News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

Unbuilt CA 234

Started by Max Rockatansky, March 05, 2024, 07:56:14 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Max Rockatansky

California State Route 234 is a three-mile unconstructed State Highway which was planned near the southern city border of Stockton near French Camp.  The corridor which was adopted into the State Highway System by way of 1959 Legislative Chapter 1062.  The traversable routing of California State Route 234 is noted by Caltrans as French Camp Road despite it not matching the planned corridor routing displayed on State Highway Maps.  During 1983 San Joaquin County adopted a resolution to adopt French Camp Road formally California State Route 234.  The state never acted on the resolution and San Joaquin eventually lost interest.  Modern Arch Airport Road was completed in 2010s along the planned corridor of California State Route 234.  Arch Airport Road facilitates traffic to newer industrial construction at Airpark 599 near Stockton Metropolitain Airport. 

https://www.gribblenation.org/2024/03/unconstructed-california-state-route-234.html?m=1


Quillz

I always find the terminology "unbuilt" or "unconstructed" interesting, especially in places where the routing clearly exists, but wasn't state maintained for various reasons. I always felt a better term like "unadopted" would work better, because the former two imply physical connections not existing.

TheStranger

#2
Quote from: Quillz on March 07, 2024, 07:19:53 PM
I always find the terminology "unbuilt" or "unconstructed" interesting, especially in places where the routing clearly exists, but wasn't state maintained for various reasons. I always felt a better term like "unadopted" would work better, because the former two imply physical connections not existing.

I wonder if there's a comprehensive list of "built but not as numbered highway" examples in California.

I can think of two others in metro Sacramento:

- the short Watt Avenue expressway from Jackson Road to American River Drive, which was proposed as part of a Route 16 upgrade

- Cosumnes River Boulevard to Freeport, originally planned as part of the Route 148 project

Outside of that area:

- La Cienega Boulevard through the Kenneth Hahn park in LA (planned as part of 170)

- Richmond Parkway and San Pablo Dam Road in Contra Costa County (planned as Route 93)

Would Vasco Road north of I-580 in Livermore (planned approximately as part of the Route 84 corridor) fit this?
Chris Sampang

Quillz

Oh, never knew about that 170 extension. I can kind of see that working, assuming 170 ran down Laurel Canyon, then cut across to La Cienega. Then ended... somewhere.

One I think you missed was CA-256. Was supposed to exist between CA-27 and I-405 via Mulholland Drive (even though that hasn't ever been paved), but never adopted.

TheStranger

Quote from: Quillz on March 07, 2024, 08:47:09 PM
Oh, never knew about that 170 extension. I can kind of see that working, assuming 170 ran down Laurel Canyon, then cut across to La Cienega. Then ended... somewhere.

The planned 170 freeway down Laurel Canyon would have intersected with 405 and 90 near LAX, providing a second freeway route to the airport from the valley (and by extension be the main route to LAX from downtown).


Quote from: Quillz on March 07, 2024, 08:47:09 PM
One I think you missed was CA-256. Was supposed to exist between CA-27 and I-405 via Mulholland Drive (even though that hasn't ever been paved), but never adopted.

256 was the never-built freeway replacement for former US 99W in Roseville (i.e. not the section of 65 that cut to the southeast towards I-80).

268 was the planned Mulholland extension that is still a dirt path, right?

I was thinking more in the spirit of "it was planned as a state route or US route or something, then built as a non-numbered road"
Chris Sampang

bing101

CA-141 was another one where it was supposed to go to where the current Curtola Parkway and Mare Island way in Vallejo as the Vallejo version of the Embarcadero Freeway connecting to CA-37.


bing101

Quote from: TheStranger on March 07, 2024, 07:39:48 PM
Quote from: Quillz on March 07, 2024, 07:19:53 PM
I always find the terminology "unbuilt" or "unconstructed" interesting, especially in places where the routing clearly exists, but wasn't state maintained for various reasons. I always felt a better term like "unadopted" would work better, because the former two imply physical connections not existing.

I wonder if there's a comprehensive list of "built but not as numbered highway" examples in California.

