AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules for political content in signatures and user profiles. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: California 245 and other more obscure California State Highways  (Read 37830 times)

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15644
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 01:14:16 AM
    • Gribblenation
Re: California 245 and other more obscure California State Highways
« Reply #25 on: July 05, 2016, 07:59:13 AM »

That's the thing with 198, it pretty much is still a full expressway between CA 99 and CA 43 but doesn't have a single traffic light or drop below 65 MPH.  About the only thing past the air station you get is Harris Ranch before 198 crosses I-5, it's actually a fun as hell road to take out to US 101 regardless if you stay on it or use CA 25.  The real interesting part of CA 25 is that it apparently follows part of the San Andreas fault.  Correct if I'm wrong but didn't 180 at one point connect out to via Panoche Road 25 or am I just imaging things that were on a drawing board?
Logged

cahwyguy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 515
  • California Highway Guy

  • Age: 61
  • Location: Northridge, CA
  • Last Login: July 18, 2021, 09:10:09 PM
    • California Highways
Re: California 245 and other more obscure California State Highways
« Reply #26 on: July 05, 2016, 11:28:05 AM »

Got any good reference materials on the net for the LRN numbers?  I have some really good sources for Florida and the pre-1945 route numbers but I can't find anything solid for the LRNs.

Umm, the actual legislative acts, perhaps. I've got them all cited in the various pages at http://www.cahighways.org/chronlgy.html
Logged
Daniel - California Highway Guy ● Highway Site: http://www.cahighways.org/ ●  Blog: http://blog.cahighways.org/ ● Follow California Highways on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/cahighways

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15644
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 01:14:16 AM
    • Gribblenation
Re: California 245 and other more obscure California State Highways
« Reply #27 on: July 05, 2016, 11:49:38 AM »

Got any good reference materials on the net for the LRN numbers?  I have some really good sources for Florida and the pre-1945 route numbers but I can't find anything solid for the LRNs.

Umm, the actual legislative acts, perhaps. I've got them all cited in the various pages at http://www.cahighways.org/chronlgy.html

Exactly what I was looking for, funny I used to have a book mark for that site but lost it with this new computer.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8252
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: July 23, 2021, 07:16:07 PM
Re: California 245 and other more obscure California State Highways
« Reply #28 on: July 05, 2016, 03:46:59 PM »

CA 180 was (and, AFAIK, still is) projected as a "line on a map" west from its present terminus at CA 33 to CA 25 in the vicinity of the Panoche Road (County J1) intersection.  No formal alignment has ever been adopted (the first step to actually building a facility) between 33 and 25; all iterations of "dotted line" over the years show it cutting off the present northward arc on Panoche on a more direct trajectory.  The last iteration I recall (from a Caltrans map circa 1994-95) showed the route extending from the point where 180 turns NW to access Mendota due west to I-5, jogging south on I-5 for several miles before continuing west to approximately the 25/Panoche junction. 

Interestingly, CA 25 north from the junction point through Hollister and on to the terminus at US 101 south of Gilroy was, during the later '70's and early-to-mid '80's, legislatively designated as CA 180 -- although CA 25 signage was retained.  The Caltrans white "paddle" markers along the roadside did read "180", with mileage starting at the 101 junction (I personally observed this circa 1982-83).  Obviously, the 180 extension was intended to be a principal alternate route to the Valley -- one directly serving Fresno --  to augment 152 to the north.  According to my ex, who was born & raised in Fresno, many wealthy Fresnans have 2nd homes in Carmel (including her father; we used that house often) or Pacific Grove (on the Monterey Peninsula); an extended 180, combined with 156 west from Hollister, would have provided a shorter path between the two points -- and that particular group of Fresno residents would have plenty of clout vis--vis influencing Caltrans to at least engage in some preliminary planning for such a corridor (face it, no one likes slogging through Los Banos!).

The "180" portion of CA 25 was redesignated back to its original "25" number sometime in the late '80's, and the cross-Coast Range section of 180 hasn't been mentioned since.  One would expect the usual suspects:  lack or lessening of political interest, lack of funding, etc.  But that area also poses some other issues:  CA 25 essentially sits atop the San Andreas Fault for its entire length, and the area is considered "earthquake central" due to the small quakes occurring almost constantly somewhere in the area.  Also, Hollister is no longer the sleepy little San Benito Valley town it once was (my ex thought it "quaint"!); massive housing tracts are everywhere that there is available land (except for some local vineyards whose owners have refused to sell!), driven by the ongoing housing requirements of the Santa Clara (Silicon) Valley to the north.  156 bypassed central Hollister with an expressway in the early '90's, the 25 bypass (in arterial form) was opened a few years ago.  The chances for a high-capacity facility connecting 25 SE of Hollister to 156 or 101 are likely sunk by the deployment of all that new housing.  This situation likely puts a substantial nail in the coffin of any 180 extension past I-5. 
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15644
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 01:14:16 AM
    • Gribblenation
Re: California 245 and other more obscure California State Highways
« Reply #29 on: July 05, 2016, 11:05:10 PM »

