely a single lane:






J1 cuts north on Little Panoche Road while Panoche Road continues through Panoche eastward where it becomes unpaved, eventually it pops out of the Diablos and intersects I-5.  I find it interesting that New Idria is still listed on the guide sign as a designation which probably indicates where J1 really fell off the map in terms of importance.  New Idria was a mercury mining town that was in operation from 1854 to 1972.  New Idria basically fell into disrepair and became a ghost town before it was declared a Superfund Site in 2011 due to all the mercury run off into San Carlos Creek.  Apparently most of New Idria can still be visited, albeit from behind a fence line.  Supposedly New Idria Road is in decent enough shape during the dry season to reach the town site, looks like I'll have to try in the Spring next year before it gets too hot out.  The asbestos hills in the Clear Creek Management area is immediately south of New Idria just add a little flavor to the environmental hazard dessert cake.  Given that the area basically became a husk in the 1970s it isn't surprising that J1 is in such bad shape:




Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4256
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 07:57:29 AM
Re: County Route J1
« Reply #2 on: December 14, 2016, 11:21:10 PM »

On Little Panoche Road there is some weird speed limit signage from the construction of the Panoche Valley Solar Farm.  I don't know when the Solar Farm is going to be complete but apparently the construction started a couple years back after it was approved by San Benito County.  You can see one of the non-DOT spec 55 MPH speed limit signs in the second picture along with a glimpse of a truck that was way too long to be on J1 if it had any traffic:





There is a nice little pass north of the solar farm that has a decent vista:



And thankfully Fresno County seems to be a lot more interested in maintaining J1 than San Benito County is.  There was active work crews working on resurfacing and the asphalt progressively gets better the closer you get to I-5:



Mercy Hot Springs is located on Little Panoche Road.  Apparently the hot spring was found back in the late 1840s and there has been a resort in the area since the turn of the 20th century:



Ironically the website for Mercy Hot Springs details how Little Panoche Road was originally a stage route for the New Idria Mine:

http://www.merceyhotsprings.com/history/

Too bad the weather isn't going to be nice like this tomorrow:



Eventually hit I-5 where I took a turn south.  My ultimate destination for the day was Fresno but met took a side trip to meet up with some friends at Harris Ranch:




J1 has a interesting back story with the connection to the original vision for CA 180.  According to Cahighways back in 1934 the eventual plan for CA 180 was for it to terminate at US 101 north of Hollister eastward over the Sierras to CA 7 (which became US 395).  At some point prior to the 1964 renumbering the plan to route CA 180 over the Sierras was dropped but the routing through the Diablos techincally hasn't been dropped.  Apparently since 1984 the definition for the route of 180 has it truncated to CA 25 in Pacines instead of to US 101.  The link to the Cahighways stub is here:

http://www.cahighways.org/177-184.html

Basically what the above means is that CA 180 was officially on the log books from Pacines north to US 101 with CA 25 acting as the signed route.  Apparently there was actually post markers in San Benito County along CA 25 showing "CA 180" as the actual route.  Here is are maps from 1982 and 1990 route showing a proposed route of "180" running on J1 and CA 25:

http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239494~5511830:California-State-Highways,-December?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=7&trs=86

http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239483~5511824:State-Highway-Map,-1990-?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=1&trs=86

Apparently the routing above for 180 was to take a straight shot from Mendota to I-5, multiplex I-5 south to Panoche Road, and take Panoche Road all the way to CA 25.  I guess the alignment of Little Panoche Road was a little too far out of the way?  On the 1970 Map Little Panoche Road is shown on the proposed alignment instead:

http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239509~5511840:State-Highway-Map,-California,-1970?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=17&trs=86

Along with LRN 263 in 1963:

http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239528~5511852:State-Highway-Map,-California,-1963?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=29&trs=86

Interestingly CA 180 is shown as existing on Panoche and Little Panoche Road in 1938, more than likely an error than anything signed in the field:

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

Speaking of the Trans-Sierra extension I want to say that in the CA 245 Thread from earlier this year that someone posted a picture showing early CA 180 on Onion Valley Road.  If I happen to find it I'll link it over to this thread later on.  With all that said, given that there was some pretty crappy roads like like Lewis Creek Road/CA 25 in the Diablos that made it into the early highway system I find it kind of surprising CA 180 wasn't on Panoche/Little Panoche from the outset.  Basically the area around New Idria would have been still in it's heyday and very much active.  The alignment of J1 is probably sound enough to run a CA 198 style highway through with upgrades but I couldn't see anything beyond that, nor a need for anything on a grand scale like that.  It would be nice to have a viable alternate to CA 152 to reach US 101 from the Fresno area, as it stands J1 ain't that route.

