News:

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

Main Menu

Was US 99 almost retained?

Started by Max Rockatansky, August 30, 2021, 07:44:35 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Max Rockatansky

The November/December 1963 California Highways & Public Works contains an excerpt which seems to suggest the state of California initially planned to retain US Route 99.  In a stub regarding Tehama County US Route 99 East south of Red Bluff is stated to become (new US Route 99) in anticipation of US Route 99 West being consumed by Interstate 5.  This ultimately did not occur as US Route 99 in California was approved for truncation to Ashland, Oregon by the AASHO Executive Committee during June of 1965 (as seen in the AASHO Database).  Modern California State Route 99 south from Red Bluff follows what was US Route 99 East to Yuba City.  From Yuba City California State Route 99 utilizes a more direct alignment south to Sacramento via a corridor inherited largely from California State Route 24 rather than the previous corridor of US Route 99 East towards Roseville and North Sacramento.

https://archive.org/details/cvol4142alifornia196263hiwacalirich/page/72/mode/2up?q=Corning

To me this makes a lot of sense in a number of ways:

-  There was several freeway bypasses and cutoffs planned for the corridor of US 99E which were ultimately not built between Red Bluff and Yuba City.  These would have further streamlined US 99E into a facility more resembling US 99W/I-5.  Ultimately only the freeway segments in Chico and Yuba City were built. 
-  Having US 99 take over the corridor of CA 24 from Yuba City south to Sacramento is far more direct than US 99W and US 99E ever were. 

I suspect there might be an answer to this question possibly in a rejected proposal in the AASHO Database.  The fact US 99 wasn't on the list of highways approved (rejected by the CHC and approved by the AASHO) to be eliminated prior to the 1964 Renumbering suggests the highway was planned to be retained.  Certainly by November 1963 the facets of the 1964 Renumbering were already well known established facts given they would take effect at the start of the new year.  I wonder if the likes of CA 273 and CA 263 might have been intended to branch away from I-5 similar to how like US 6 does from I-70 in Colorado?


sparker

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 30, 2021, 07:44:35 AM
The November/December 1963 California Highways & Public Works contains an excerpt which seems to suggest the state of California initially planned to retain US Route 99.  In a stub regarding Tehama County US Route 99 East south of Red Bluff is stated to become (new US Route 99) in anticipation of US Route 99 West being consumed by Interstate 5.  This ultimately did not occur as US Route 99 in California was approved for truncation to Ashland, Oregon by the AASHO Executive Committee during June of 1965 (as seen in the AASHO Database).  Modern California State Route 99 south from Red Bluff follows what was US Route 99 East to Yuba City.  From Yuba City California State Route 99 utilizes a more direct alignment south to Sacramento via a corridor inherited largely from California State Route 24 rather than the previous corridor of US Route 99 East towards Roseville and North Sacramento.

https://archive.org/details/cvol4142alifornia196263hiwacalirich/page/72/mode/2up?q=Corning

To me this makes a lot of sense in a number of ways:

-  There was several freeway bypasses and cutoffs planned for the corridor of US 99E which were ultimately not built between Red Bluff and Yuba City.  These would have further streamlined US 99E into a facility more resembling US 99W/I-5.  Ultimately only the freeway segments in Chico and Yuba City were built. 
-  Having US 99 take over the corridor of CA 24 from Yuba City south to Sacramento is far more direct than US 99W and US 99E ever were. 

I suspect there might be an answer to this question possibly in a rejected proposal in the AASHO Database.  The fact US 99 wasn't on the list of highways approved (rejected by the CHC and approved by the AASHO) to be eliminated prior to the 1964 Renumbering suggests the highway was planned to be retained.  Certainly by November 1963 the facets of the 1964 Renumbering were already well known established facts given they would take effect at the start of the new year.  I wonder if the likes of CA 273 and CA 263 might have been intended to branch away from I-5 similar to how like US 6 does from I-70 in Colorado?

Seeing as how the elimination of multiplexes with Interstates became an almost fanatical pursuit by the CHC and DOH in 1963-64, it's highly unlikely that retention of US 99 as a in-town alternative to the then-nascent I-5 would have been considered because that would have required a multiplex in the interim areas.  But OTOH, there's also a viable but non-state-maintained alternative over the former US 99 between Yreka and Weed, plus the original alignment from Weed through Shasta City down to past Dunsmuir -- although because I-5 overlays much of the original alignment north of Dunsmuir, the old route, marked as "Historic 99", has been relegated to frontage roads.  But farther down in the Sacramento Canyon narrows, there was only room for one facility; that would obviously have been I-5, despite the fact that it took until 1992 to fully complete it to Interstate standards.  If DOH and/or CHC would have been less adamant about even short multiplexes, the concept might have gained traction -- but single-mindedness prevailed, so the renumbering proceeded as per history.