CA 180 was (and, AFAIK, still is) projected as a "line on a map" west from its present terminus at CA 33 to CA 25 in the vicinity of the Panoche Road (County J1) intersection.  No formal alignment has ever been adopted (the first step to actually building a facility) between 33 and 25; all iterations of "dotted line" over the years show it cutting off the present northward arc on Panoche on a more direct trajectory.  The last iteration I recall (from a Caltrans map circa 1994-95) showed the route extending from the point where 180 turns NW to access Mendota due west to I-5, jogging south on I-5 for several miles before continuing west to approximately the 25/Panoche junction. 

Interestingly, CA 25 north from the junction point through Hollister and on to the terminus at US 101 south of Gilroy was, during the later '70's and early-to-mid '80's, legislatively designated as CA 180 -- although CA 25 signage was retained.  The Caltrans white "paddle" markers along the roadside did read "180", with mileage starting at the 101 junction (I personally observed this circa 1982-83).  Obviously, the 180 extension was intended to be a principal alternate route to the Valley -- one directly serving Fresno --  to augment 152 to the north.  According to my ex, who was born & raised in Fresno, many wealthy Fresnans have 2nd homes in Carmel (including her father; we used that house often) or Pacific Grove (on the Monterey Peninsula); an extended 180, combined with 156 west from Hollister, would have provided a shorter path between the two points -- and that particular group of Fresno residents would have plenty of clout vis--vis influencing Caltrans to at least engage in some preliminary planning for such a corridor (face it, no one likes slogging through Los Banos!).

The "180" portion of CA 25 was redesignated back to its original "25" number sometime in the late '80's, and the cross-Coast Range section of 180 hasn't been mentioned since.  One would expect the usual suspects:  lack or lessening of political interest, lack of funding, etc.  But that area also poses some other issues:  CA 25 essentially sits atop the San Andreas Fault for its entire length, and the area is considered "earthquake central" due to the small quakes occurring almost constantly somewhere in the area.  Also, Hollister is no longer the sleepy little San Benito Valley town it once was (my ex thought it "quaint"!); massive housing tracts are everywhere that there is available land (except for some local vineyards whose owners have refused to sell!), driven by the ongoing housing requirements of the Santa Clara (Silicon) Valley to the north.  156 bypassed central Hollister with an expressway in the early '90's, the 25 bypass (in arterial form) was opened a few years ago.  The chances for a high-capacity facility connecting 25 SE of Hollister to 156 or 101 are likely sunk by the deployment of all that new housing.  This situation likely puts a substantial nail in the coffin of any 180 extension past I-5.

I'm probably getting the number off of some old map that probably showed 180 as a mistake with the legislative number, I'll have to go digging through the storage bins sometime to see if I can find it...I swear it showed it.  Good god anything is better than that truck and commuter slog over 152...that seems to be the one everyone follows nowadays given the expressway configuration probably gets favorable hits from GPS units. 

Incidentally I had a Cousin call me today, I guess her and the family are dropping into San Jose Thursday night and wanted to meet up in Santa Cruz.  I'm thinking CA 198 up US 101 is the ticket going up with CA 25 and CA 198 heading back...I hate back tracking but I would like to avoid 46 since it's such a boring drive.

Speaking of Monterrey County and the San Andreas Fault...what are your thoughts on the western segment of CA 146?  Apparently that's where the old fault movement was located at before it shifted more to where CA 25 is.  It's probably among the poorest maintained or graded of the California State Highways but one of the most intriguing given the weird design.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8252
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: July 23, 2021, 07:16:07 PM
Re: California 245 and other more obscure California State Highways
« Reply #30 on: July 05, 2016, 11:36:08 PM »

To tell you the truth, the only time I went to the Pinnacles was from the east side (the "short" 146).  The only part of the west 146 I've been on is the part that sits atop Business 101 through Soledad; so I couldn't give you any more status info that you couldn't get from Google Earth!  FYI, the Salinas valley is criss-crossed with lots of minor faults of varying activity levels; I can't recall any area highway (state or otherwise) being shut down because of a quake. 

198 to 101 (then 183 to Castroville) is not a bad ride if you're going to S. Cruz from Bakersfield.  Watch out for 25 from 146 south to 198 though, it didn't seem too well maintained the last time I used it (some sections without center lines -- and crumbling shoulders as well!).  It seems to be more of a local-access facility than a through route -- or at least thought of that way by Caltrans. 