NE2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13035
  • not a kook

  • Age: 9
  • Location: central Florida
  • Last Login: Today at 12:03:46 AM
Re: County Route J1
« Reply #3 on: December 14, 2016, 11:54:55 PM »

J1 has a interesting back story with the connection to the original vision for CA 180.  According to Cahighways back in 1934 the eventual plan for CA 180 was for it to terminate at US 101 north of Hollister eastward over the Sierras to CA 7 (which became US 395).
It always would have ended at SR 25 (until 1964): http://archive.org/stream/californiahighwa193436calirich#page/n275/mode/2up

Interestingly CA 180 is shown as existing on Panoche and Little Panoche Road in 1938, more than likely an error than anything signed in the field:
I don't think this was an error. Some state routes were signed on county roads: http://caltrafficsigns.com/pictures/displayimage.php?album=11&pid=235

SR 45 even had a county piece in the middle until 1959.

Speaking of the Trans-Sierra extension I want to say that in the CA 245 Thread from earlier this year that someone posted a picture showing early CA 180 on Onion Valley Road.  If I happen to find it I'll link it over to this thread later on.  With all that said, given that there was some pretty crappy roads like like Lewis Creek Road/CA 25 in the Diablos that made it into the early highway system I find it kind of surprising CA 180 wasn't on Panoche/Little Panoche from the outset.
Blame the legislature for not adding it to the state highway system until 1959.
Logged
Florida route log | pre-1945
I stand with any member of any group who Trump hates. I will do my best to not make America hate again.

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4256
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 07:57:29 AM
Re: County Route J1
« Reply #4 on: December 15, 2016, 12:33:54 AM »

J1 has a interesting back story with the connection to the original vision for CA 180.  According to Cahighways back in 1934 the eventual plan for CA 180 was for it to terminate at US 101 north of Hollister eastward over the Sierras to CA 7 (which became US 395).
It always would have ended at SR 25 (until 1964): http://archive.org/stream/californiahighwa193436calirich#page/n275/mode/2up

Interestingly CA 180 is shown as existing on Panoche and Little Panoche Road in 1938, more than likely an error than anything signed in the field:
I don't think this was an error. Some state routes were signed on county roads: http://caltrafficsigns.com/pictures/displayimage.php?album=11&pid=235

SR 45 even had a county piece in the middle until 1959.

Speaking of the Trans-Sierra extension I want to say that in the CA 245 Thread from earlier this year that someone posted a picture showing early CA 180 on Onion Valley Road.  If I happen to find it I'll link it over to this thread later on.  With all that said, given that there was some pretty crappy roads like like Lewis Creek Road/CA 25 in the Diablos that made it into the early highway system I find it kind of surprising CA 180 wasn't on Panoche/Little Panoche from the outset.
Blame the legislature for not adding it to the state highway system until 1959.

It was Quillz that posted the stub of the early 180 map showing a proposed alignment of 180 going east from Kings Canyon to Onion Valley Road.  Onion Valley is shown as a solid line running to CA 7 which means the map he has likely is from 1934.  Quillz posted segments of that map on replies 66 and 68 of the following thread:

http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=17893.50

And to your point you might be right about the 180 not being an error, Quillz has the same thing on his maps on those replies for what is now J1.  Really any hope to extend 180 over the Sierras was done by 1940 when General Grant National Park was expanded and became Kings Canyon National Park, but I don't think that was ever serious considered.  The weird thing is that there might be a viable reason now more than ever to upgrade J1 at least to a two-lane state route with the active solar project along Hollister growing up in a real city.  Back when New Idria struck out Hollister probably didn't even have 8,000 residents and J1 was probably way more than adequate for the needs of the area.  Really its like you said, if the state hadn't waited so long to adopt the route there might be something viable already in place today. 