But that only pertains to that portion of US 99 from Red Bluff to Oregon; at about 400 miles, there's no administrative reason that US 99 could not have been retained from Wheeler Ridge to Red Bluff over the remnants of US 99E, CA 24, and the old LRN 245 connector near Nicolaus -- which was considered a routing improvement over the previous eastward arc through Roseville and Lincoln (both 99E and 99W were originally laid out to follow the two main SP lines north of Roseville and Davis respectively).  Common lore has it that the decision to jettison US 99 in CA was prompted by a decision by OR (and indirectly WA) to delete the highway in their state for much the same reasons as were prevalent in CA.  But seeing as how US 99E was one of the first routes to be renumbered back in 1964 (as 65 over its southern end and, of course, 99 north of Yuba City) with the then-new green state shields, it seems clear that statewide elimination of US 99 was the aim of agency management in conjunction with their CHC handlers.  Perhaps a thorough review of the timeframes regarding (a) just when the elimination-of-multiplexes planning expanded into the full statewide renumbering scheme ostensibly sometime during 1963 but possibly earlier (b) precisely when ODOT or its predecessor agency issued the decision to eliminate US 99 there, and (c) whether there was a decided attempt on the part of DOH to "downgrade" the overall 99 corridor through the Valley in favor of I-5, leveraging the "status" change from US to state highway on that corridor to encourage travelers to shift to I-5 to lessen the traffic flow on 99, enabling DOH to "stretch out" improvements over a longer period of time, since funds that would have flowed to US 99 prior to the alignment shift over to the LRN 238 "west side" freeway in 1957 would have likewise been diverted to that new freeway.   And, finally, an examination of the factors that went into that I-5 alignment shift -- which clearly favored a "straight shot" between the state's "800-pound-gorilla" metro areas to the detriment of the smaller cities arrayed along US 99 in the Valley -- might be enlightening as a precursor to the decision to get rid of US 99 some years later. 

Quillz

US-99 certainly should have been kept for historical purposes. Like US-66. There's some US-99 signage around California, mainly in the Colorado Desert area, for those who want to trace the historical alignment.

sparker

Quote from: Quillz on September 10, 2021, 09:37:13 AM
US-99 certainly should have been kept for historical purposes. Like US-66. There's some US-99 signage around California, mainly in the Colorado Desert area, for those who want to trace the historical alignment.

There's quite a bit of "historical US 99" signage in the Lincoln Heights section of L.A., principally located on Avenue 20, North Main Street, and Valley Blvd.; these signs indicate that this is a pre-1935 alignment of the route.  Since US 99 was shifted to the alignment multiplexed with US 66 (and later 6) via Figueroa, Sunset Blvd, and Macy Street before segueing onto the Ramona Parkway, along with US 60, east of the L.A. River that year, the signs are generally accurate despite not following the LRN in-city "network" as defined in '34. 

Kniwt

FWIW, my 1967 RMcN shows the strange combination of both CA 99 and US 99W.


Max Rockatansky


theroadwayone


TheStranger

Quote from: theroadwayone on September 17, 2021, 02:21:37 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 16, 2021, 06:19:22 PM


The 1966 DOH map has US 99W, CA 99 and US 99E north of Sacramento:

http://www.davidrumsey.com/ll/thumbnailView.html?startUrl=%2F%2Fwww.davidrumsey.com%2Fluna%2Fservlet%2Fas%2Fsearch%3Fos%3D0%26lc%3DRUMSEY~8~1%26q%3DCALTRANs%201966%26sort%3DPub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No%26bs%3D10#?c=0&m=0&s=0&cv=0&r=0&xywh=2791%2C4123%2C903%2C1479

The "new US 99"  referenced in the CHPW is the CA 99 above.
The other 70-99 multiplex in CA, but in the north.

I've always wondered:

Maps for years showed 70/99 concurrency between Sacramento and Catlett, yet I'm not sure it has been signed in the field for decades - I don't think it was by the mid-1990s.

It did exist, as evidenced here from this 1960s sign still up on eastbound Capitol Mall (old US 40/99W/Route 16) in downtown Sacramento, back when 70/99 followed pre-1959 Route 24 along Jibboom Street north to a now-removed crossing to Garden Highway, before following El Centro Road to the current Route 99:

DSC_2946e by Chris Sampang, on Flickr

I don't know if the exit off 5 was ever signed as 70/99 (as opposed to just 99 as it is today, with TO 70 signs nearby).  I even recall some maps that showed 70 concurrent with 5 all the way to downtown Sacramento but I don't think that ever actually was signed in the field.
Chris Sampang

Max Rockatansky

My understanding is that CA 16 is the missing shield from that overhead on Capitol Mall.