If you're really bored, you could always take 58 east from Santa Margarita across the Carizzo!  :-P
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15644
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 01:14:16 AM
    • Gribblenation
Re: California 245 and other more obscure California State Highways
« Reply #31 on: July 05, 2016, 11:55:48 PM »

To tell you the truth, the only time I went to the Pinnacles was from the east side (the "short" 146).  The only part of the west 146 I've been on is the part that sits atop Business 101 through Soledad; so I couldn't give you any more status info that you couldn't get from Google Earth!  FYI, the Salinas valley is criss-crossed with lots of minor faults of varying activity levels; I can't recall any area highway (state or otherwise) being shut down because of a quake. 

198 to 101 (then 183 to Castroville) is not a bad ride if you're going to S. Cruz from Bakersfield.  Watch out for 25 from 146 south to 198 though, it didn't seem too well maintained the last time I used it (some sections without center lines -- and crumbling shoulders as well!).  It seems to be more of a local-access facility than a through route -- or at least thought of that way by Caltrans. 

If you're really bored, you could always take 58 east from Santa Margarita across the Carizzo!  :-P

25 wasn't actually that bad back in February when I did some climbing up in east Pinnacles.  It's bumpy as all hell and one of those roads you can maintain the 55 MPH but you are going to be mindful of deceptive corners south of east 146...at least it's not as bad as Coalinga Road...that's the real wild ride.  The last time I was on west 146 was May of 2014, it was in wonky shape but it was very apparently intentional since it was literally straddling every bump in the old faults.  Now mind you that was right after Pinnacles was declared a national park so there might be improvements but I highly doubt it.

I'm always up for a Daniel Plainview-esc tour of the places that inspired Little Boston out in those oil fields on 58.  There are some wicked dead-man's curves out there in the hills. 
Logged

coatimundi

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 798
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Marina, CA
  • Last Login: April 17, 2020, 12:42:35 AM
Re: California 245 and other more obscure California State Highways
« Reply #32 on: July 06, 2016, 01:45:55 AM »

I was out on Panoche Road a couple of weeks ago, and was trying to imagine a 46-ish roadway cut through the hills. In theory, I think it would be possible, and it may have even been a more simple proposition than even cutting 198 through those little canyons. The existing road, if you ever want to brave it, is pretty rough in both directions past whatever you want to call Panoche (school, village, bar, etc.). I hadn't driven it in about a year, and I'd swear it had gotten worse from the past winter. It seems like they (local Panoche Valleyers) just do not want anyone going through there. Or maybe they just don't want people to see the sign for Panoche Pass and make fun of it.
If you can brave it, and are okay with your tires, it's a great drive, and the Paicines Valley is always gorgeous.
What I want to do now is La Gloria Road, but only when I get new tires.

But I was on 146 west probably about a year ago to reach Pinnacles, because that's the closer side for us. It gets pretty hairy before the highway officially ends. The stripe disappears, it's open ranchland, and the curve speed limits become a bit more serious. When you hit the park boundary though, it opens up.
Soledad has pushed itself as the "Gateway to the Pinnacles," (there's a section of 101 in Soledad officially named that) but Hollister has called itself essentially the same thing. It seems like most people access it from the eastern side though.
Logged

coatimundi

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 798
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Marina, CA
  • Last Login: April 17, 2020, 12:42:35 AM
Re: California 245 and other more obscure California State Highways
« Reply #33 on: July 06, 2016, 02:09:04 AM »

Coatimundi....thanks for the post; this thread had been turning into the "Max & Scotty Show"

I'm pleased as punch to provide traffic to this forum with the idea that, the more traffic it receives, the more attention and use it will receive.
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15644
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 01:14:16 AM
    • Gribblenation
Re: California 245 and other more obscure California State Highways
« Reply #34 on: July 06, 2016, 07:53:34 AM »

I was out on Panoche Road a couple of weeks ago, and was trying to imagine a 46-ish roadway cut through the hills. In theory, I think it would be possible, and it may have even been a more simple proposition than even cutting 198 through those little canyons. The existing road, if you ever want to brave it, is pretty rough in both directions past whatever you want to call Panoche (school, village, bar, etc.). I hadn't driven it in about a year, and I'd swear it had gotten worse from the past winter. It seems like they (local Panoche Valleyers) just do not want anyone going through there. Or maybe they just don't want people to see the sign for Panoche Pass and make fun of it.
If you can brave it, and are okay with your tires, it's a great drive, and the Paicines Valley is always gorgeous.
What I want to do now is La Gloria Road, but only when I get new tires.

