I drove CA 33 from CA 198 in Coalinga all the way north to the split on CA 152 near Pacheco Pass. Turns out that I actually had a bunch of photo stock from the last three years that I was able to cobble into a photo album of CA 33 from US 101 north to the Original CA 207 alignment. There are quite a few alignment shifts in the Central Valley I'll make maps for the blog post but for now the photos can be seen here:
https://www.flickr.com/gp/151828809@N08/890h0i
Obviously my photo quality has greatly increased since 2016. I'm not sure when I'll get back out to the section of 33 between 119 and 269 for some updates...
Last time I was there, 269 was closed for some reason. Also 5 southbound puts you on a road to Coalinga a bit south of 198. But it's signed as "TO" 198 until reaching 33/Coalinga.
Quote from: Quillz on July 25, 2018, 09:27:57 AM
Last time I was there, 269 was closed for some reason. Also 5 southbound puts you on a road to Coalinga a bit south of 198. But it's signed as "TO" 198 until reaching 33/Coalinga.
Interestingly I've never driven 33 south from 5/145 to 198, so that's a little strange to hear. I thought the blue arrow placard pointing at I-5 rather than Coalinga-Mendota Road was fairly amusing. 33 on the whole is a weird route with a lot of long multiplexes.
Based on the map, 33 always struck me as the "back alley" for the San Joaquin Valley, which made the route of interest to me. Sorry to say I have never driven 33, so thank you for the pix collection Max.
Rick
CA 33 (and SSR 33 before it) is indeed one odd duck! It was originally two separate LRN's: 138, from Taft to Coalinga (and which also encompassed the US 399 portion between Taft and Ventura that eventually was incorporated into post-'64 CA 33), and 41, which was 33 from Mendota all the way to its historic terminus east of Tracy plus all of SSR 180 (CA 180) east of Mendota, including the isolated segment between the two sections of Kings Canyon National Park. Both of those were commissioned prior to WWII; the section between Coalinga and Mendota (using Derrick Ave.) remained a county road until about 1957, when it was brought into the system as an extension of LRN 138 and signed as SSR 33. Much of the push for the route came from the large "agribusinesses" that dominate the west side of the San Joaquin Valley: oil, cotton, and cattle along the southern reaches, and fruits/vegetables from Mendota north (Mendota to Los Banos is the center of CA's melon-growing region). After WWII CA 33 multiplexed with CA 166 from Taft to US 99 near Wheeler Ridge; the rationale behind that was to position CA 33 as an alternate to US 99, particularly when the latter route was socked in with "tule fog" in winter months. Of course, when the I-5 Westside alignment was selected for that route in late 1957, SSR/CA 33 would have been relegated to a secondary role in any case. But since the land usage of the west valley hasn't abated, CA 33 remains useful as a regional server and connector.
Quote from: sparker on July 25, 2018, 05:55:07 PM
CA 33 (and SSR 33 before it) is indeed one odd duck! It was originally two separate LRN's: 138, from Taft to Coalinga (and which also encompassed the US 399 portion between Taft and Ventura that eventually was incorporated into post-'64 CA 33), and 41, which was 33 from Mendota all the way to its historic terminus east of Tracy plus all of SSR 180 (CA 180) east of Mendota, including the isolated segment between the two sections of Kings Canyon National Park. Both of those were commissioned prior to WWII; the section between Coalinga and Mendota (using Derrick Ave.) remained a county road until about 1957, when it was brought into the system as an extension of LRN 138 and signed as SSR 33. Much of the push for the route came from the large "agribusinesses" that dominate the west side of the San Joaquin Valley: oil, cotton, and cattle along the southern reaches, and fruits/vegetables from Mendota north (Mendota to Los Banos is the center of CA's melon-growing region). After WWII CA 33 multiplexed with CA 166 from Taft to US 99 near Wheeler Ridge; the rationale behind that was to position CA 33 as an alternate to US 99, particularly when the latter route was socked in with "tule fog" in winter months. Of course, when the I-5 Westside alignment was selected for that route in late 1957, SSR/CA 33 would have been relegated to a secondary role in any case. But since the land usage of the west valley hasn't abated, CA 33 remains useful as a regional server and connector.
Interestingly CA 33 was one of the few early Signed Highway era highways that was signed along county routes before 1940. In the case of 33 it was on county roads between Mendota and the oilfields of Coalinga:
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
The old Division of Highways was a bit more flexible about signage than the current Caltrans; a few county roads, including Derrick Avenue, got signage pre-state-adoption or maintenance; they tended to be receptive to state and/or local power brokers regarding this practice. According to a number of accounts, Getty Oil, which had several small fields in and around Coalinga but was not satisfied with the frequency of service Southern Pacific was supplying to that area to move loaded tank cars out from the loading areas outside of town along SSR 198 and wanted to supplement it with tanker trucks, somewhere around 1945 pressed the state senator representing much of western Kings and Fresno Counties to ask the Division of Highways to deploy a state highway north from Coalinga to Merced, where there was an oil loading facility along competing Santa Fe; they wanted a facility on which to "convoy" several tank trucks at a time to make it worthwhile for Santa Fe to handle the loads. The Division already had much of the pathway covered by LRN 41/SSR 33 from Mendota to Dos Palos Wye, LRN 32/SSR 152 east for several miles from there, and LRN 123 the rest of the way into Merced (it wasn't signed as SSR 59 until at least 1960). But the Division was reluctant to take on the most direct route from Coalinga to Mendota, Derrick Road (named as such because it passed through Getty oilfields in the hills north of Coalinga, featuring numerous oil derricks), primarily because the oiled-earth facility was a county maintenance nightmare due to consistent rutting by the small but stout oilfield trucks with exceptionally heavy per-axle loading. But politics prevailed, and the Division worked out deals with Fresno County to split the maintenance costs -- and the road was signed as SSR 33 by mid-1946. Eventually an asphalt overlay was done on the road, and the state assumed maintenance and ownership in 1957. This section of SSR 33 wasn't the only county road to receive state signage -- another infamous gap, that of SSR 39 between La Habra and Covina, was signed in 1955 (when the San Bernardino/US 60-70-99 freeway was completed through the San Gabriel Valley); that signage persisted until 1972 -- even though almost all the reassurance shields remained the 1950's spec larger white porcelain design with button copy on the digits (the first one sans bear!) even after the green shield version was introduced in 1964.