What I'm curious about now is when was J1 actually paved?  The state maps aren't likely to show anything like that since it wasn't a state highway...or at least not in an era when it would have been paved.  I'm thinking a lot of that is 1960s or 1970s from what I saw out there and how much the asphalt has degraded on the San Benito portion.  County Routes would have been a hot thing during that era, Cahighways has it added in 1958.

NE2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13035
  • not a kook

  • Age: 9
  • Location: central Florida
  • Last Login: Today at 12:03:46 AM
Re: County Route J1
« Reply #5 on: December 15, 2016, 12:38:11 AM »

What I'm curious about now is when was J1 actually paved?  The state maps aren't likely to show anything like that since it wasn't a state highway...or at least not in an era when it would have been paved.  I'm thinking a lot of that is 1960s or 1970s from what I saw out there and how much the asphalt has degraded on the San Benito portion.  County Routes would have been a hot thing during that era, Cahighways has it added in 1958.
Portions by 1939: http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~258600~5522093:Rand-McNally-Road-map--California
Logged
Florida route log | pre-1945
I stand with any member of any group who Trump hates. I will do my best to not make America hate again.

Rothman

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2763
  • Last Login: June 23, 2017, 03:30:10 PM
Re: County Route J1
« Reply #6 on: December 15, 2016, 11:50:40 AM »

J1's pavement doesn't look too terrible to me.  Lots of roads like that back here in the Northeast that are just fine to go faster than 20-25 mph on.
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4256
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 07:57:29 AM
Re: County Route J1
« Reply #7 on: December 15, 2016, 12:54:21 PM »

J1's pavement doesn't look too terrible to me.  Lots of roads like that back here in the Northeast that are just fine to go faster than 20-25 mph on.

Don't get me wrong, it is certainly passable for something that rural.  In the sustained straights I was usually close to or hitting that 55 MPH.  Thinking from the perspective of an urban driver who is used to suburban routes or a tourist though J1 might be the trip from hell.  I can envision a scenario where someone on their vacation looks that up on Google and thinks that a great short cut to East Pinnacles.  Their GPS and Google Maps will just affirm their suspicions given the speed limited is posted at 55 MPH.  Hell most people who come out here don't realize that the speed limit on almost any paved rural road is 55 MPH because it isn't posted or there is an "end whatever speed limit" leaving a locality. 

One thing is for sure though the Signed County route program varied greatly depending on what County you are actually in.  Fresno general has good paving but uses loud asphalt, Monterey is all over the place but is well signed, Tulare is well maintained but lacks extra signage, and San Benito can be a train wreck.  Some counties like Tulare even have stuff like a Mountain Route program and even Kern sort of has something like that in the Sierras as well.  The weird part is that there are some obvious roads that should be part of the Signed State route program but aren't; Sherman Pass Road, Bodfish-Caliente Road, Coalina/Los Gatos Creek, and even Bitterwater Road in San Luis Opispo County all come to mind as big ommissions.  There are even routes like J59, E15, and J132 which are just as good as state highways. 

I guess at minimum the basic guarantee with a signed county route in California is that it will be paved...now to what extent is another question.  Arizona was very similar to California in that the signed routed were generally pavement that had a huge variance in quality.  Living in Florida for 4 years in between Arizona and California was bizarre simply because I wasn't used to County Routes being general high quality.  In the case of Florida it probably has more to do with most of the County Routes being former state highways.