But I was on 146 west probably about a year ago to reach Pinnacles, because that's the closer side for us. It gets pretty hairy before the highway officially ends. The stripe disappears, it's open ranchland, and the curve speed limits become a bit more serious. When you hit the park boundary though, it opens up.
Soledad has pushed itself as the "Gateway to the Pinnacles," (there's a section of 101 in Soledad officially named that) but Hollister has called itself essentially the same thing. It seems like most people access it from the eastern side though.

I would like a trip out to see the Idria Mine which would be accessed by Panoche.  Problem is that I doubt that dirt road is really well maintained since the town and mine were abandoned in addition to it may be at the Superfund level at this point with the usual accompanying fence....you can see the buildings out there on satellite view though.  Personally I didn't find it to be anything nearly as bad as say Old 66 west of Amboy or Kelbaker Road between Kelso and Baker.  There is also an abandoned springs resort up there in Diablos called Coalinga Springs which looks like it might easily reached...  I've even seen reports about Parkfield-Coalinga Road being well maintained worth the trip so long as it hasn't rained in awhile.

West Pinnacles from my observation was for the more serious hiker while the east was for the casual one.  You're higher up in elevation on the east side and you definitely have more facilities.  I'm actually surprised that Congress moved it up from a National Monument...it always seemed like with the size it was more monument worthy.  I mean they give Pinnalces the upgrade and not Lava Beds National Monument?...that doesn't make sense.  At least Pinnacles has some facilities which is more than can be said of a lot of non-park service designated current/former monuments from the last 20 years. 

Speaking of that west 146 alignment, if you keep going south of Metz-King City Road that gets pretty wild with maintenance also.  You get some decent looks at the tracks following that if you're a train buff.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8252
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: July 23, 2021, 07:16:07 PM
Re: California 245 and other more obscure California State Highways
« Reply #35 on: July 06, 2016, 08:48:49 AM »

Fully agree with you re the serious v. casual hiker difference between east & west Pinnacles; after obtaining a flyer from the Park Service, I opted for the more "casual" east side:  having no cartilege in my right knee (dating from a 1969 sports injury in college) pretty much made that decision for me!   Being also a train buff, I have made the Metz-King City Road detour on more than one occasion -- mainly to see that lonely little RR tunnel extending through an outcropping on the riverside bluff about halfway between King City & Soledad.  Considering how SP (owners of the trackage until 1996) had an ongoing program to "daylight" shorter tunnels (i.e., open them up with massive rock cuts) dating from post-WW II, the survival of this one makes it quite unique.
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15644
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 01:14:16 AM
    • Gribblenation
Re: California 245 and other more obscure California State Highways
« Reply #36 on: July 06, 2016, 10:49:41 AM »

Fully agree with you re the serious v. casual hiker difference between east & west Pinnacles; after obtaining a flyer from the Park Service, I opted for the more "casual" east side:  having no cartilege in my right knee (dating from a 1969 sports injury in college) pretty much made that decision for me!   Being also a train buff, I have made the Metz-King City Road detour on more than one occasion -- mainly to see that lonely little RR tunnel extending through an outcropping on the riverside bluff about halfway between King City & Soledad.  Considering how SP (owners of the trackage until 1996) had an ongoing program to "daylight" shorter tunnels (i.e., open them up with massive rock cuts) dating from post-WW II, the survival of this one makes it quite unique.

Yeah I was wondering what the story was with those tunnels, it was pretty apparent just driving by that they were very old.  There seems to be some evidence of some old rail siding towns between Soledad and King City, wouldn't that likely put the origin of the tracks back to the steam days? 

One thing the east side has the west doesn't that I've noticed is WAY cooler weather.  You'd think that there wouldn't be much of a difference but the west side feels like a desert and the east was substantially wetter...at least the couple times I've visited.
Logged

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4357
  • Last Login: Today at 01:12:57 AM
Re: California 245 and other more obscure California State Highways
« Reply #37 on: July 06, 2016, 12:08:02 PM »

CA 180 was (and, AFAIK, still is) projected as a "line on a map" west from its present terminus at CA 33 to CA 25 in the vicinity of the Panoche Road (County J1) intersection.  No formal alignment has ever been adopted (the first step to actually building a facility) between 33 and 25

The proposed extension of 180 west to I-5 has had some discussion in recent years:
http://dot.ca.gov/dist6/environmental/projects/sr180westside/index.html
http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist6/environmental/projects/sr180westside/doc/180westside2_030113.pdf
Logged
Chris Sampang

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8252
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: July 23, 2021, 07:16:07 PM
Re: California 245 and other more obscure California State Highways
« Reply #38 on: July 06, 2016, 03:27:47 PM »