Quote from: sparker on July 26, 2018, 01:46:06 AM
The old Division of Highways was a bit more flexible about signage than the current Caltrans; a few county roads, including Derrick Avenue, got signage pre-state-adoption or maintenance; they tended to be receptive to state and/or local power brokers regarding this practice. According to a number of accounts, Getty Oil, which had several small fields in and around Coalinga but was not satisfied with the frequency of service Southern Pacific was supplying to that area to move loaded tank cars out from the loading areas outside of town along SSR 198 and wanted to supplement it with tanker trucks, somewhere around 1945 pressed the state senator representing much of western Kings and Fresno Counties to ask the Division of Highways to deploy a state highway north from Coalinga to Merced, where there was an oil loading facility along competing Santa Fe; they wanted a facility on which to "convoy" several tank trucks at a time to make it worthwhile for Santa Fe to handle the loads. The Division already had much of the pathway covered by LRN 41/SSR 33 from Mendota to Dos Palos Wye, LRN 32/SSR 152 east for several miles from there, and LRN 123 the rest of the way into Merced (it wasn't signed as SSR 59 until at least 1960). But the Division was reluctant to take on the most direct route from Coalinga to Mendota, Derrick Road (named as such because it passed through Getty oilfields in the hills north of Coalinga, featuring numerous oil derricks), primarily because the oiled-earth facility was a county maintenance nightmare due to consistent rutting by the small but stout oilfield trucks with exceptionally heavy per-axle loading. But politics prevailed, and the Division worked out deals with Fresno County to split the maintenance costs -- and the road was signed as SSR 33 by mid-1946. Eventually an asphalt overlay was done on the road, and the state assumed maintenance and ownership in 1957. This section of SSR 33 wasn't the only county road to receive state signage -- another infamous gap, that of SSR 39 between La Habra and Covina, was signed in 1955 (when the San Bernardino/US 60-70-99 freeway was completed through the San Gabriel Valley); that signage persisted until 1972 -- even though almost all the reassurance shields remained the 1950's spec larger white porcelain design with button copy on the digits (the first one sans bear!) even after the green shield version was introduced in 1964.
Either way the practice of singing non-state maintained highways appeared to have ended by 1940. It seems that some of the evidence suggests that the Division of Highways allowed such signage to go up on county routes that appeared to be part of their long term adoption goals that wasn't met in 1933. On that map above you can see State Highway Spades appear over certain routes like Panoche Road for 180 and the LRN 233 section of 49. I know about a year ago NE2 posted a link to a picture showing a CA 12 shield displaying "County" instead of "California." Really its intriguing to me that such a practice was allowed, but for the time it made complete sense given that it would have been impossible to sign a good through route in some instances on state-only maintained roadway...33 probably was the prime example. If I recall correctly the City of San Francisco even signed/maintained the Hyde Street Pier alignment of US 101 through the City until the Division of Highways picked up maintenance when the Golden Gate in addition to Bay Bridges were being built.
It does seem like the county/local road signage practice continued post-1940, probably on a case-by-case basis. Obviously, the Coalinga-Mendota section signed as SSR 33 was obviously going to end up a state highway, whether on the Derrick Road alignment or something paralleling it. But the SSR 39 signage in Los Angeles and Orange counties didn't occur until 1955, when the development of the San Bernardino Freeway and the corresponding private development of the adjacent West Covina Mall resulted in the northern extension of Hacienda Blvd., which became part of the county-route SSR 39 signage. Prior to that a relatively convoluted path involving Francisquito Avenue and South Azusa Avenue was necessary to complete the connection. Interestingly, the South Garvey Avenue frontage road alongside the San Bernardino Freeway was part of the county/signed SSR 39, as Hacienda Blvd. terminated at that frontage road at the east end of the mall parking lot; the segment between Azusa and Hacienda, a little under a mile in length, comprised the SSR-signed frontage road, clearly visible from the freeway (which got its I-10 signage back in 1959).
Getting back to CA 33 -- the '64 decision to reroute it over the Coast Range over former US 399 turned the route from a Valley agricultural server to an interregional artery (although the portion over the mountain is pretty questionable in regards to commercial traffic). But past Taft it's doubtful that much of the traffic from Ventura and Ojai continues north on 33 (unless they're like us and want to clinch it!); the logical path would be to veer NE and east on CA 119, sticking with that route if Bakersfield and environs are the destination, but turning north on CA 43 to access NB I-5 (in fact, in the inverse direction the CA 43 exit has Taft as a control city). Personally, I clinched all of CA 33 in a single day NB back around the spring of 1987; it was one of the better in-state trips I'd taken -- I actually kept going after the northern terminus at I-5 and continued on the historic route to Business Loop 205 east of Tracy (disclaimer: I wanted to hit the then-new In-N-Out in Tracy; the first one north of Fresno).
Quote from: sparker on July 26, 2018, 03:42:29 PM
It does seem like the county/local road signage practice continued post-1940, probably on a case-by-case basis. Obviously, the Coalinga-Mendota section signed as SSR 33 was obviously going to end up a state highway, whether on the Derrick Road alignment or something paralleling it. But the SSR 39 signage in Los Angeles and Orange counties didn't occur until 1955, when the development of the San Bernardino Freeway and the corresponding private development of the adjacent West Covina Mall resulted in the northern extension of Hacienda Blvd., which became part of the county-route SSR 39 signage. Prior to that a relatively convoluted path involving Francisquito Avenue and South Azusa Avenue was necessary to complete the connection. Interestingly, the South Garvey Avenue frontage road alongside the San Bernardino Freeway was part of the county/signed SSR 39, as Hacienda Blvd. terminated at that frontage road at the east end of the mall parking lot; the segment between Azusa and Hacienda, a little under a mile in length, comprised the SSR-signed frontage road, clearly visible from the freeway (which got its I-10 signage back in 1959).
Getting back to CA 33 -- the '64 decision to reroute it over the Coast Range over former US 399 turned the route from a Valley agricultural server to an interregional artery (although the portion over the mountain is pretty questionable in regards to commercial traffic). But past Taft it's doubtful that much of the traffic from Ventura and Ojai continues north on 33 (unless they're like us and want to clinch it!); the logical path would be to veer NE and east on CA 119, sticking with that route if Bakersfield and environs are the destination, but turning north on CA 43 to access NB I-5 (in fact, in the inverse direction the CA 43 exit has Taft as a control city). Personally, I clinched all of CA 33 in a single day NB back around the spring of 1987; it was one of the better in-state trips I'd taken -- I actually kept going after the northern terminus at I-5 and continued on the historic route to Business Loop 205 east of Tracy (disclaimer: I wanted to hit the then-new In-N-Out in Tracy; the first one north of Fresno).
Weird, I never realized the gap in CA 39 was signed. I'm assuming outside of relinquishment that likely was the last time that a state highway was allowed to be signed on City or County maintained roadways.
Really having driven the US 399 portion of CA 33 it is hard to see in a modern sense what the purpose of the route really was. That said if you compare US 399 to US 99 over the Ridge Route or Ridge Route Alternate than the former becomes pretty a pretty damn reasonable way to get to the Central Valley. While it wouldn't be likely a commercial trucker would ever want to take CA 33 over I-5 I would sure bet the former would be the favored route compared to the Ridge Route until Ridge Route Alternate started to modernize (suicide lanes).
