AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered at https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=33904.0
Corrected several already and appreciate your patience as we work through the rest.

Author Topic: CA 59/CR J59  (Read 3808 times)

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 24921
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 12:44:16 AM
    • Gribblenation
CA 59/CR J59
« on: December 30, 2017, 11:07:35 PM »

Did a little bit of route clinching today.  The first route up was California 59....and Signed County Route 59.  I'll have a blog up tomorrow but for now here is the photo album:

https://flic.kr/s/aHsm8uZwcC

No matter how many times I've been through Snelling I don't know why I expect to see a CA 59 "end" followed up by CR J59 signage.  Really as many shields as CA 59 has, it is kind of disappointing not to get a solid end mark before it drops to a county route.
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 24921
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 12:44:16 AM
    • Gribblenation
Re: CA 59/CR J59
« Reply #1 on: December 31, 2017, 03:14:06 PM »

Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8487
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: April 30, 2023, 05:42:25 PM
Re: CA 59/CR J59
« Reply #2 on: January 14, 2018, 04:42:00 AM »

Since it's likely the CA 65 extension (connection?!) up the east side of the Valley will remain an on-paper-only pipedream for the foreseeable future, it's a shame that Caltrans seems to be averse to extending/commissioning new rural routes; J59 would seem to be (with a few modifications) a viable CA 59 extension, providing an efficient and reasonably direct state-signed corridor from CA 99 up to the "Gold Country" tourist area -- which as of late appears to have added the classification of winery-tour destinations to its longstanding historical attractions, thus increasing the potential traffic volume on that corridor.   
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 24921
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 12:44:16 AM
    • Gribblenation
Re: CA 59/CR J59
« Reply #3 on: January 14, 2018, 08:47:18 AM »

Since it's likely the CA 65 extension (connection?!) up the east side of the Valley will remain an on-paper-only pipedream for the foreseeable future, it's a shame that Caltrans seems to be averse to extending/commissioning new rural routes; J59 would seem to be (with a few modifications) a viable CA 59 extension, providing an efficient and reasonably direct state-signed corridor from CA 99 up to the "Gold Country" tourist area -- which as of late appears to have added the classification of winery-tour destinations to its longstanding historical attractions, thus increasing the potential traffic volume on that corridor.

What I'm trying to wrap my mind around is if there was ever a plan to extend 59 north of Snelling at any point ever?  Going back to the 1938 state highway map there is certain county routes that appear to have state highway signage on them such as; 33, 180, 49, and 28.  It would seem that roads that were on alignments that were anticipated to be in state control were signed prior to 1940 or mapped as such.  La Grange Road is clearly shown as an important secondary county route on the 1938 but there is no 59 shields over it.  So what gives?...was LRN 123/CA 59 just intended to float to a weird end up in Snelling and the CA 65 extension was just an fresh idea a couple decades later?

https://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
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8487
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: April 30, 2023, 05:42:25 PM
Re: CA 59/CR J59
« Reply #4 on: January 14, 2018, 12:26:38 PM »

Since it's likely the CA 65 extension (connection?!) up the east side of the Valley will remain an on-paper-only pipedream for the foreseeable future, it's a shame that Caltrans seems to be averse to extending/commissioning new rural routes; J59 would seem to be (with a few modifications) a viable CA 59 extension, providing an efficient and reasonably direct state-signed corridor from CA 99 up to the "Gold Country" tourist area -- which as of late appears to have added the classification of winery-tour destinations to its longstanding historical attractions, thus increasing the potential traffic volume on that corridor.

What I'm trying to wrap my mind around is if there was ever a plan to extend 59 north of Snelling at any point ever?  Going back to the 1938 state highway map there is certain county routes that appear to have state highway signage on them such as; 33, 180, 49, and 28.  It would seem that roads that were on alignments that were anticipated to be in state control were signed prior to 1940 or mapped as such.  La Grange Road is clearly shown as an important secondary county route on the 1938 but there is no 59 shields over it.  So what gives?...was LRN 123/CA 59 just intended to float to a weird end up in Snelling and the CA 65 extension was just an fresh idea a couple decades later?