I always figured that the more recent "jog" along I -5 within the CA 180 proposed alignment was to position the eastern portion to Fresno as a form of SIU, to be addressed separately from the trans-mountain portion of the route.  It also allowed that eastern portion to intersect I-5 somewhat north of the original (1959, 1965) projection -- providing a more seamless access to Fresno from northerly points along I-5 (including 152 and 580, of course).  A secondary benefit of the split alignment would be to more closely tailor the mountainous portion to the Coast Range topography.  It appears from Chris' document cites, there are mid-to-long range plans afoot to build out 180 east of I-5 to at least (upgradeable) expressway standards; considering the about 1M metro population of Fresno, that is hardly surprising.  Looks like the posters to this board aren't the only ones who don't want to slog through Los Banos on their way east or west!
Logged

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4357
  • Last Login: Today at 01:12:57 AM
Re: California 245 and other more obscure California State Highways
« Reply #39 on: July 06, 2016, 04:08:53 PM »

Looks like the posters to this board aren't the only ones who don't want to slog through Los Banos on their way east or west!

With regards to that: the Los Banos bypass isn't even projected to be finished until 2040!
http://www.losbanosenterprise.com/2015/07/30/224380/highway-plans-meet-resistance.html

That long delay is in part due to cancellation of a funding plan that had been in place:
http://www.losbanosenterprise.com/2014/04/17/219733/mcag-votes-to-divert-funds-from.html
Logged
Chris Sampang

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8252
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: July 23, 2021, 07:16:07 PM
Re: California 245 and other more obscure California State Highways
« Reply #40 on: July 06, 2016, 04:58:49 PM »

I certainly don't fault the local Los Banos residents for objecting to "Band-Aid" measures along the in-town segment of CA 152; there is little justification for their crosstown egress being truncated or limited by "improvements" on the highway -- even basic inconvenience is difficult to rationalize.  And it seems like the "shovel", as in "shovel ready", is being used for more than one purpose ("break out the Bandini, folks; we're spreading it wide & deep").  Projects of any major scale don't seem to catch a break these days, regardless of continuing/longstanding need.  The rationale appears to be that expediting 5-10 projects of more localized or concentrated importance is worth "back-burnering" longer-distance travel upgrades.   
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8252
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: July 23, 2021, 07:16:07 PM
Re: California 245 and other more obscure California State Highways
« Reply #41 on: July 06, 2016, 05:34:17 PM »

In response to Max's inquiry about the Southern Pacific Coast Line -- it was fully completed from L.A. to San Jose in 1901, which, of course, puts it squarely at the peak of the steam locomotive.  There were indeed numerous sidings and loading areas along the Salinas Valley portion of the line; most of them were taken up as agriculture consolidated into larger-scale farming operations with more centralized rail transfer facilities, usually in the larger towns such as King City and Soledad.  Dieselization of the Coast Line took place from 1945 to 1958; the last "holdout" for mainline steam on the S.P. system was in the Bay Area, where the water necessary for steam operations was relatively plentiful.  S.P., of course, dieselized its desert operations (from L.A. east into Texas) first in order to obviate the need for water supplies (and stops) along the route; Bakersfield to Sacramento and over to the Bay were the last regions to switch over circa 1957-58.  (Most of this info gleaned from Joseph Strapac's extensive volumes on SP's history and equipment rosters).   
« Last Edit: July 06, 2016, 05:38:59 PM by sparker »
Logged

coatimundi

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 798
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Marina, CA
  • Last Login: April 17, 2020, 12:42:35 AM
Re: California 245 and other more obscure California State Highways
« Reply #42 on: July 06, 2016, 06:55:50 PM »

Quote
Rescinding the resolution allows officials to use $3 million of the collected fees toward a grant to fund another construction project, the Campus Parkway, which will connect Highway 99 and UC Merced.

That really sucks. Divert money from something that's actually needed so that the wealthy parents and other visitors have a pretty way to get to a campus that they built in the middle of no where for mostly no reason. It also seems to have the purpose of driving development to a new "University Community." Maybe it's to attract faculty who want the prestige of a UC but don't want to live in Merced. It seems like the developers should be paying for a large portion of this.
http://www.co.merced.ca.us/pdfs/planning/cplan/completed/university/final_university_community_plan.pdf

I've driven the existing section of Campus Parkway, and it's a little ridiculous: divided parkway in the middle of farm fields.
It's all part of the Merced Loop project, which aims to construct a full 360 around the city, some of it at expressway standards. A tiny section of the Atwater-Merced Expressway, where it intersects CA 99, is already complete.
https://www.cityofmerced.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=13578