pderocco

Quote from: sparker on August 30, 2021, 01:45:36 PM
Seeing as how the elimination of multiplexes with Interstates became an almost fanatical pursuit by the CHC and DOH in 1963-64, it's highly unlikely that retention of US 99 as a in-town alternative to the then-nascent I-5 would have been considered because that would have required a multiplex in the interim areas.  But OTOH, there's also a viable but non-state-maintained alternative over the former US 99 between Yreka and Weed, plus the original alignment from Weed through Shasta City down to past Dunsmuir -- although because I-5 overlays much of the original alignment north of Dunsmuir, the old route, marked as "Historic 99", has been relegated to frontage roads.  But farther down in the Sacramento Canyon narrows, there was only room for one facility; that would obviously have been I-5, despite the fact that it took until 1992 to fully complete it to Interstate standards.  If DOH and/or CHC would have been less adamant about even short multiplexes, the concept might have gained traction -- but single-mindedness prevailed, so the renumbering proceeded as per history.

But that only pertains to that portion of US 99 from Red Bluff to Oregon; at about 400 miles, there's no administrative reason that US 99 could not have been retained from Wheeler Ridge to Red Bluff over the remnants of US 99E, CA 24, and the old LRN 245 connector near Nicolaus -- which was considered a routing improvement over the previous eastward arc through Roseville and Lincoln (both 99E and 99W were originally laid out to follow the two main SP lines north of Roseville and Davis respectively).

There's also the issue that AASHTO (or was it AASHO then?) required that US highways be interstate. Hence downgrading US-299 to CA-299 (even as it was lengthened to the NV border). Perhaps extending a little ways into Oregon wasn't enough to warrant a US designation.

vdeane

I believe it was interstate or over 300 miles.  US 99 could certainly have meet the 300 mile criteria as long as the part north of Sacramento was retained.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

Max Rockatansky

^^^

It would have been well over 400 miles as a standalone route following the so called "New US 99."  It certainly could have been carried to Oregon via silent concurrency akin to modern US 85 or pull a Colorado US 6 branch off on CA 273, CA 265, CA 263 and CA 96 via DOH maintained facilities. 

Quillz

I do wish California didn't have business loops/spurs and instead kept US-99 and used it the way Oregon does. Would have much preferred to see it instead of 273, 265, 263, etc. But too late now. Would have been sort of a win-win in my opinion: Interstate 5 is clearly signed and the modern, significant route, but 99 sticks around for historical purposes and seeing it can inform motorists it's some kind of frontage/business route.

mrsman

Quote from: theroadwayone on September 17, 2021, 02:21:37 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 16, 2021, 06:19:22 PM
Quote from: Kniwt on September 16, 2021, 05:22:20 PM
FWIW, my 1967 RMcN shows the strange combination of both CA 99 and US 99W.


The 1966 DOH map has US 99W, CA 99 and US 99E north of Sacramento:

http://www.davidrumsey.com/ll/thumbnailView.html?startUrl=%2F%2Fwww.davidrumsey.com%2Fluna%2Fservlet%2Fas%2Fsearch%3Fos%3D0%26lc%3DRUMSEY~8~1%26q%3DCALTRANs%201966%26sort%3DPub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No%26bs%3D10#?c=0&m=0&s=0&cv=0&r=0&xywh=2791%2C4123%2C903%2C1479

The "new US 99"  referenced in the CHPW is the CA 99 above.
The other 70-99 multiplex in CA, but in the north.

These maps show the confusion that had to exist for a few years in the 1960's with navigation.  The overall goals of simplification of the 1964 renumbering are commendable - removing multiplexes to make it easier for navigation.  But certain aspects of the implementation I do disagree with (such as removing US 99, which really could have been kept north of Wheeler Ridge IMO). 

There is also the issue of the 1964 as being a gradual implementation.  While it was before my time, it seems obvious from these maps that for much of the 1960's both the new routes and the old routes were signed simultaneously - probably as a way of getting drivers used to the new number.  So anyone driving at this time was probably royally confused until such time as all the signs were changed and all of the old signage was fully removed (which did occur by the end of the decade).

Quote from: TheStranger on September 17, 2021, 03:05:18 PM


I've always wondered:

Maps for years showed 70/99 concurrency between Sacramento and Catlett, yet I'm not sure it has been signed in the field for decades - I don't think it was by the mid-1990s.

It did exist, as evidenced here from this 1960s sign still up on eastbound Capitol Mall (old US 40/99W/Route 16) in downtown Sacramento, back when 70/99 followed pre-1959 Route 24 along Jibboom Street north to a now-removed crossing to Garden Highway, before following El Centro Road to the current Route 99:


I don't know if the exit off 5 was ever signed as 70/99 (as opposed to just 99 as it is today, with TO 70 signs nearby).  I even recall some maps that showed 70 concurrent with 5 all the way to downtown Sacramento but I don't think that ever actually was signed in the field.