https://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

Snelling is more or less located at the "fall line" between the agricultural flatlands of the Valley and the foothills; and since it was there prior the the 1959 official conceptualization of (the then) LRN 249 corridor, later the CA 65 alignment, the abrupt route end in Snelling is indeed a conundrum!  It's unlikely that a "east valley" routing was projected previous to '59; such would have been cited in CH & PW at some point.  And since as the later extension of CA 145 and the designations of CA 269 and 165 indicate, expanding the state highway network along the grid-pattern county roads within the Valley wasn't all that uncommon; there may have been plans at some time (or at least discussions between the Division of Highways and county agencies) to commission a E-W state highway along county J17 between Patterson, Turlock, Snelling, and somewhere along either CA 49 or CA 140; obviously, these never came to fruition (given the location and the pre-'64 numbering pattern, such a route would have likely been SSR 136).  But I suppose the Division was content to have LRN 123/SSR 59 simply terminate at Snelling, since the state-maintained portion was a viable agricultural server. 
Logged

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4718
  • Last Login: Today at 01:32:02 AM
Re: CA 59/CR J59
« Reply #5 on: January 17, 2018, 05:36:39 AM »



Snelling is more or less located at the "fall line" between the agricultural flatlands of the Valley and the foothills; and since it was there prior the the 1959 official conceptualization of (the then) LRN 249 corridor, later the CA 65 alignment, the abrupt route end in Snelling is indeed a conundrum!  It's unlikely that a "east valley" routing was projected previous to '59; such would have been cited in CH & PW at some point.  And since as the later extension of CA 145 and the designations of CA 269 and 165 indicate, expanding the state highway network along the grid-pattern county roads within the Valley wasn't all that uncommon; there may have been plans at some time (or at least discussions between the Division of Highways and county agencies) to commission a E-W state highway along county J17 between Patterson, Turlock, Snelling, and somewhere along either CA 49 or CA 140; obviously, these never came to fruition (given the location and the pre-'64 numbering pattern, such a route would have likely been SSR 136).  But I suppose the Division was content to have LRN 123/SSR 59 simply terminate at Snelling, since the state-maintained portion was a viable agricultural server. 

Route 59's sudden stop reminds me a lot of how post-1964 Route 3 makes its sudden east-west run from Yreka to Montague (defined in 1934 as LRN 82) where it abruptly terminates in town.

Logged
Chris Sampang

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 24921
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 12:44:16 AM
    • Gribblenation
Re: CA 59/CR J59
« Reply #6 on: January 17, 2018, 08:47:55 AM »



Snelling is more or less located at the "fall line" between the agricultural flatlands of the Valley and the foothills; and since it was there prior the the 1959 official conceptualization of (the then) LRN 249 corridor, later the CA 65 alignment, the abrupt route end in Snelling is indeed a conundrum!  It's unlikely that a "east valley" routing was projected previous to '59; such would have been cited in CH & PW at some point.  And since as the later extension of CA 145 and the designations of CA 269 and 165 indicate, expanding the state highway network along the grid-pattern county roads within the Valley wasn't all that uncommon; there may have been plans at some time (or at least discussions between the Division of Highways and county agencies) to commission a E-W state highway along county J17 between Patterson, Turlock, Snelling, and somewhere along either CA 49 or CA 140; obviously, these never came to fruition (given the location and the pre-'64 numbering pattern, such a route would have likely been SSR 136).  But I suppose the Division was content to have LRN 123/SSR 59 simply terminate at Snelling, since the state-maintained portion was a viable agricultural server. 

Route 59's sudden stop reminds me a lot of how post-1964 Route 3 makes its sudden east-west run from Yreka to Montague (defined in 1934 as LRN 82) where it abruptly terminates in town.

In the case of Montague at least there is no really true and obvious continuation to US 97 or another route. The only other route that kind of does the same thing that never had a planned extension somewhere is 191 in Paradise. 
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8487
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: April 30, 2023, 05:42:25 PM
Re: CA 59/CR J59
« Reply #7 on: January 17, 2018, 08:07:49 PM »

Route 59's sudden stop reminds me a lot of how post-1964 Route 3 makes its sudden east-west run from Yreka to Montague (defined in 1934 as LRN 82) where it abruptly terminates in town.