I don't know how Los Banos could handle losing 152 plowing through the city. I find it annoying that I have to look at that town on the way back from the San Joaquin Valley, but they would likely lose a lot of those roadside businesses.
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15644
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 01:14:16 AM
    • Gribblenation
Re: California 245 and other more obscure California State Highways
« Reply #43 on: July 06, 2016, 11:25:06 PM »

In response to Max's inquiry about the Southern Pacific Coast Line -- it was fully completed from L.A. to San Jose in 1901, which, of course, puts it squarely at the peak of the steam locomotive.  There were indeed numerous sidings and loading areas along the Salinas Valley portion of the line; most of them were taken up as agriculture consolidated into larger-scale farming operations with more centralized rail transfer facilities, usually in the larger towns such as King City and Soledad.  Dieselization of the Coast Line took place from 1945 to 1958; the last "holdout" for mainline steam on the S.P. system was in the Bay Area, where the water necessary for steam operations was relatively plentiful.  S.P., of course, dieselized its desert operations (from L.A. east into Texas) first in order to obviate the need for water supplies (and stops) along the route; Bakersfield to Sacramento and over to the Bay were the last regions to switch over circa 1957-58.  (Most of this info gleaned from Joseph Strapac's extensive volumes on SP's history and equipment rosters).

Figured as much but I never really got through in Monterrey County for looking for rail siding ruins.  The real gems are out in Mojave on the Santa Fe line that runs by National Trails Highway/San Bernardino CR 66.  Basically in one stretch from Ludlow to I-40 along US 95 you have the following rail siding towns I know of; Ludlow, Klondike, Siberia, Bagdad, Amboy, Bristol, Cadiz, Danby, Essex, Goffs, Homer, Ibis, Jaba and Klienfelter.  Out of that list you have some that are really completely intact like Ludlow, Amboy, Essex and Goffs while I've at least able to find a foundation or two if not rail sign for everything but Bristol and Jaba.  I've also seen documents that talk about rail sidings called Bannock, Saltus (which may be Bristol) and Ash Hill but I can't pin down REAL locations like the others.  It seems that only Chambless came after the rail siding era as a result of US 66 running through the area and basically seems to the only one with signs of life today.  You had almost completely unique situation out there in the Mojave where a railroad route was eventually co-aligned with a US Highway which in this case was 66 carrying a ton of major traffic west, basically it kept a lot of those places going until I-40 was opened since there wasn't anything else substantial between Barstow and Needles.  I'm starting to work on what I can find out in San Joaquin Valley but it would seem that given most of the land the rails run along is farmed that the bulk of the rail sidings are long gone.
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15644
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 01:14:16 AM
    • Gribblenation
Re: California 245 and other more obscure California State Highways
« Reply #44 on: July 08, 2016, 10:31:54 PM »

Quote
Rescinding the resolution allows officials to use $3 million of the collected fees toward a grant to fund another construction project, the Campus Parkway, which will connect Highway 99 and UC Merced.

That really sucks. Divert money from something that's actually needed so that the wealthy parents and other visitors have a pretty way to get to a campus that they built in the middle of no where for mostly no reason. It also seems to have the purpose of driving development to a new "University Community." Maybe it's to attract faculty who want the prestige of a UC but don't want to live in Merced. It seems like the developers should be paying for a large portion of this.
http://www.co.merced.ca.us/pdfs/planning/cplan/completed/university/final_university_community_plan.pdf

I've driven the existing section of Campus Parkway, and it's a little ridiculous: divided parkway in the middle of farm fields.
It's all part of the Merced Loop project, which aims to construct a full 360 around the city, some of it at expressway standards. A tiny section of the Atwater-Merced Expressway, where it intersects CA 99, is already complete.
https://www.cityofmerced.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=13578

I don't know how Los Banos could handle losing 152 plowing through the city. I find it annoying that I have to look at that town on the way back from the San Joaquin Valley, but they would likely lose a lot of those roadside businesses.

Speaking of 152....sucked it up and used that to get up to US 101 and San Jose today and boy did I regret it.  Had a truck blow a tire right in front of me and had to pull an old Motorweek emergency lane change at about 64 MPH...  Further up towards the 1,400 foot mark near Pacheco Pass the traffic shut down due to a truck in the left lane.  Really Caltrans needs to seriously upgrade CA 156 and CA 152 east of US 101...those roads are death traps until it blows up to four lanes on Pacheco Pass and even that could use complete uphill lanes.  At least CHP got someone who was tailgating left lane traffic coming down into the CA 152/CA 156 interchange.