The only segment of 33 I've never driven is north of Newman to I-5. I occasionally travel to Newman so its not unlikely I'll probably get a full clinch of the route at some point. I just finished my blog post on 33 which included a ton of previously written blog entries on other highways:
http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2018/07/california-state-route-33-us-101-north.html
It certainly would be interesting to track the development of the original LRN 138/US 399 alignment over the mountains; I wouldn't at all be surprised if both ends of the Ojai-SSR 166 segment were functioning local facilies before the Division of Highways decided to connect them; at the south end is the Matilija Gorge, always a scenic recreational area, while the upper Cuyama Valley has plenty of ranches and small farms (mostly producing hay for the ranches). In between is, in retrospect, something of an improbable alignment for a U.S. highway -- but the Ventura/Santa Barbara coastal area was the home of several prominent political figures (Earl Warren hailed from there; his family name adorns a large tract of seaside land -- today occupied by "high-end" homes -- between Santa Barbara and Goleta). At one point someone from that area with clout likely suggested that it would be a nice thing to have a direct route to the Valley so deliveries of fruit, veggies, and other Valley staples could arrive more quickly. Of course, the basic topography limited the efficiency of any such route; what's on the ground today is, absent extensive tunneling, about the best that the Division -- or anyone for that matter -- could do.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 25, 2018, 11:00:16 AM
Quote from: Quillz on July 25, 2018, 09:27:57 AM
Last time I was there, 269 was closed for some reason. Also 5 southbound puts you on a road to Coalinga a bit south of 198. But it's signed as "TO" 198 until reaching 33/Coalinga.
Interestingly I've never driven 33 south from 5/145 to 198, so that's a little strange to hear. I thought the blue arrow placard pointing at I-5 rather than Coalinga-Mendota Road was fairly amusing. 33 on the whole is a weird route with a lot of long multiplexes.
And still lacks exit numbers on its freeway alignment between 101/150.
Quote from: Quillz on July 27, 2018, 05:31:27 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 25, 2018, 11:00:16 AM
Quote from: Quillz on July 25, 2018, 09:27:57 AM
Last time I was there, 269 was closed for some reason. Also 5 southbound puts you on a road to Coalinga a bit south of 198. But it's signed as "TO" 198 until reaching 33/Coalinga.
Interestingly I've never driven 33 south from 5/145 to 198, so that's a little strange to hear. I thought the blue arrow placard pointing at I-5 rather than Coalinga-Mendota Road was fairly amusing. 33 on the whole is a weird route with a lot of long multiplexes.
And still lacks exit numbers on its freeway alignment between 101/150.
On such a small freeway I'd give that a pass. All those exits are clumped so closely together anyways.
Interestingly, except for the long-relinquished Volta segment between Santa Nella and Los Banos (done in early 1969) and the multiplex with CA 152, I've never driven on CA 33 southbound, always in the opposite direction. Clinched it in pieces from 1978 through 1999, with the old "county" section between Coalinga and Mendota the last to fall.
Quote from: sparker on August 07, 2018, 04:11:46 PM
Interestingly, except for the long-relinquished Volta segment between Santa Nella and Los Banos (done in early 1969) and the multiplex with CA 152, I've never driven on CA 33 southbound, always in the opposite direction. Clinched it in pieces from 1978 through 1999, with the old "county" section between Coalinga and Mendota the last to fall.
The odd thing is that's I've also almost exclusively taken 33 northbound. The only times I can really going regularly south would be on the 198 multiplex and from Firebaugh down to 180. Really going south from there is impractical unless you want a scenic drive or are headed somewhere weird off the grid.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 07, 2018, 05:45:35 PM
Quote from: sparker on August 07, 2018, 04:11:46 PM
Interestingly, except for the long-relinquished Volta segment between Santa Nella and Los Banos (done in early 1969) and the multiplex with CA 152, I've never driven on CA 33 southbound, always in the opposite direction. Clinched it in pieces from 1978 through 1999, with the old "county" section between Coalinga and Mendota the last to fall.
The odd thing is that's I've also almost exclusively taken 33 northbound. The only times I can really going regularly south would be on the 198 multiplex and from Firebaugh down to 180. Really going south from there is impractical unless you want a scenic drive or are headed somewhere weird off the grid.
Yeah -- never heard anyone say "I've always wanted to see what McKittrick is like!"
Quote from: sparker on August 08, 2018, 12:37:04 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 07, 2018, 05:45:35 PM
Quote from: sparker on August 07, 2018, 04:11:46 PM
Interestingly, except for the long-relinquished Volta segment between Santa Nella and Los Banos (done in early 1969) and the multiplex with CA 152, I've never driven on CA 33 southbound, always in the opposite direction. Clinched it in pieces from 1978 through 1999, with the old "county" section between Coalinga and Mendota the last to fall.
The odd thing is that's I've also almost exclusively taken 33 northbound. The only times I can really going regularly south would be on the 198 multiplex and from Firebaugh down to 180. Really going south from there is impractical unless you want a scenic drive or are headed somewhere weird off the grid.
Yeah -- never heard anyone say "I've always wanted to see what McKittrick is like!"
Actually I kind of regret not taking pictures back in 2016. I was hoping for more older structures but I was kind of disappointed by how little was left. In particular I would like a couple pictures of the McKittrick Hotel at least. I guess that I was hoping for something resembling Little Boston from There Will Be Blood. The area looked the part but McKittrick certainly did not. Really I thought Ludlow fit the bill out on 66 more as the derelict and dying rail siding in retrospect.
Took new picture from Sandra Nella to the North CA 33 terminus at I-5. They are on the photo album I posted upthread.
Updated my CA 33 blog with the section north of Santa Nella to the terminus at I-5 in San Joaquin County which this a post on the entire highway. I added information regarding the north terminus history of CA 33 which used to extend to US 48/50 near Tracy. I also went back and added a section regarding the El Camino Viejo.
https://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2018/07/california-state-route-33-us-101-north.html
I've been working on the highway pages, so a few corrections:
Quote from: sparker on July 25, 2018, 05:55:07 PM
CA 33 (and SSR 33 before it) is indeed one odd duck! It was originally two separate LRN's: 138, from Taft to Coalinga (and which also encompassed the US 399 portion between Taft and Ventura that eventually was incorporated into post-'64 CA 33), and 41, which was 33 from Mendota all the way to its historic terminus east of Tracy plus all of SSR 180 (CA 180) east of Mendota, including the isolated segment between the two sections of Kings Canyon National Park. Both of those were commissioned prior to WWII; the section between Coalinga and Mendota (using Derrick Ave.) remained a county road until about 1957, when it was brought into the system as an extension of LRN 138 and signed as SSR 33.
To be precise, in 1955 what as added to LRN 138 was [LRN 41] near Mendota to [LRN 10] near Oilfields. So the segment from Coalinga to LRN 10 was part of the state system from 1933, when it was funded as [LRN 57] near Maricopa to [LRN 10] near Coalinga, and when it was added as LRN 138 in 1935 as [LRN 10] near Coalinga to [LRN 57] near Maricopa.
Further, it appears that the portion from Coalinga to Oilfields was part of LRN 10, which is mostly Route 198, but is also Route 33 between Coalinga and Oilfields.
^^^^^^^^
In the old LRN days, no LRN number was legally multiplexed with another; for funding and maintenance purposes, a single number would prevail even if the SSR # was part of a signed multiplex. The LRN list wasn't always consistent; sometimes the unused LRN on a multiplex was legally defined in separate segments emanating from the ends of the multiplex; but sometimes the "jog" over the other route was simply implied, while both LRN designations were legislatively defined as continuous.