In the case of Montague at least there is no really true and obvious continuation to US 97 or another route. The only other route that kind of does the same thing that never had a planned extension somewhere is 191 in Paradise. 

The Montague situation is another weird Caltrans oddity -- the logical end to CA 3 (former LRN 82) is at the old SP depot in the middle of Montague -- but the designation takes a couple of turns and actually ends at the east town limits.  Caltrans seems to like using jurisdictional divides as route maintenance endpoints (makes sense from a paperwork perspective!); a similar situation exists with CA 246 at the west city limits of Lompoc after the remainder of the route out to the seaside settlement of Surf was relinquished some time ago (it was regularly blocked off anyway -- as it essentially was sandwiched between the launchpad areas at Vandenburg AFB -- whenever a missile and/or satellite was being launched).   
Logged

cahwyguy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 807
  • California Highway Guy

  • Age: 64
  • Location: Northridge, CA
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 10:53:08 PM
    • California Highways
Re: CA 59/CR J59
« Reply #8 on: May 30, 2018, 11:39:18 PM »

I'm starting to go through AAroads, going as back as far as the last updates to my pages, and came upon this discussion. I'll note that I've got the following in my pages, but no indication of the source (I was a lot sloppier back then):

Quote
In January 2011, it was reported that the Tuolumne County Board of Supervisors is advocating for extending Route 59 along existing La Grange Road (Merced, Stanislaus, and Tuolumne CR J59) from Snelling to its terminus at the intersection of Route 108/Route 120. If they can get traction on this, Route 59 would no longer end out in the middle of nowhere. Tuolumne CR J59 was recently rejuvenated in Tuolumne county from a sub-par road to something resembling state highway standards in 2009-2010. If Caltrans takes it on now they would be adding a recently rebuilt road to the system and eliminate a dead end state highway. La Grange road already functions like a state highway by funneling traffic from Route 99 in Merced up Route 59 to CR J59 and into Tuolumne county, avoiding the need to travel into Stanislaus county on Route 99 and taking Route 108 east from Modesto. The intersection in Tuolumne county is in the vicinity of where Route 65 would likely travel if the unbuilt center section ever came to pass.

Evidently, they never got traction on it.
Logged
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

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 24921
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 12:44:16 AM
    • Gribblenation
Re: CA 59/CR J59
« Reply #9 on: May 30, 2018, 11:59:24 PM »

I'm starting to go through AAroads, going as back as far as the last updates to my pages, and came upon this discussion. I'll note that I've got the following in my pages, but no indication of the source (I was a lot sloppier back then):

Quote
In January 2011, it was reported that the Tuolumne County Board of Supervisors is advocating for extending Route 59 along existing La Grange Road (Merced, Stanislaus, and Tuolumne CR J59) from Snelling to its terminus at the intersection of Route 108/Route 120. If they can get traction on this, Route 59 would no longer end out in the middle of nowhere. Tuolumne CR J59 was recently rejuvenated in Tuolumne county from a sub-par road to something resembling state highway standards in 2009-2010. If Caltrans takes it on now they would be adding a recently rebuilt road to the system and eliminate a dead end state highway. La Grange road already functions like a state highway by funneling traffic from Route 99 in Merced up Route 59 to CR J59 and into Tuolumne county, avoiding the need to travel into Stanislaus county on Route 99 and taking Route 108 east from Modesto. The intersection in Tuolumne county is in the vicinity of where Route 65 would likely travel if the unbuilt center section ever came to pass.

Evidently, they never got traction on it.

Really at this point I would be somewhat shocked if Caltrans ended picking up new maintenance on roads they don't own presently.  At the very least J59 is a very viable route to into the Gold Country.  I've often used it to bypass a lot of the traffic on 99 to get to 88 via 49.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8487
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: April 30, 2023, 05:42:25 PM
Re: CA 59/CR J59
« Reply #10 on: May 31, 2018, 11:05:39 AM »

Really at this point I would be somewhat shocked if Caltrans ended picking up new maintenance on roads they don't own presently.  At the very least J59 is a very viable route to into the Gold Country.  I've often used it to bypass a lot of the traffic on 99 to get to 88 via 49.