What I'm curious about now is when was J1 actually paved?  The state maps aren't likely to show anything like that since it wasn't a state highway...or at least not in an era when it would have been paved.  I'm thinking a lot of that is 1960s or 1970s from what I saw out there and how much the asphalt has degraded on the San Benito portion.  County Routes would have been a hot thing during that era, Cahighways has it added in 1958.
Portions by 1939: http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~258600~5522093:Rand-McNally-Road-map--California

Looks like New Idria Road was almost fully paved also back in 39.  I guess that it isn't so surprising given the mine at Idria that it would be paved, it just makes more weird that 180 wasn't on the books through Panoche from the get-go.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2016, 10:29:58 PM by Max Rockatansky »
Logged

jrouse

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 232
  • Location: Sacramento, CA
  • Last Login: June 11, 2017, 04:42:11 PM
Re: County Route J1
« Reply #8 on: December 16, 2016, 01:14:40 AM »

Caltrans did some studies some years ago to extend CA-180 westward from Mendota to I-5.  The preferred alignment would use Shields Avenue.  The study did not look at extending CA-180 west of I-5.  Per the traversable routes report I shared on the thread about CA-130, neither Districts 5 or 6 have any plans to adopt Panoche Road as state highway.   In fact District 6 recommends that if CA-180 is built, it needs to be on a new alignment as Panoche Road is a dirt road and unsuitable.

The CA-180 Westside Expressway study can be found here:  http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist6/environmental/projects/sr180westside/index.htm




iPhone
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4256
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 07:57:29 AM
Re: County Route J1
« Reply #9 on: December 16, 2016, 05:28:39 AM »

Caltrans did some studies some years ago to extend CA-180 westward from Mendota to I-5.  The preferred alignment would use Shields Avenue.  The study did not look at extending CA-180 west of I-5.  Per the traversable routes report I shared on the thread about CA-130, neither Districts 5 or 6 have any plans to adopt Panoche Road as state highway.   In fact District 6 recommends that if CA-180 is built, it needs to be on a new alignment as Panoche Road is a dirt road and unsuitable.

The CA-180 Westside Expressway study can be found here:  http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist6/environmental/projects/sr180westside/index.htm




iPhone

The link is coming up with a 404 error, is it still active because I would like to read the study if it is available.

I'd like to point out I made some errors I made in regards to the maps above in reply #2.  The 1938 map shows 180 using 33 south out of Mendota, California Avenue west, then using both Lyons Avenue in addition to North Avenue to reach Panoche Road.  Said map then shows 180 on the entirety of Panoche Road west to 25.  The 1963 map of LRN 263 basically shows the same alignment as the 1938 map as a dotted line.  The 1982 and 1990 map show the dotted line proposed extension of 180 shooting directly west out of Mendota in a straight line to I-5, I-5 south to Panoche Road, and Panoche Road West. Basically it looks like the idea was to bypass Mendota to the south and use California Avenue west to reach I-5. 

So I guess the question why was J1 on Little Panoche Road never in play for consideration for a 180 extension?  I know this is kind of adhoc but using Little Panoche/J1 really isn't that much longer than using all of Panoche Road:

https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Mendota,+CA+93640/Llanada,+CA/@36.6562775,-120.7987999,11z/data=!4m13!4m12!1m5!1m1!1s0x80938f0e0c7a6499:0xbdf710e6e7746ceb!2m2!1d-120.3815574!2d36.7535611!1m5!1m1!1s0x80924b425091b453:0x1d832b2521762c21!2m2!1d-120.9165736!2d36.6091225?hl=en

Compared to the alignment shown in 1938 and 1963:

https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Mendota,+CA+93640/Llanada,+CA/@36.6562775,-120.7987999,11z/data=!4m19!4m18!1m10!1m1!1s0x80938f0e0c7a6499:0xbdf710e6e7746ceb!2m2!1d-120.3815574!2d36.7535611!3m4!1m2!1d-120.6890041!2d36.5854495!3s0x8093bac9a2b6d547:0xb53c4076412baf07!1m5!1m1!1s0x80924b425091b453:0x1d832b2521762c21!2m2!1d-120.9165736!2d36.6091225!3e0?hl=en

Basically using the 1938 and 1963 dotted line/implied route of 180 there is only a savings of about 5 miles using the direct route to Panoche Road versus Little Panoche Road/J1.  The later proposed alignment shown in 82 and 90 wouldn't save any real mileage at all using California Ave then back tracking south on I-5 to reach Panoche Road. 