Aside from that went to Big Basin Redwood State Park with my Cousin's family up CA 9 and through CA 268.  I took them over CA 35 along Skyline for awhile too....made my Cousin and her kid nauseated on CA 268 when it narrowed down due to the redwoods.  I honestly can't understand how that stays a signed state highway with those poor design conditions but it's a hell of a lot of fun if you are entering from the north terminus.  I got a couple freaked out "oh my god is a log truck?" out of my Cousin.  :-D  I managed to dodge most of the traffic by taking CA 85 and CA 17 to I-280....staying the night here before heading home in the morning.  I'm taking the scenic detour on CA 25 and CA 198 on the way home...San Andreas be damned.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2016, 11:29:14 PM by Max Rockatansky »
Logged

coatimundi

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 798
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Marina, CA
  • Last Login: April 17, 2020, 12:42:35 AM
Re: California 245 and other more obscure California State Highways
« Reply #45 on: July 09, 2016, 12:23:58 AM »

Really Caltrans needs to seriously upgrade CA 156 and CA 152 east of US 101...those roads are death traps until it blows up to four lanes on Pacheco Pass and even that could use complete uphill lanes

There is a truck lane on 152 westbound approaching Pacheco Pass. I've actually never been on 152 west of the 156 split to Gilroy, but 156 between SJB and Hollister is slated to be turned into a freeway. Currently in the design phase and, as always, significantly delayed. I say let it be delayed, and let the Stockton and Fresno folks sit in their vehicular recliners on top of each other if they really want to come over here for the weekends.

made my Cousin and her kid nauseated on CA 268 when it narrowed down due to the redwoods.  I honestly can't understand how that stays a signed state highway

236? I mean, it provides the only access to a state park, so I would assume that's why. 130 is almost as bad, especially toward the top, by the observatory, and it has some gnarly drop-offs. That one really has no reason to be a state route, except that I believe the observatory is state-funded through a UC.
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15644
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 01:14:16 AM
    • Gribblenation
Re: California 245 and other more obscure California State Highways
« Reply #46 on: July 09, 2016, 12:38:03 AM »

Really Caltrans needs to seriously upgrade CA 156 and CA 152 east of US 101...those roads are death traps until it blows up to four lanes on Pacheco Pass and even that could use complete uphill lanes

There is a truck lane on 152 westbound approaching Pacheco Pass. I've actually never been on 152 west of the 156 split to Gilroy, but 156 between SJB and Hollister is slated to be turned into a freeway. Currently in the design phase and, as always, significantly delayed. I say let it be delayed, and let the Stockton and Fresno folks sit in their vehicular recliners on top of each other if they really want to come over here for the weekends.

made my Cousin and her kid nauseated on CA 268 when it narrowed down due to the redwoods.  I honestly can't understand how that stays a signed state highway

236? I mean, it provides the only access to a state park, so I would assume that's why. 130 is almost as bad, especially toward the top, by the observatory, and it has some gnarly drop-offs. That one really has no reason to be a state route, except that I believe the observatory is state-funded through a UC.

Yes 236, sorry had a couple beers (I'm not passing up free Reds, who would?) tonight given that I'm just sitting around.  Yeah...but that's the thing, is that the standard Caltrans wants to abide by?  Why not just post a "236 end" at the the state park boundary or something to that affect?  With CA 9 being the south and north terminus point wouldn't some sort scenic highway sign saying "Big Basin Highway" suffice?  I don't know..probably just being picky in regards to the route signage.  I just look at something like Bodie with 270 terminating when the pavement ends and don't see how CA 9 wouldn't be sufficient.  I would venture a guess that some stray motorist probably has gone down 236 a time or two over the years and gotten more than they bargained for in regards to a rough ride.

I'm pretty sure you're right about 130 being funded by a University.  With 130 even though it terminates somewhere near the lick observatory you COULD take a paved road all the way east to I-5 if you really wanted to.

Oh...apparently my Cousin's husband had a run in with the Deadman's curve on CA 17 coming back from Santa Clara yesterday.  I briefed them on the infamy of CA 17 between the coast and San Jose; being from Virginia they seemed surprised that so many main roads just plow through the mountains in exrpessway forms. 

In regards to 152 it sure looked like Caltrans is working on the third lane eastbound for a brief 3 mile segment near the top of the uphill grade.  End of the day I really wish that I bitten the bullet and taken 198 all the way over to King City but I talked myself out of it due to the southward trek it takes through the Diablos.  Tomorrow being a weekend will sure make things easier getting through Hollister on 25 though.
Logged

myosh_tino

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2798
  • Silicon Valley Roadgeek

  • Age: 47
  • Location: Cupertino, CA
  • Last Login: July 22, 2021, 09:36:59 PM
    • Silicon Valley Roads @ Markyville.com
Re: California 245 and other more obscure California State Highways
« Reply #47 on: July 09, 2016, 12:38:35 AM »

Really Caltrans needs to seriously upgrade CA 156 and CA 152 east of US 101...those roads are death traps until it blows up to four lanes on Pacheco Pass and even that could use complete uphill lanes

There is a truck lane on 152 westbound approaching Pacheco Pass. I've actually never been on 152 west of the 156 split to Gilroy, but 156 between SJB and Hollister is slated to be turned into a freeway. Currently in the design phase and, as always, significantly delayed. I say let it be delayed, and let the Stockton and Fresno folks sit in their vehicular recliners on top of each other if they really want to come over here for the weekends.