Caltrans is decidedly loath to take on any more surface routes, be they urban, suburban, or rural.  Part of this is simple policy choice -- since the mid 1980's, they've been shedding surface mileage whenever possible (meaning cities and/or counties have accepted maintenance on the former state highways).  But the other is technical -- adding the documentation (construction techniques, what's under the pavement, etc.) and reconciling it with Caltrans engineering idiom is, according to a relative who's employed there, a "real pain in the ass" that ends up being shoved upstairs from the regional offices to Sacramento HQ.  Caltrans prefers dealing with facilities they've designed to their standards; taking on county highways often entails "spot" fixes to non-standard items such as bridge railings, drainage, and the like -- and such things wouldn't necessarily be listed in the periodic STIP that functions as the agency's "master plan".  Minimizing friction between the Business & Transportation Commission ("oversight") and the day-to-day Caltrans operation is considered vital to continued funding and cooperation; minimizing "off-book" activities is a major part of that strategy.  Thus, bringing additional county roads -- even the recently upgraded J59 -- into the system would be fought tooth & nail at both the district and statewide Caltrans levels -- and would only be done if political pressures to do so were at a boiling point.
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 24921
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 12:44:16 AM
    • Gribblenation
Re: CA 59/CR J59
« Reply #11 on: May 31, 2018, 11:53:46 AM »

Really at this point I would be somewhat shocked if Caltrans ended picking up new maintenance on roads they don't own presently.  At the very least J59 is a very viable route to into the Gold Country.  I've often used it to bypass a lot of the traffic on 99 to get to 88 via 49.

Caltrans is decidedly loath to take on any more surface routes, be they urban, suburban, or rural.  Part of this is simple policy choice -- since the mid 1980's, they've been shedding surface mileage whenever possible (meaning cities and/or counties have accepted maintenance on the former state highways).  But the other is technical -- adding the documentation (construction techniques, what's under the pavement, etc.) and reconciling it with Caltrans engineering idiom is, according to a relative who's employed there, a "real pain in the ass" that ends up being shoved upstairs from the regional offices to Sacramento HQ.  Caltrans prefers dealing with facilities they've designed to their standards; taking on county highways often entails "spot" fixes to non-standard items such as bridge railings, drainage, and the like -- and such things wouldn't necessarily be listed in the periodic STIP that functions as the agency's "master plan".  Minimizing friction between the Business & Transportation Commission ("oversight") and the day-to-day Caltrans operation is considered vital to continued funding and cooperation; minimizing "off-book" activities is a major part of that strategy.  Thus, bringing additional county roads -- even the recently upgraded J59 -- into the system would be fought tooth & nail at both the district and statewide Caltrans levels -- and would only be done if political pressures to do so were at a boiling point.

Does Caltrans actually have a master plan?  It feels like the agency is mostly about washing it's hands of as much maintenance responsibility as it possibly can in general.  The way I've always seen it is that Caltrans isn't a focused branch like the Division of Highways was.  Its fairly amusing to see brand spanking new train cars floating around Fresno bearing "Caltrans" logos when right next door needs major maintenance or an upgrade.  Granted I understand hesitation in not wanting to adopt a road up to current highway standards but with all the pro-road repair legislation there should be at least a minimal push for state highway system expansion in viable corridors.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8487
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: April 30, 2023, 05:42:25 PM
Re: CA 59/CR J59
« Reply #12 on: May 31, 2018, 04:00:02 PM »

Does Caltrans actually have a master plan?  It feels like the agency is mostly about washing it's hands of as much maintenance responsibility as it possibly can in general.  The way I've always seen it is that Caltrans isn't a focused branch like the Division of Highways was.  Its fairly amusing to see brand spanking new train cars floating around Fresno bearing "Caltrans" logos when right next door needs major maintenance or an upgrade.  Granted I understand hesitation in not wanting to adopt a road up to current highway standards but with all the pro-road repair legislation there should be at least a minimal push for state highway system expansion in viable corridors.