So really the question in my mind was, why not just do a study over Little Panoche/J1 west out of Mendota and then west on Panoche Road where Little Panoche terminates?  Panoche Road east of Little Panoche and New Idria Road quickly becomes dirt like you stated above and certainly takes a wild alignment that basically follows the terrain in addition to Silver Creek.  Little Panoche Road is already paved and I would imagine would probably be substantially easier to upgrade to state highway standards?  Granted I'm saying this without reading the actual study, so I don't even know what scale of roadway was being considered?.... rural two lane?...expressway?   If it was prior to 2010 it probably doesn't account for the Panoche Valley Solar Farm being located on Little Panoche Road.  With everything that has happened with the Solar Farm undergoing construction it might favor a different alignment than the one that seemed to emphasize using all of Panoche Road west of I-5. 

For reference Panoche Road continues directly east where it becomes dirt in the following picture while J1 turns left to follow Little Panoche Road north/northeast:



Not that I'm suggesting that extending 180 westward is necessary of feasible for Caltrans to pick up, that ship probably has long since sailed....basically this is all just spit ball conjecture at this point.  Personally I would be happy if San Benito County did some patch work on or full on repave of their section of J1 since it would probably fulfill what I would consider an realistic every alternate to 198 or 152.  There was an apparent wash out east of Panoche Pass Summit that had some San Benito County people working on it.  Fresno seems to be fully repairing their section near the county line and San Benito basically appears to be taking the "fix it when it breaks" approach.  Granted I would speculate that Fresno County has substantially more money available to work on County Routes compared to San Benito County just off population differences alone.  I find it odd considering the Panoche Valley Solar Farm is located on San Benito County land on Little Panoche Road while Fresno County is the one actually doing all the work to improve it.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2016, 05:35:53 AM by Max Rockatansky »
Logged

jrouse

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 232
  • Location: Sacramento, CA
  • Last Login: June 11, 2017, 04:42:11 PM
County Route J1
« Reply #10 on: December 16, 2016, 10:11:40 PM »

Try this:  http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist6/environmental/projects/sr180westside/

The study just covers an extension of 180 from Mendota to I-5, no further.

The portion west of 5 is addressed in the traversable highway report, http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tsip/hseb/products/TravHwy02.pdf

There's also a brief discussion about the history of Route 180 in the Transportation Concept Report for the route, which was updated by District 6 in 2014.  http://www.dot.ca.gov/d6/planning/tcrs/sr180tcr/sr180_tcr_021314_final.pdf

iPhone
« Last Edit: December 16, 2016, 10:21:21 PM by jrouse »
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4256
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 07:57:29 AM
Re: County Route J1
« Reply #11 on: December 16, 2016, 10:32:41 PM »

Alternate 1A is interesting since like you said it uses Shields and would intersect I-5 at Little Panoche.  In theory that would allow potential expansion west along all of J1 via Little Panoche in some far flung future or flight of fantasy.  Looks like the corridor study is much more scaled back version of the dotted like extension showing up on maps 20-30 years back that multiplexed I-5 south to Panoche Road.  Having 180 west all the way to I-5 would be a huge improvement over the current 152 through Los Banos from Fresno and anything south of the city in terms of reaching the Bay Area.  What is the status of the study?

jrouse

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 232
  • Location: Sacramento, CA
  • Last Login: June 11, 2017, 04:42:11 PM
Re: County Route J1
« Reply #12 on: December 21, 2016, 03:08:53 PM »

The study, which was actually an environmental impact report, was completed in 2013.  An EIR is needed before the California Transportation Commission will adopt any facility into the state highway system.  However, AFAIK, no action has been taken on it since then.
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4256
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 07:57:29 AM
Re: County Route J1
« Reply #13 on: December 21, 2016, 04:16:21 PM »

The study, which was actually an environmental impact report, was completed in 2013.  An EIR is needed before the California Transportation Commission will adopt any facility into the state highway system.  However, AFAIK, no action has been taken on it since then.