I lived in the area in the late '90s.  I don't think I drove on 99/70 itself, but I definitely passed the exit off I-5 on the way to the Sac Airport.  I remember the exit being signed as (99)(70), just like the sign in Downtown Sacramento.  Also, on traffic reports it was referred to as 99/70, basically a complete multiplex for the whole stretch, even though, as a technical matter, it probably would have been more accurate to have signed it as 99 TO 70.  I believe that since the control cities signed with this roadway used both Yuba City and Marysville, Caltrans felt it had to sign both 99 and 70.  Nowadays, it seems that all references to 70 have been removed from the stretch.

I always found it interesting that the sign in Sacramento featured Marysville so prominently.  I know it was an older sign that got re-faced, but I would think that it would have been better to use a prominent sign to denote the way to I-5 north Redding, and supplemental signage for Marysville and Yuba City.  Here, it's the opposite as there is a small I-5 shield at the bottom of this BGS.
(The sign itself is still useful, as any traffic from West Sac crossing at Tower Bridge that needs to head to I-5 north is not faced with a direct ramp.  They have to transverse one-ways in Downtown Sac to get there.  This sign helps with one of the turning movements.)

Quote from: Quillz on September 19, 2021, 07:01:41 AM
I do wish California didn't have business loops/spurs and instead kept US-99 and used it the way Oregon does. Would have much preferred to see it instead of 273, 265, 263, etc. But too late now. Would have been sort of a win-win in my opinion: Interstate 5 is clearly signed and the modern, significant route, but 99 sticks around for historical purposes and seeing it can inform motorists it's some kind of frontage/business route.

Agreed.  US 99 would be better and more memorable than a lot of those state routes.

In Maryland, the main road between Baltimore towards Wilmington is I-95.  The old equivalent US 40 still exists as a dual carriage-way.  An even older alignment, MD-7, (Philadelphia Road) is a two lane road that stops and starts at several places along US 40.  It is nice that even though you can't drive the two lane alignment all the way, you can use the same number if you want to drive the oldest transversable route.  It would be nice if such existed for I-5 as well.

[It does exist for CA-1 and US 101, for stops and starts.]

transgerman_

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 18, 2021, 11:21:32 PM
^^^

It would have been well over 400 miles as a standalone route following the so called "New US 99."  It certainly could have been carried to Oregon via silent concurrency akin to modern US 85 or pull a Colorado US 6 branch off on CA 273, CA 265, CA 263 and CA 96 via DOH maintained facilities.

I could be mistaken about this, but from what I remember, Oregon was fairly reluctant to say goodbye to US 99 (and E/W) in its state, though the same cannot be said of Washington. Had California instead chosen to keep its section and either 85 it or 6 it in the extreme northern parts of the state, it's plausible that CA might have eight US routes instead of seven, and one fewer orphan route.
There's nothing as permanent as a temporary solution, and Caltrans makes that philosophy very clear.

cl94

Quote from: transgerman_ on November 18, 2023, 12:47:27 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 18, 2021, 11:21:32 PM
^^^

It would have been well over 400 miles as a standalone route following the so called "New US 99."  It certainly could have been carried to Oregon via silent concurrency akin to modern US 85 or pull a Colorado US 6 branch off on CA 273, CA 265, CA 263 and CA 96 via DOH maintained facilities.

I could be mistaken about this, but from what I remember, Oregon was fairly reluctant to say goodbye to US 99 (and E/W) in its state, though the same cannot be said of Washington. Had California instead chosen to keep its section and either 85 it or 6 it in the extreme northern parts of the state, it's plausible that CA might have eight US routes instead of seven, and one fewer orphan route.

Unlike WA and extreme northern CA, 5 through Oregon was generally not built on top of US 99. Indeed, OR 99(E/W) continues to parallel I-5 along the surface through most of the state.

There's also the deal with Caltrans (well, DPW back then) not wanting to maintain redundant roads. Like most western states, CA generally won't sign a non-business route along a local road, so if something is downloaded, the designation goes away with it. US 40 and US 50 could have existed along the surface all the way to San Francisco, but that would have required DPW to maintain control of those roads.
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

transgerman_

Even more so with US 80 honestly. I-8 doesn't follow it that closely west of the sand dunes, relatively speaking.
There's nothing as permanent as a temporary solution, and Caltrans makes that philosophy very clear.

pderocco

Quote from: transgerman_ on November 18, 2023, 08:05:08 AM
Even more so with US 80 honestly. I-8 doesn't follow it that closely west of the sand dunes, relatively speaking.
The only places it's buried under I-8 is a bit of El Cajon Blvd in La Mesa, a piece just west of CA-79, and where it snakes down into the low desert. It's really only in the dunes that it's buried for a significant distance, because there were no abutters to indulge.

Even in AZ, very little of the old US-80 is buried under any freeway.



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.