Actually the STIP is just a listing of what's funded over a 6 (often stretched to 7)-year period; it's the closest thing to a "master plan" that Caltrans has had since the concept was introduced in 1976.  The 1959 Freeway & Expressway system is still a legislatively active program, although periodically machetes (the Brown/Gianturco years 1975-83) or scalpels (the Wilson administration corridor & alignment deletions of 1994-97) have been applied to that concept; it's technically active on paper but hasn't been a point of reference this century.  But you are correct about the lack of focus within Caltrans; the agency is constantly being tugged in several directions at once -- and this has resulted in most of the shorter-term benefits of SB1, if they're directed at roadways at all, being applied to repairs or longstanding discrepancies (Petaluma Narrows, Cordelia Junction, etc.).  The idea of actually expanding the state highway network hasn't even been breached within Caltrans' walls -- that's usually an activity originating within the state legislature (via give-and-take with local jurisdictions).  But right now the anti-automotive/urbanist viewpoint pervades the agency's operating environment -- so even if their planning folks wanted to suggest such an expansion in hopes of generating legislative support, it probably wouldn't get past the Biz & Transportation Agency, Caltrans' effective "oversight" (they have yet to be disabused of the notion that HSR will drastically cut traffic on I-5!).  Perhaps the next governor won't be so wedded to such concepts (if it's Newsom, his only pronouncements on HSR have been of the "yeah, sure" variety -- giving lip service to the present governor's pet project).  I guess we'll just have to wait and see. 

If one wants to see just what corridors system expansion has considered, snag a copy of both the 1959 and 1965 iterations of the state Freeway & Expressway System; this shows the system at its legislatively-defined peak prior to the effects of the late '60's-early '70's backlash and the subsequent corridor deletions in the late '70's.  Then compare this with an official state highway map circa mid-Deukmejian administration ('84-'87) and see just what was cut out.  It's amusing to see all the projected corridors out in the high desert north of L.A. intended to channel traffic through the mountains and into the L.A. basin (some through some incredibly challenging topography!).

I'm guessing that the Caltrans-labeled RR cars in Fresno are connected with the HSR project, since I haven't heard of any state-supported commute rail venture down there.  Some pix of these would be interesting to peruse if only for informational purposes (hint, hint!).   
Logged

cahwyguy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 807
  • California Highway Guy

  • Age: 64
  • Location: Northridge, CA
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 10:53:08 PM
    • California Highways
Re: CA 59/CR J59
« Reply #13 on: May 31, 2018, 04:17:29 PM »

As someone who also follows the mass transit side (being a vanpooler and commuter, and someone who listens to the excellent talking headways podcast), my guess would be that, for urban areas, the priority would be increasing density of transportation (i.e., more people per vehicle, whether that is through ride sharing, shared rides (uber, lyft, etc), transit, etc), as that is a cheaper option than widening of roadways -- what with land acquisition, utility movement, construction, and environmental mitigation costs. For freight corridors, you'll see more emphasis on less polluting, creater capacity, and more autonomous freight vehicle (as that also increases density and throughput).

However, for the more rural areas where increasing ride density is less of an option, there you might see more roadway improvement -- certainly upgrading of level of service, possibly widening, less possible grade separation (freeways) -- but whatever rural upgrades are done will require justification based on the traffic of the road. Caltrans and the CTC has to be careful: even in cases where level of service might not support rural improvements, making visible improvement in those areas is vital politically, as those are the areas most opposed to increased road taxes and most sensitive to the call for secession as they feel urban areas get all the tax benefits.

Translation of the above, at least to me, with respect to this topic: If the traffic and LOS on J59 justify improvements, or there are specific safety areas to improve (such as slight widening and rumble strips) you'll see those done -- even on the county road, even without making it a state route. Unless the level of traffic or safety requires something more, however, you won't see major improvements, and you'll not see it join the state system unless they either have the need to make it a formal expressway, or the county threatens to abandon maintenance and Caltrans sees route adoption as the only way to provide the transportation option.
Logged
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

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 24921
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 12:44:16 AM
    • Gribblenation
Re: CA 59/CR J59
« Reply #14 on: May 31, 2018, 04:46:24 PM »

Sparker, I’ve seen the Caltrans rail cars on the S&P spur between Fresno and Hanford.  I’m running under the assumption they are meant for the HSV.  I haven’t been close enough to get good pics but if I get one I’ll forward it over to you. 
« Last Edit: May 31, 2018, 11:09:25 PM by Max Rockatansky »
Logged

 


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.