Gotcha, figured it was worth an ask since it has been a couple years forward.

andy3175

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1182
  • Location: San Diego, California, USA
  • Last Login: June 23, 2017, 10:16:39 AM
    • AARoads
Re: County Route J1
« Reply #14 on: December 26, 2016, 02:33:01 AM »

Did you find any J1 county shields in Fresno County other than those on Interstate 5? I tried driving the route a few years ago and could not locate any. I did see some in San Benito, however. I believe J1 is the only signed county route in Fresno County, but I could be wrong.
Logged
Regards,
Andy

www.aaroads.com

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4256
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 07:57:29 AM
Re: County Route J1
« Reply #15 on: December 26, 2016, 08:57:16 AM »

Did you find any J1 county shields in Fresno County other than those on Interstate 5? I tried driving the route a few years ago and could not locate any. I did see some in San Benito, however. I believe J1 is the only signed county route in Fresno County, but I could be wrong.

Actually yes, and I screwed up by jumping on I-5 too fast.  There is a J1 shield directly east of the southbound I-5 ramps, I tried to take a picture but I was too far away and it sucked:

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.7779093,-120.7261317,3a,37.5y,90h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbwR4ARjwVNXXjAG9zG2nHQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

andy3175

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1182
  • Location: San Diego, California, USA
  • Last Login: June 23, 2017, 10:16:39 AM
    • AARoads
Re: County Route J1
« Reply #16 on: December 26, 2016, 11:56:38 PM »

Did you find any J1 county shields in Fresno County other than those on Interstate 5? I tried driving the route a few years ago and could not locate any. I did see some in San Benito, however. I believe J1 is the only signed county route in Fresno County, but I could be wrong.

Actually yes, and I screwed up by jumping on I-5 too fast.  There is a J1 shield directly east of the southbound I-5 ramps, I tried to take a picture but I was too far away and it sucked:

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.7779093,-120.7261317,3a,37.5y,90h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbwR4ARjwVNXXjAG9zG2nHQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

I wonder if that particular sign was placed by the county or by Caltrans. But in looking at GSV, I see a few other J-1 signs in Fresno County, such as the one where westbound J-1 transitions from Fairfax Avenue onto Shields Avenue: https://www.google.com/maps/@36.7764385,-120.5670027,3a,75y,356.72h,94.1t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBvzyeV3kGYFmV_jUbCDapA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en or when eastbound J-1 transitions from Fairfax Avenue onto Belmont Avenue: https://www.google.com/maps/@36.7510612,-120.5674916,3a,75y,183.29h,77.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shKVErpue38uBviXPU8bvRQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en. And there is an end shield at the SR 33 intersection in Mendota as well: https://www.google.com/maps/@36.7492815,-120.3872654,3a,75y,98.78h,83.71t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7cftuDbk0qBdUMldfwWQDg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en. So it is signed; I just needed to look around GSV a bit.
Logged
Regards,
Andy

www.aaroads.com

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4256
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 07:57:29 AM
Re: County Route J1
« Reply #17 on: December 27, 2016, 12:08:23 AM »

If things go to plan this week I'll be heading out to Fort Ord and Fremont Peak on Wednesday.  I'm planning on a stop over in the Fresno area so I might have an opportunity to take 180 across the valley which would give me a better look and route clinch of J1.  I'm curious now since that J1 County Marker looked pretty fresh at the I-5 ramp...at least from a distance it did.

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4256
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 07:57:29 AM
Re: County Route J1
« Reply #18 on: December 28, 2016, 11:32:17 PM »

Made it out to the rest of J1 today on the way back to Fresno this afternoon.  On I-5 southbound there was a J1 sign for the Shields/Little Panoche exit but I couldn't get a picture that was worthwhile from the sun glare.  West of I-5 the route is really well signed; first I'll start off where J1 crosses the freeway onto Shields:



Oddly there is no J1 Shield directing you south on Fairfax:



But there is one northbound on Fairfax telling you to turn on Shields:



There is a sign you to turn right onto Fairfax from Belmont:



And of course J1 "End" at CA 33 Mendota:



Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4256
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 07:57:29 AM
Re: County Route J1
« Reply #19 on: January 05, 2017, 12:32:12 AM »

Found what I was looking for in regards to Idria Road:


Considering my nearest staging point would be in Fresno that would make for one hell of a long day getting out there.  The road looks just good enough to be traversed with enough care at maybe a good 25-30 MPH.  We'll see how I feel about this in April maybe.

Also the dirt section of Panoche Road that has been discussed so much in this thread:


 


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.