Updated my photos for CA 33 between CA 166 north to CA 41. This would largely be the swath of land flanking western San Joaquin Valley that has a heavy oil drilling industry. I even managed to captured the odd stuff like Brown Material Road this time around:
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmtifFGw
This won't change a lot of the blog entry aside from photo updates, I should that up and ready later this week.
Noticed today that up to the 1964 Renumbering CA 33 was multiplexed to US 99 on CA 166 East out of Taft. I haven't tracked down when the multiplex began but I'll update my blog when I do.
Edit: Apparently the CA 166/CA 33 multiplex to US 99 started in 1950:
http://www.davidrumsey.com/ll/thumbnailView.html?startUrl=%2F%2Fwww.davidrumsey.com%2Fluna%2Fservlet%2Fas%2Fsearch%3Fos%3D0%26bs%3D10%26lc%3DRUMSEY~8~1%26q%3DCaltrans%25201950%26sort%3DPub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No#?c=0&m=0&s=0&cv=0&r=0&xywh=5326%2C9089%2C647%2C1336
Updated the CA 33 blog with the new CA 166 multiplex info and new highway photos from CA 166 north to CA 41:
https://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2018/07/california-state-route-33-us-101-north.html
Drove old CA 33 on Coalinga-Mendota Road. Suffice to say it is much more scenic than the I-5/CA 33 multiplex:
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7825/33102766438_58e7360b18_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Srbkbo)0 (https://flic.kr/p/Srbkbo) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 04, 2019, 12:38:48 AM
Drove old CA 33 on Coalinga-Mendota Road. Suffice to say it is much more scenic than the I-5/CA 33 multiplex:
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7825/33102766438_58e7360b18_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Srbkbo)0 (https://flic.kr/p/Srbkbo) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
That is one outstanding photograph -- the old road juxtaposed with the clouds. Wouldn't know in a thousand years that a busy freeway was not too far out of frame! Would make a great screensaver!
Quote from: sparker on February 05, 2019, 02:20:15 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 04, 2019, 12:38:48 AM
Drove old CA 33 on Coalinga-Mendota Road. Suffice to say it is much more scenic than the I-5/CA 33 multiplex:
That is one outstanding photograph -- the old road juxtaposed with the clouds. Wouldn't know in a thousand years that a busy freeway was not too far out of frame! Would make a great screensaver!
Had the right mix of cloud cover nearing sundown when I took that pic. I thought about changing my background screen but I like my Donner Pass photo too much.
Incidentally Coalinga-Mendota Road had a great view of I-5 in front of a stormy Diablo Range:
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7815/33102763118_377c8e95b0_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Srbjc9)IMG_8948 (https://flic.kr/p/Srbjc9) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
Mod note: Fixed quoting. –Roadfro
^^^
Sorry about the photo link, Flickr doesn't give me the correct URL for message boards from the phone from some reason...
I posted an update to the CA 33 blog on Surewhynotnow incorporating the old alignment on Coalinga-Mendota Road.
https://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2018/07/california-state-route-33-us-101-north.html
Nice views of the northern half. I've got some of the southern half in my US 399 exhibit.
http://www.floodgap.com/roadgap/399/
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on February 07, 2019, 07:00:39 PM
Nice views of the northern half. I've got some of the southern half in my US 399 exhibit.
http://www.floodgap.com/roadgap/399/
Nice... Yeah, the CA 33 blog probably has been the most reworked out of all mine since I initially published it. So far I've taken almost entirely new photos between CA 166 and I-5 to what I had posted originally. I changed how I did road albums mid-year 2016 to emphasize traffic control which was something I barely touched on in the older stuff.
I did some updating on the CA 33 blog this morning. Some of the new additions were a link to a photo of CA 33 north on 5th Street in Coalinga that was posted California Historic Highways on Facebook and old alignment tour I did in Firebaugh. Originally CA 33 would have used; Washoe Avenue, 12th Street, O Street, 8th Street and N Street headed north through downtown Firebaugh:
https://www.gribblenation.org/2018/07/california-state-route-33-us-101-north.html
Recently visited CA 33/Old US 399 on the Maricopa Highway between CA 150 and CA 166 again. That being the case I took about 200 updates photos which I'll soon add to the Gribblenation blog. Of interest I stopped at the 360 degree vista which was even nicer this time since Santa Rosa Island could be seen, the Matilija Tunnels and Pine Mountain Summit. The Maricopa Highway is one of the best drives in the entire state, it's well worth the Side tour over I-5 if you have time on your hands:
https://www.flickr.com/gp/151828809@N08/8bLK4B
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 20, 2019, 01:05:23 AM
Recently visited CA 33/Old US 399 on the Maricopa Highway between CA 150 and CA 166 again. That being the case I took about 200 updates photos which I’ll soon add to the Gribblenation blog. Of interest I stopped at the 360 degree vista which was even nicer this time since Santa Rosa Island could be seen, the Matilija Tunnels and Pine Mountain Summit. The Maricopa Highway is one of the best drives in the entire state, it’s well worth the Side tour over I-5 if you have time on your hands:
https://www.flickr.com/gp/151828809@N08/8bLK4B
Your long perspective photos of 33 show how excellent a route was surveyed. No major grades and the curviness was not that extreme, which considering the terrain, counts as a major accomplishment.
Looking at the map shows a windy road. Your photo essay shows a beautiful road! Thank you again for posting up such a fine series of pictures.
Rick
Quote from: nexus73 on August 20, 2019, 08:03:41 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 20, 2019, 01:05:23 AM
Recently visited CA 33/Old US 399 on the Maricopa Highway between CA 150 and CA 166 again. That being the case I took about 200 updates photos which I'll soon add to the Gribblenation blog. Of interest I stopped at the 360 degree vista which was even nicer this time since Santa Rosa Island could be seen, the Matilija Tunnels and Pine Mountain Summit. The Maricopa Highway is one of the best drives in the entire state, it's well worth the Side tour over I-5 if you have time on your hands:
https://www.flickr.com/gp/151828809@N08/8bLK4B
Your long perspective photos of 33 show how excellent a route was surveyed. No major grades and the curviness was not that extreme, which considering the terrain, counts as a major accomplishment.
Looking at the map shows a windy road. Your photo essay shows a beautiful road! Thank you again for posting up such a fine series of pictures.
Rick
The Maricopa Highway is a fantastic design considering much of it was completed by the early 1930s. Considering the Ridge Route was improved throughout the 1930s I would imagine the Maricopa Highway was a very attractive alternate to get over the Coast Ranges until Ridge Route Alternate was completed. It really shouldn't be any surprise considering the context of the time that the Maricopa Highway was eventually selected as the corridor of US 399. Even today the grade level radius of the curves of the Maricopa Highway are well with in the capabilities of pretty much any vehicle to handle easily enough. I'd speculate the tunnels and not the grade are the main reason for the Maricopa Highway not being signed as a truck route north of CA 150.