CA-152 west of the 152-156 intersection is a conventional 2-lane highway and is still considered to be quite dangerous.  Long (and I mean *long*) term plans call for a 4-lane highway to be built starting at the US 101/CA-25 interchange south of Gilroy and proceed east to the 152-156 junction.  Due to funding issues, local agencies are looking at tolling this highway to help pay for it.

As for CA-156 between San Juan Bautista and Hollister, I am not aware of any plans to make that segment a freeway.  I am, however, aware of plans to convert the 2-lane segment between US 101 and CA-1 into a 4-lane expressway/freeway with the possibility of using tolls to pay for that road as well.
Logged
Quote from: golden eagle
If I owned a dam and decided to donate it to charity, would I be giving a dam? I'm sure that might be a first because no one really gives a dam.

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15644
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 01:14:16 AM
    • Gribblenation
Re: California 245 and other more obscure California State Highways
« Reply #48 on: July 09, 2016, 12:41:27 AM »

Really Caltrans needs to seriously upgrade CA 156 and CA 152 east of US 101...those roads are death traps until it blows up to four lanes on Pacheco Pass and even that could use complete uphill lanes

There is a truck lane on 152 westbound approaching Pacheco Pass. I've actually never been on 152 west of the 156 split to Gilroy, but 156 between SJB and Hollister is slated to be turned into a freeway. Currently in the design phase and, as always, significantly delayed. I say let it be delayed, and let the Stockton and Fresno folks sit in their vehicular recliners on top of each other if they really want to come over here for the weekends.

CA-152 west of the 152-156 intersection is a conventional 2-lane highway and is still considered to be quite dangerous.  Long (and I mean *long*) term plans call for a 4-lane highway to be built starting at the US 101/CA-25 interchange south of Gilroy and proceed east to the 152-156 junction.  Due to funding issues, local agencies are looking at tolling this highway to help pay for it.

As for CA-156 between San Juan Bautista and Hollister, I am not aware of any plans to make that segment a freeway.  I am, however, aware of plans to convert the 2-lane segment between US 101 and CA-1 into a 4-lane expressway/freeway with the possibility of using tolls to pay for that road as well.

An expressway would be a massive improvement for both highways regardless.  I hit some stop and go heading into Gilroy that was backed up almost for a mile on that left hand turn CA 152 takes at the light at the junction with Ferguson Road.
Logged

andy3175

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1414
  • Location: San Diego, California, USA
  • Last Login: July 23, 2021, 11:07:01 AM
    • AARoads
Re: California 245 and other more obscure California State Highways
« Reply #49 on: July 09, 2016, 12:45:55 AM »

Really Caltrans needs to seriously upgrade CA 156 and CA 152 east of US 101...those roads are death traps until it blows up to four lanes on Pacheco Pass and even that could use complete uphill lanes

There is a truck lane on 152 westbound approaching Pacheco Pass. I've actually never been on 152 west of the 156 split to Gilroy, but 156 between SJB and Hollister is slated to be turned into a freeway. Currently in the design phase and, as always, significantly delayed. I say let it be delayed, and let the Stockton and Fresno folks sit in their vehicular recliners on top of each other if they really want to come over here for the weekends.

CA-152 west of the 152-156 intersection is a conventional 2-lane highway and is still considered to be quite dangerous.  Long (and I mean *long*) term plans call for a 4-lane highway to be built starting at the US 101/CA-25 interchange south of Gilroy and proceed east to the 152-156 junction.  Due to funding issues, local agencies are looking at tolling this highway to help pay for it.

As for CA-156 between San Juan Bautista and Hollister, I am not aware of any plans to make that segment a freeway.  I am, however, aware of plans to convert the 2-lane segment between US 101 and CA-1 into a 4-lane expressway/freeway with the possibility of using tolls to pay for that road as well.

I found a 2014 project sheet for SR 156 between San Juan Bautista and Hollister here: http://dot.ca.gov/dist05/projects/sbt156/fact_sheet.pdf

It states that the road will be widened to four-lane expressway standards and that construction is scheduled a year from now, in July 2017.
Logged
Regards,
Andy

www.aaroads.com

 


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.