I can think of two others in metro Sacramento:

- the short Watt Avenue expressway from Jackson Road to American River Drive, which was proposed as part of a Route 16 upgrade

- Cosumnes River Boulevard to Freeport, originally planned as part of the Route 148 project

Outside of that area:

- La Cienega Boulevard through the Kenneth Hahn park in LA (planned as part of 170)

- Richmond Parkway and San Pablo Dam Road in Contra Costa County (planned as Route 93)

Would Vasco Road north of I-580 in Livermore (planned approximately as part of the Route 84 corridor) fit this?
Vasco Road is part of the CA-84 gap interestingly the other part of CA-84 from Rio Vista to West Sacramento is never mentioned only the one that goes from San Gregorio to Livermore is mentioned because of it's close proximity to Silicon Valley.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_84

Max Rockatansky

The Delta portion of 84 is weird.  A lot of it was the legislative definition of 160 (including the Antioch Bridge) for quite a few years after the 1964 Renumbering.

TheStranger

Quote from: bing101 on March 08, 2024, 10:56:36 AM

Vasco Road is part of the CA-84 gap interestingly the other part of CA-84 from Rio Vista to West Sacramento is never mentioned only the one that goes from San Gregorio to Livermore is mentioned because of it's close proximity to Silicon Valley.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_84


I am specifically talking about routes that were built, but not signed as a state highway, after they had been officially proposed as one before.

Vasco specifically has never been signed as 84 or maintained by the state of California, but approximates the Livermore-Brentwood segment of that route definition.

Not sure if say something like Slauson Avenue in Los Angeles between the two portions of Route 90 would fit this too, or that forest road between the two segments of Route 162 up north - both of those existed prior to the route designation, as opposed to the examples mentioned here.
Chris Sampang

bing101

Quote from: TheStranger on March 08, 2024, 02:59:03 PM
Quote from: bing101 on March 08, 2024, 10:56:36 AM

Vasco Road is part of the CA-84 gap interestingly the other part of CA-84 from Rio Vista to West Sacramento is never mentioned only the one that goes from San Gregorio to Livermore is mentioned because of it's close proximity to Silicon Valley.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_84


I am specifically talking about routes that were built, but not signed as a state highway, after they had been officially proposed as one before.

Vasco specifically has never been signed as 84 or maintained by the state of California, but approximates the Livermore-Brentwood segment of that route definition.

Not sure if say something like Slauson Avenue in Los Angeles between the two portions of Route 90 would fit this too, or that forest road between the two segments of Route 162 up north - both of those existed prior to the route designation, as opposed to the examples mentioned here.
All true and the Southeast Connector in Sacramento is a city route on a previous proposed alignment for CA-148.


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

cahwyguy

Can you tell I'm up to the (scanning AARoads) portion of the highway page updates.

To be precise, there are a number of different things being discussed here:

  • Roads built by a county or city, perhaps with Div. of Highways funding, anticipating state adoption. La Cienega fits in this category, as does portions in Long Beach
  • City or county roads that approximate a planned state highway, but never formally adopted due to condition or routing. These were never state highways, and are unlikely to become state highways, but folks wish...
  • Lines on a map. The state imagined a highway between points A and B, and they kept wishing and wishing, but their wishing wasn't strong enough. There might be roads approximating things, but the state never wanted those roads (they were ugly and misshapen) -- they wanted something shiny and new
Daniel - California Highway Guy ● Highway Site: http://www.cahighways.org/ ●  Blog: http://blog.cahighways.org/ ● Podcast (CA Route by Route): http://caroutebyroute.org/ ● Follow California Highways on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/cahighways

Quillz

Even rarer is "no lines on a map." The only instance I know was original 1934 routing of CA-168. Literally was just drawn as two halves on a map, with not even a proposal through the Sierra. Even CA-180 and CA-190 had lines on a map.

Max Rockatansky

That's because the connecting corridor wouldn't have been state highway.  The Piute Pass Highway was planned as Forest Service road.  The reason General Grant National Park was expanded into Kings Canyon National Park was to stop development like that.  With CA 180 I actually found a couple referenced in the CHPWs about a similar Forest Service concept between Cedar Grove-Kearsarge Pass.

Interesting to think that there was once a battle of interests between two Federal entities like that in the late 1930s/early 1940s.  I'd imagine they might have produced something similar to Sherman Pass Road. It would be amusing to think in modern times a 11,000 foot high Forest Service road possibly floating under the radar because of it not carrying State Highway or NPS branding.

Alps

Quote from: Quillz on May 28, 2024, 02:53:27 AMEven rarer is "no lines on a map." The only instance I know was original 1934 routing of CA-168. Literally was just drawn as two halves on a map, with not even a proposal through the Sierra. Even CA-180 and CA-190 had lines on a map.
In local news, I don't think NJ 41 ever had a complete proposed routing drawn, only the half that became NJ 154.



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.