Selected assortment of photos from the Maricopa Highway/Old US 399 section of CA 33:
South Matilija Tunnel
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48581675831_fe787adff8_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2h1ZMEx)IMG_7314 (https://flic.kr/p/2h1ZMEx) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48581675386_c50121d01a_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2h1ZMwS)IMG_7315 (https://flic.kr/p/2h1ZMwS) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
Middle and North Matilija Tunnels
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48581816777_44e071c950_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2h21vyD)IMG_7321 (https://flic.kr/p/2h21vyD) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48581672791_13d170b9f5_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2h1ZLL8)IMG_7322 (https://flic.kr/p/2h1ZLL8) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48581672791_13d170b9f5_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2h1ZLL8)IMG_7322 (https://flic.kr/p/2h1ZLL8) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
The signature vista above the Matilija Tunnels
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48581831202_2cec3d948e_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2h21zRm)0 (https://flic.kr/p/2h21zRm) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
The Cuyama River near Pine Mountain Summit:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48581608861_5eb4a6eac3_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2h1ZrKT)IMG_7435 (https://flic.kr/p/2h1ZrKT) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
Recently I had a chance to drive the former route of US 399 on the Maricopa Highway again from CA 150 north to CA 166. That being the case I added a significantly larger number of photos of the Maricopa Highway to the CA 33 blog. I also took the chance to make updates to the existing blog that improve the readability. Of note; I included Post Mile locations for major landmarks and junctions in addition to placing snipped images of important documents such as maps showing alignments. I'll be making similar updates to older blogs as I have reason to update them to the newer format but for now the CA 33 blog should paint a clearer picture on the history of the highway:
https://www.gribblenation.org/2018/07/california-state-route-33-us-101-north.html
CA 33 popped as an article topic in the Los Angeles Times:
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-03-01/hope-anxiety-california-primary
Was looking at a 1948 Rumsey link to a historic California state map and noticed another historic routing for 33 that had been previously lost to time:
https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239573~5511882?qvq=q%3Acaltrans%3Bsort%3APub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No%3Blc%3ARUMSEY%7E8%7E1&mi=59&trs=86
South of Reef Station (the 41/33 junction), 33's historic alignment diverted from the current one to serve the settlement of Devil's Den. The roads 33 used back then are now Barker Road and Twisselman Road.
The current alignment of 33 between Barker and Twisselman roads was first shown on the 1961 state highway map:
https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239534~5511856?qvq=q%3Acaltrans%3Bsort%3APub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No%3Blc%3ARUMSEY%7E8%7E1&mi=33&trs=86
That would certainly explain why both those roads are so haggard and beat up then. I went down there once because it looked interesting since it dipped west towards the mountains.
Quote from: TheStranger on November 27, 2020, 01:02:17 AM
Was looking at a 1948 Rumsey link to a historic California state map and noticed another historic routing for 33 that had been previously lost to time:
https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239573~5511882?qvq=q%3Acaltrans%3Bsort%3APub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No%3Blc%3ARUMSEY%7E8%7E1&mi=59&trs=86
South of Reef Station (the 41/33 junction), 33's historic alignment diverted from the current one to serve the settlement of Devil's Den. The roads 33 used back then are now Barker Road and Twisselman Road.
The current alignment of 33 between Barker and Twisselman roads was first shown on the 1961 state highway map:
https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239534~5511856?qvq=q%3Acaltrans%3Bsort%3APub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No%3Blc%3ARUMSEY%7E8%7E1&mi=33&trs=86
Not only that; the map shows that CA 33 near Coalinga originally used roads closer to the Coast Range fall line than the longstanding right-angle route east of town via Jayne Ave. -- and definitely shown as much "twistier" than the later alignment (probably reasons #1-10 for the realignment!).
Quote from: sparker on November 27, 2020, 01:30:29 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on November 27, 2020, 01:02:17 AM
Was looking at a 1948 Rumsey link to a historic California state map and noticed another historic routing for 33 that had been previously lost to time:
https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239573~5511882?qvq=q%3Acaltrans%3Bsort%3APub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No%3Blc%3ARUMSEY%7E8%7E1&mi=59&trs=86
South of Reef Station (the 41/33 junction), 33's historic alignment diverted from the current one to serve the settlement of Devil's Den. The roads 33 used back then are now Barker Road and Twisselman Road.
The current alignment of 33 between Barker and Twisselman roads was first shown on the 1961 state highway map:
https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239534~5511856?qvq=q%3Acaltrans%3Bsort%3APub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No%3Blc%3ARUMSEY%7E8%7E1&mi=33&trs=86
Not only that; the map shows that CA 33 near Coalinga originally used roads closer to the Coast Range fall line than the longstanding right-angle route east of town via Jayne Ave. -- and definitely shown as much "twistier" than the later alignment (probably reasons #1-10 for the realignment!).
from Cahighways, the exact roads for the old Coalinga route are mentioned:
Merced Avenue
West Lost Hills Road
and then finally South Lost Hills Road (to modern 33)
The 1967 topographic map on HistoricAerials still shows Merced/West Lost Hills as 33, but the 1972 map has the modern Jayne Avenue alignment.
Google shows all of Polk Street west of Merced as 33 but Cahighways did mention that 33 actually cuts upward on 5th Avenue in Coalinga, which is also seen on the modern California map at HistoricAerials.
However, the 1944 topographic map on HistoricAerials seems to show all of Polk as 33 back then. (Later topographic maps do not clarify the Coalinga in-town routing)
---
Unsure if Oil City Road/Shell Road, parallel to 33 between the northern 198 junction and Coalinga, ever was 33. The 1944 topographic map already shows it as bypassed, as does the 1938 California state map on Rumsey; the 1937 map does not show enough detail in that area to tell definitively.
Regarding Coalinga the connector to CA 198/LRN 10 was always 5th. 5th was way more prominent pre-earthquake prior to 1983 Earthquake which destroyed much of downtown. 5th can be see as the alignment of CA 33 on the 1935 Division of Highways Map of Fresno County:
http://www.davidrumsey.com/ll/thumbnailView.html?startUrl=%2F%2Fwww.davidrumsey.com%2Fluna%2Fservlet%2Fas%2Fsearch%3Fos%3D0%26bs%3D10%26lc%3DRUMSEY~8~1%26q%3DCalifornia%2520division%2520of%2520highways%2520fresno%26sort%3DPub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No#?c=0&m=0&s=0&cv=0&r=0&xywh=2685%2C7459%2C950%2C1557
Why has the Ojai Fwy portion of CA-33 never had any exit numbers, not even in a CalTrans log?
Quote from: RZF on November 27, 2020, 09:11:09 PM
Why has the Ojai Fwy portion of CA-33 never had any exit numbers, not even in a CalTrans log?
It is a late 1950s freeway which predates California doing exit numbers for freeways.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 27, 2020, 11:12:17 PM
Quote from: RZF on November 27, 2020, 09:11:09 PM
Why has the Ojai Fwy portion of CA-33 never had any exit numbers, not even in a CalTrans log?
It is a late 1950s freeway which predates California doing exit numbers for freeways.
Actually, outflung/isolated freeway sections built before the late '90's numbering push have received numbers; these include the CA 99 freeway through Chico and US 101 north of Crescent City. It's likely a decision by D7 not to apply numbers to a short freeway section with very few exits that's the reason here. If it actually extended all the way up to the Ojai area -- a regional traffic destination/originator -- it may have gotten the number treatment. But as it is, it's the only independent limited-access section along the alignment of the lengthy CA 33 -- and that may also have figured into the decision. But knowing Caltrans, they may yet get a bug up their ass and apply exit numbers to the segment (but then again, fabricating signage and deploying such might not be in D7's yearly budget allotment).
Photos I took this past week of historic 33 south of the current alignment in Coalinga, using Merced Avenue and West Lost Hills Road:
(https://scontent-sjc3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/129457805_10109237168232643_2844088754503951875_o.jpg?_nc_cat=101&ccb=2&_nc_sid=0debeb&_nc_ohc=2eM-eDSneygAX8iRsKb&_nc_ht=scontent-sjc3-1.xx&oh=031b7daba7b7f417beb3d748ad886a7f&oe=5FF0E88F)
(https://scontent-sjc3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/129692495_10109237166825463_7699828549597944103_o.jpg?_nc_cat=104&ccb=2&_nc_sid=0debeb&_nc_ohc=Ka93bM62xe0AX_7eJsz&_nc_ht=scontent-sjc3-1.xx&oh=b6a52d72ea24d2915093eebcedab95d0&oe=5FF2568F)
(https://scontent-sjc3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/129200831_10109237166965183_4450990708653347450_o.jpg?_nc_cat=110&ccb=2&_nc_sid=0debeb&_nc_ohc=hFCtGswKvfUAX-ZwVRF&_nc_ht=scontent-sjc3-1.xx&oh=48829bcc7a195333da8c2ae819d9445c&oe=5FF041B1)
(https://scontent-sjc3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/129316278_10109237168038033_165445520549964412_o.jpg?_nc_cat=107&ccb=2&_nc_sid=0debeb&_nc_ohc=ruHtyX2tWSgAX9IT7pY&_nc_ht=scontent-sjc3-1.xx&oh=8145b9ba96a65bab6803fbcbdde4c8de&oe=5FEFF21F)
(https://scontent-sjc3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/128629368_10109237167005103_4696201039538278056_o.jpg?_nc_cat=100&ccb=2&_nc_sid=0debeb&_nc_ohc=4fR3g4VlxWUAX_kujnp&_nc_ht=scontent-sjc3-1.xx&oh=7458df179b031eb9a1c97ef36dc3b493&oe=5FF16187)
(https://scontent-sjc3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/129491486_10109237167444223_1367612850534228737_o.jpg?_nc_cat=108&ccb=2&_nc_sid=0debeb&_nc_ohc=VSPcgmoxYoAAX-bHBzg&_nc_ht=scontent-sjc3-1.xx&oh=21ede5b7955be35fe62e76adec1151f4&oe=5FF0E304)
(https://scontent-sjc3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/129498925_10109237167284543_4748210617803356715_o.jpg?_nc_cat=105&ccb=2&_nc_sid=0debeb&_nc_ohc=S1HNlsX_EPEAX-4Zh3C&_nc_ht=scontent-sjc3-1.xx&oh=9500f3d2756f64f93afe47ad00c768f8&oe=5FEF36B4)
(https://scontent-sjc3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/129306663_10109237168033043_1549688115350994268_o.jpg?_nc_cat=105&ccb=2&_nc_sid=0debeb&_nc_ohc=Bmb5Olxu9_MAX-EehDb&_nc_ht=scontent-sjc3-1.xx&oh=d2f55167fa162297a7faafc4e0e5302c&oe=5FF00272)
And photos of the short former Route 33 segment north of Route 46 (Blackwell's Corner) and south of Route 41, along Barker and Twisselman Roads:
(https://scontent-sjc3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/129336657_10109237190213593_2392124000020723185_o.jpg?_nc_cat=102&ccb=2&_nc_sid=0debeb&_nc_ohc=7mLSje8Jn3IAX-SxI6z&_nc_ht=scontent-sjc3-1.xx&oh=d6c73c3891cb3ae3f7163759c627a40b&oe=5FEF6611)
(https://scontent-sjc3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/129339070_10109237190293433_3622458719335523477_o.jpg?_nc_cat=102&ccb=2&_nc_sid=0debeb&_nc_ohc=uRDhWTAZwBIAX8IvMHJ&_nc_ht=scontent-sjc3-1.xx&oh=f2febc4063394a5c3f376d99e9df0307&oe=5FF12B89)
(https://scontent-sjc3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/129314891_10109237190418183_2529623487326379978_o.jpg?_nc_cat=111&ccb=2&_nc_sid=0debeb&_nc_ohc=f7DsiNLroZgAX-TRpTU&_nc_ht=scontent-sjc3-1.xx&oh=a9f0bf69aa55e00aab0c7529d0e4ccd8&oe=5FF0037D)
(https://scontent-sjc3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/129311172_10109237190288443_3015496062912633781_o.jpg?_nc_cat=106&ccb=2&_nc_sid=0debeb&_nc_ohc=9XK_4WnUOU8AX86dHyH&_nc_oc=AQlQT6Fkeu2fvg-b1A9F2bDNfJXnKpnfKlN7b75DSAo5jRI7KoEAoyO205DtlsbjrAreO89QGj6u6sugB5YLkOZO&_nc_ht=scontent-sjc3-1.xx&oh=9dfba9796d689df932226d040c706827&oe=5FEFBBAC)
(https://scontent-sjc3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/129735555_10109237190672673_750807395864970313_o.jpg?_nc_cat=104&ccb=2&_nc_sid=0debeb&_nc_ohc=PIQszknf3v4AX9JMMMO&_nc_ht=scontent-sjc3-1.xx&oh=218e21a46ff4a915e62f60c7109c7178&oe=5FEF90F7)
(https://scontent-sjc3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/129493351_10109237190677663_7745841633309092732_o.jpg?_nc_cat=103&ccb=2&_nc_sid=0debeb&_nc_ohc=DCJnEbSH8a4AX98OjfE&_nc_ht=scontent-sjc3-1.xx&oh=ee7b9f0755b425a682272bf397309947&oe=5FEFECD6)
(https://scontent-sjc3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/129502353_10109237191466083_5272206716690448325_o.jpg?_nc_cat=109&ccb=2&_nc_sid=0debeb&_nc_ohc=S04Oe8HjjUgAX8HZHQM&_nc_ht=scontent-sjc3-1.xx&oh=2c38ae1c1775279454ece2d4f1187b83&oe=5FF1D2D4)
(https://scontent-sjc3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/128910983_10109237191281453_3682451885404790644_o.jpg?_nc_cat=110&ccb=2&_nc_sid=0debeb&_nc_ohc=ho3F40XtRewAX8iLGcC&_nc_ht=scontent-sjc3-1.xx&oh=4fca5c203cea0ad31f89b55e20b69c8d&oe=5FF1B024)
^^^
That ragged asphalt is what I'm remembering when I drove down that road. I could have sworn it was near J1 levels of disrepair.
And, considering present county budget shortfalls, will probably remain ragged for some time. And if traffic diminishes due to COVID-related travel proscriptions, even relatively flush counties like up here in Santa Clara will likely postpone needed repairs to county-maintained rural arterials (Santa Teresa Blvd., I'm looking at you!). But nice pictures of the former CA 33 alignment, regardless of road condition!
Quote from: sparker on December 05, 2020, 04:46:55 PMBut nice pictures of the former CA 33 alignment, regardless of road condition!
Thanks! First time I've ever been through that area and when I discovered those historic alignments on old maps, decided it would be a good time to capture them in photos. They're not easy to see in Google Maps unless you are looking for those specific roads!
Love those old box culverts.
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on December 06, 2020, 12:01:34 AM
Love those old box culverts.
They are fairly common among the Old State Highways in the area. They are especially common on the older segments of CA 41 south of Fresno. For some reason Fresno County was huge on that design in the local road network in the 1940s. The cool thing with those variants is that they often than street name and build year stamped into them.
Example; Fowler Avenue just north of Laton:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/1910/31211672528_2b0be98c01_4k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Py4YQY)0 (https://flic.kr/p/Py4YQY) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
Took a drive on the Ojai Freeway yesterday. The majority of the guide signs are still button copy and there are no exit numbers:
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmW5U6JC
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 25, 2021, 04:07:28 PM
Took a drive on the Ojai Freeway yesterday. The majority of the guide signs are still button copy and there are no exit numbers:
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmW5U6JC
That freeway was and likely always will be the proverbial "red-headed stepchild" of D7, dating as it does from US 399 days. Doesn't get a lot of love or attention aside from basic maintenance. Don't expect much in the way of signage change until the nuts & bolts holding the signs in place rust away!
Quote from: sparker on June 25, 2021, 05:29:59 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 25, 2021, 04:07:28 PM
Took a drive on the Ojai Freeway yesterday. The majority of the guide signs are still button copy and there are no exit numbers:
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmW5U6JC
That freeway was and likely always will be the proverbial "red-headed stepchild" of D7, dating as it does from US 399 days. Doesn't get a lot of love or attention aside from basic maintenance. Don't expect much in the way of signage change until the nuts & bolts holding the signs in place rust away!
I want to say that the Ojai Freeway is the last to not have any exit numbers of any kind in the state?
In fairness to District 7, it barely has any exits.
Also, Sacramento did not include it on the original Cal-NExUS list.
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on June 29, 2021, 11:03:34 AM
In fairness to District 7, it barely has any exits.
Also, Sacramento did not include it on the original Cal-NExUS list.
Also to be fair -- even back in '63 when building new freeways was DOH "gospel", it was pretty clear than a (then) US 399 freeway wouldn't extend more than a few miles north of US 101; the Ojai area, then as now, was a relatively high-ticket resort area interspersed with specialty agriculture (avocados, fruit, etc.) and slamming a freeway through there just wasn't in the cards. And as a through route -- there's never been enough traffic north of CA 150 to justify a higher-capacity facility than is currently in place. Besides, it's a fun drive; no need to change it into something that just isn't warranted!
Quote from: sparker on June 29, 2021, 04:39:28 PM
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on June 29, 2021, 11:03:34 AM
In fairness to District 7, it barely has any exits.
Also, Sacramento did not include it on the original Cal-NExUS list.
Also to be fair -- even back in '63 when building new freeways was DOH "gospel", it was pretty clear than a (then) US 399 freeway wouldn't extend more than a few miles north of US 101; the Ojai area, then as now, was a relatively high-ticket resort area interspersed with specialty agriculture (avocados, fruit, etc.) and slamming a freeway through there just wasn't in the cards. And as a through route -- there's never been enough traffic north of CA 150 to justify a higher-capacity facility than is currently in place. Besides, it's a fun drive; no need to change it into something that just isn't warranted!
That said, it is interesting to note that for a very brief time it would have been a superior roadway to the Old Ridge Route. The improvements of two decades of highway development is very apparent between the Old Ridge Route and Maricopa Highway having extensively explored both. I always got the feeling that the Maricopa Highway would was intended to be used far more than it actually ended up being in the 1930s, hence the US 399 designation.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
In the pre-WWII years a sizeable chunk of CA's political power emanated from the Valley, particularly prior to L.A. joining the Bay Area as a power in and of itself. Agricultural interests embedded since the 1800's made for a lot of private fortunes -- and more than a bit of that money went into 2nd (or even primary) residences on the coast, considered then as now more prime residential real estate. And the south-facing coastlines of Ventura and Santa Barbara were the creme de la creme of all that -- sunshine tempering the cold Pacific waters, and fog that burned off in mid-morning. So lots of Valley wealth was spent on the coastline from Carpinteria up through Goleta, and in the days before private planes and helicopters, they needed a consistent and efficient way to get from the Valley to that coastline. In the 1920's and '30's executives from companies pumping oil from the Bakersfield/Taft fields, principally Union Oil, joined those ranks. Influence was brought to bear, and US 399 was commissioned and improved to the facility it is today (minus the last few miles of freeway, of course) for that purpose. And, minus a few traffic incidents and the occasional washout (particularly with the massive SoCal floods of 1938), fortunate families shuffled back and forth over 399 (and occasionally the western reaches of 150) for extended vacations; a number of these folks elected to make their primary homes on the coast, with more than a few of them becoming the original Hope Ranch residents in the hills west of downtown Santa Barbara and constituting much of Santa Barbara "high society" in those days. Postwar, things changed with corporate shifts, and the dynamic of the cross-Coast Range regular trek abated considerably. Today's CA 33 remains a vital if still challenging connector from that coastal area to the Valley, but the reasons for US 399's commissioning and upgrading in the first place aren't terribly pressing these days. Fun drive and highly recommended as such -- but the odds are that it'll never host much more traffic than currently seen.
Made a massive update to our CA 33 blog. It includes the entire Ojai Freeway and a scan of the CHPWs:
https://www.gribblenation.org/2018/07/california-state-route-33-us-101-north.html
The section of CA 33 through the Matilija Gorge north of Ojai, the site of regular rockfalls onto the roadway, is getting a concrete "awning" partially over the lanes to, hopefully, lessen the time the road is shut down for such things. The project also includes improved drainage from the roadway itself. The project EIS has just been completed; it's listed in today's (8/30) AASHTO DTU and in the Federal Register, vol. 86 #165, Monday August 30, 2021; it's FR Document #2021-18550 for anyone who wants more details.
Put something together for Old CA 33 in Firebaugh. I'll be doing something probably next month for Dos Palos also.
https://www.gribblenation.org/2022/05/the-original-alignment-of-california.html
Put something together for the alignment history of CA 33 in Dos Palos:
https://www.gribblenation.org/2022/06/the-original-alignment-of-california.html?m=1
After being closed since last years winter storm in January/February CA-33 between Ojai and Lockwood Valley Road again with some one lane segments controlled by a traffic signal.
It appears to be closed again.
Shows open on the QuickMap. Where are you seeing a closure?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 06, 2024, 02:41:01 PM
Shows open on the QuickMap. Where are you seeing a closure?
Road conditions site:
https://roads.dot.ca.gov/
This highway information is the latest reported as of Saturday, January 6th, 2024 at 12:14 PM.
SR 33
[IN THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AREA]
Is closed from South Matilija Springs Rd /in Ojala/ (Ventura Co) to 9 mi south of the Ventura/Santa Barbara Co Line - Due to emergency repairs - Motorists are advised to use an alternate route
Is QuickMap more reliable? I'm driving to Morro Bay and wanted to utilize 33 and 166.
Substantially. I've never even seen the page you were looking at.
Yep. Shows open with lane closures being one lane each through the construction zone: https://quickmap.dot.ca.gov/
From District 7 yesterday:
https://twitter.com/CaltransDist7/status/1743306576788910519
Quote from: gonealookin on January 06, 2024, 03:46:18 PM
From District 7 yesterday:
https://twitter.com/CaltransDist7/status/1743306576788910519
If I can't get to 166 still not useful for me.
Also it shows Big Sur is fully open? I thought it was still closed.
Stilled closed at Limekiln Creek. That is also displayed on the QuickMap.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 06, 2024, 05:34:56 PM
Stilled closed at Limekiln Creek. That is also displayed on the QuickMap.
I found out the hard way to only rely on Caltrans quick maps when Google maps showed HWY 1 through Big Sur when I had to turn around and take a 4 hour detour heading south because of all the people who also thought the same thing.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 06, 2024, 05:34:56 PM
Stilled closed at Limekiln Creek. That is also displayed on the QuickMap.
Oh I forgot to turn the full closure layer on.
Bought a new Subaru today so I decided to take it for a little cruise and check out the reopening of this highway. I went from Hollywood over to I-5 to Frazier Park Mountain Road to Lockwood Valley Road and ultimately to SH-33. That road needs a lot of work. There are multiple areas where there's only one lane and you have to wait at these traffic lights. Some of them in particular are pretty long with not a single car coming through so I don't know what's up with that. This was on a Sunday evening after dark with no workers out. I definitely say this road has at least another year before it's a viable alternative were really even that useful due to all the one-way traffic controls.
So if you do take it, just be ready for that.
Also be alert and ready for drivers who ignore those traffic lights because I encountered that twice. As dangerous as it is, I really can't say that I blame them. I was waiting damn near 25 minutes with not a single car and I could see the other traffic light which was red as well. I was literally less than a minute than saying fuck it and just going through it and right as I decided to start to go through it magically turned green. I'm not advocating for anybody to do that. That is extremely dangerous. But just be prepared and have patience because this road is fucked even though it's open.
Are you talking about those portable traffic lights that they put up when there's only one lane? They can only run on a fixed time schedule, since they don't have vehicle sensors. Modern technology could probably come up with a better solution, but so far I haven't seen it yet.
Quote from: pderocco on January 15, 2024, 08:05:38 PM
Are you talking about those portable traffic lights that they put up when there's only one lane? They can only run on a fixed time schedule, since they don't have vehicle sensors. Modern technology could probably come up with a better solution, but so far I haven't seen it yet.
Yes. I thought they were activated by a motion sensor somehow.
Even still, the traffic counts on the Maricopa Highway segment of 33 aren't high enough to warrant a better solution like sensors.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 15, 2024, 08:12:33 PM
Even still, the traffic counts on the Maricopa Highway segment of 33 aren't high enough to warrant a better solution like sensors.
So people should just sit still for no reason? And are sensors that much more expensive than timers?
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 15, 2024, 08:19:41 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 15, 2024, 08:12:33 PM
Even still, the traffic counts on the Maricopa Highway segment of 33 aren't high enough to warrant a better solution like sensors.
So people should just sit still for no reason? And are sensors that much more expensive than timers?
That's more or less how it works on slightly busier highways like 1 in Big Sur and 140 along the Merced River. I'd venture a guess that maintaining the Maricopa Highway is a burden the state would prefer not to have given how little traffic it sees. The corridor was intended to be competitive with the Old Ridge Route but never did. Even in the 1930s the traffic counts on then US 399 were low.
It would be most nice to have a timer on temp signals, but the USA hasn't figured this out yet. If you can see the other side, it should be a 3-5 minute cycle.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 15, 2024, 08:19:41 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 15, 2024, 08:12:33 PM
Even still, the traffic counts on the Maricopa Highway segment of 33 aren't high enough to warrant a better solution like sensors.
So people should just sit still for no reason? And are sensors that much more expensive than timers?
Yes. I had time to get out and take photos of the scenery. It's a scenic route, take 5 or 101 if time is your top priority. The QuickMap site also shows construction on CA-33, and another site (I think the older road conditions one) says to expect delays. It's unfortunate but there is plenty of info to look at before you go. So right now, the expectation is you take Maricopa Highway if you want a scenic drive and don't mind waiting. And sure enough, when I did it and it was my turn to cross, someone decided to jump the light and almost hit me. Don't understand why people drive the highway if they are so impatient.
BTW what Subaru? Got a Crosstrek recently, was on 33 last weekend.
It's interesting how CA-33 is mainly parallel to I-5 in the San Joaquin valley before CA-33 heads to Ventura.
Quote from: bing101 on January 16, 2024, 12:02:07 PM
It's interesting how CA-33 is mainly parallel to I-5 in the San Joaquin valley before CA-33 heads to Ventura.
Used to end at US 99 concurrent with CA 166.
Quote from: Quillz on January 16, 2024, 01:43:14 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 15, 2024, 08:19:41 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 15, 2024, 08:12:33 PM
Even still, the traffic counts on the Maricopa Highway segment of 33 aren't high enough to warrant a better solution like sensors.
So people should just sit still for no reason? And are sensors that much more expensive than timers?
Yes. I had time to get out and take photos of the scenery. It's a scenic route, take 5 or 101 if time is your top priority. The QuickMap site also shows construction on CA-33, and another site (I think the older road conditions one) says to expect delays. It's unfortunate but there is plenty of info to look at before you go. So right now, the expectation is you take Maricopa Highway if you want a scenic drive and don't mind waiting. And sure enough, when I did it and it was my turn to cross, someone decided to jump the light and almost hit me. Don't understand why people drive the highway if they are so impatient.
BTW what Subaru? Got a Crosstrek recently, was on 33 last weekend.
2019 Forester. How do you like your Crosstrek?
I would say there's a limit, but yes, you're right it is a scenic route. Disregard those lights is probably one of the most dangerous things you do while driving. Fortunately the two times that happened to me it was the sections where it temporarily opened back up to two lanes. One guy I could visibly see was drinking. Some kind of beer looked to be a Mexican lager. For some reason, I kinda laughed. Imagine if instead of me, it was a cop.
The thing I find the most interesting about CA 33 is the southern-most portion between US 101 in Ventura and CA 119 in Taft was once part of US 399: https://web.archive.org/web/20071231013137/http://members.cox.net/mkpl2/hist/mp55-centralvly.jpg.
When you think about it in the context of the 1930s it makes sense. The Maricopa Highway was intended to be a competitor to the Ridge Route (Old US 99). For a couple years it probably was the better routing between the Central Valley and southern counties. Granted it never really panned out that way and the Ridge Route began to be modernized rapidly.
Mod Note: There was about a page worth of extended discussion about Subarus and other vehicles owned by roadgeeks, chains devices for said vehicles, etc. I split it off into its own topic so that discussion could continue separately from this thread:
Vehicles of western roadgeeks (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=34411.0)
—Roadfro