The last route for today was CA 203:
https://flic.kr/s/aHskZK3qK7
Sadly its not just the Devil's Postpile that is closed but also Minerat Summit, the furthest you can do is the Mammoth Ski Area. It doesn't appear CA 203 actually goes to the Madera County Line anymore as there is an end sign I captured about a mile east well within Mono County. I'm very interested in sorting this route out as I know the road to Lake Mary was what was originally under state maintenance, but I'll get to that this weekend.
CA 203 was originally LRN 112 before the state highway renumbering in 1964. The route was also substantially different than modern CA 203 with the route running to what is known as "Old Mammoth" in the city of Mammoth Lakes where it terminated at Lake Mary. Essentially the original alignment of LRN 112 appears to have used:
1. An unnamed dirt road east of the modern US 395 expressway on the roadway known as "Old Highway" which was once US 395.
2. On the west side of modern US 395 Mammoth Creek Road west to Old Mammoth Road.
3. Old Mammoth Road through what is the original town site of Mammoth.
4. Lake Mary Road to Lake Mary.
So essentially none of the original LRN 112 is part of CA 203, the original alignment can be seen on the 1935 Mono County Road Map:
http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~247318~5515370:Mono-County-?sort=Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No&qvq=q:california%2Bdivision%2Bof%2Bhighways;sort:Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=50&trs=163
The move from LRN 112 to CA 203 can be seen on the 1963 and 1964 State Highway Maps. Note; even in 1964 the alignment of CA 203 was still to Lake Mary:
1963 State Highway Map
http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239528~5511852:State-Highway-Map,-California,-1963?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=29&trs=86
1964 State Highway Map
http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239525~5511850:State-Highway-Map,-California,-1964?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=27&trs=86
Between 1967 and 1969 CA 203 was shifted onto the modern alignment which ends near the Madera County line close to the Mammoth Ski Area. This alignment shift took CA 203 from Old Mammoth and through the modern downtown Mammoth Lakes. It appears that this change was actually done in 1967 according to cahighways and it appears CA 203 wasn't signed before the shift. The changes can be seen on the 1967 and 1969 State Highway Maps:
1967 State Highway Map
http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239516~5511844:State-Highway-Map,-California,-1967?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=21&trs=86
1969 State Highway Map
http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239513~5511842:State-Highway-Map,-California,-1969?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=19&trs=86
Interestingly if you look at the 1969 State Highway map the modern expressway of US 395 isn't completed yet and an adopted alignment is shown. That means that CA 203 extended east to Old Highway over the modern expressway, this appears to have changed to the modern terminus point by 1970:
http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239509~5511840:State-Highway-Map,-California,-1970?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=17&trs=86
Mammoth Lakes was a very much different place than the tourism crowd might see on a trip to the ski resort. The area known as "Old Mammoth" was the original site of "Mammoth City" which was built for the Mineral Hill Mine which opened in 1878. Apparently the mine at Mineral Hill was large enough that two smaller mining camps known as Mill City and Pine City also popped up. Apparently Mammoth City almost died out with far less than 100 people by the early 1900s before rebounding to a population sizable enough to warrant post office service by 1923. Apparently a gold boom in 1905 near the Devils Postpile likely played a large role in reviving Mammoth.
The Postpile was originally in the boundary of Yosemite National Park but some of it was made public during the gold boom. The Postpile was made into Devils Postpile National Monument in 1911 and really has been the subject of conjecture from things such as a reservoir or even a Trans-Sierra highway. The Park Service actually has an interesting article on the subject that would lend suggestion that CA 203 might have be in part realigned from Lake Mary to the modern alignment as part of a longer reaching plan to cross the Sierras via the San Joaquin River:
https://www.nps.gov/depo/learn/historyculture/trans-sierra-highway.htm
So....CA 203 starting from southbound US 395:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4256/35381235460_17503343ff_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/VUw5D3)IMG_1968 (https://flic.kr/p/VUw5D3) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
The first couple westbound miles of CA 203 are an expressway to Mammoth Lakes. The Postpile was closed apparently due to winter storm damage:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4002/35769496695_2fa0af4442_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/WuQ2bg)IMG_1969 (https://flic.kr/p/WuQ2bg) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4065/35769492615_db8ce9c0c1_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/WuPZXV)IMG_1970 (https://flic.kr/p/WuPZXV) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
Entering Mammoth the speed drops but the expressway remains until Minerat Road:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4209/34959195273_6c7af81002_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Vge1N6)IMG_1972 (https://flic.kr/p/Vge1N6) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
CA 203 turns right westbound on Minerat Road:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4002/35769488465_31620f1988_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/WuPYJn)IMG_1973 (https://flic.kr/p/WuPYJn) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4211/35769483185_eb13346244_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/WuPXak)IMG_1974 (https://flic.kr/p/WuPXak) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
Which traverses the modern ski-resort downtown area:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4279/34928229114_f95ffd16ae_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/VduiCN)IMG_1975 (https://flic.kr/p/VduiCN) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
Before leaving Mammoth for the Ski Area and points beyond:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4236/34959188763_b803705d6d_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/VgdYRR)IMG_1976 (https://flic.kr/p/VgdYRR) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
Interestingly the "Mammoth Scenic Loop" was originally called the "Mammoth Escape Route" which was built after the 1980 Long Valley Earthquake. The Escape Route was built for an additional way out of Mammoth if there was some sort of disaster on the Long Valley Caldera. Apparently the name was changed because the business owners in Mammoth don't like being reminded...or more importantly probably would like the fact that the town is on top of a volcano to be on the down low.
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4257/35599488482_7a48172681_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/WeNFEb)IMG_1978 (https://flic.kr/p/WeNFEb) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
Despite what the advisory signs might say the climb to the Mammoth Ski Area and Madera County line is actually very tame which is odd for the Eastern Sierras. Hard to believe the elevation is so high, no wonder the idea of a state highway to Fresno was explored:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4264/35599430012_0048ea8519_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/WeNoh5)IMG_1979 (https://flic.kr/p/WeNoh5) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
CA 203 ends a mile or so east of the Madera County Line with Mammoth Mountain in view:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4064/35728225036_9b63cfc7ef_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/WrbuxW)IMG_1980 (https://flic.kr/p/WrbuxW) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4264/35728198236_62bd6883dd_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/WrbmzS)IMG_1986 (https://flic.kr/p/WrbmzS) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
Still a copious amount of snow on the mountains:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4065/35728203766_fcbe3c697a_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Wrboed)IMG_1984 (https://flic.kr/p/Wrboed) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
End of the line at the Mammoth Ski Area....they weren't even allowing traffic to Minerat Summit much less the Postpile:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4208/35599404872_9423b5b136_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/WeNfNC)IMG_1983 (https://flic.kr/p/WeNfNC) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
Which really sucks because there wasn't much of a crowd, usually the ski area is just a mob of people. Minerat Summit is worth a look but the Postpile is dicey if you have to ride the shuttle bus...I wouldn't recommend it personally. Thankfully I have pictures from last year of both:
https://flic.kr/s/aHskZsHyrK
The late summer of 1976, my parents and I rented a little condo for a couple of weeks up there.
Quote from: hm insulators on July 12, 2017, 12:43:30 PM
The late summer of 1976, my parents and I rented a little condo for a couple of weeks up there.
There are some great deals going on right now with the damage from the winter to Minaret Summit and Devils Postpile. Mammoth is a pretty jumping off point for Tioga Pass, Bodie, and the alpine lakes in the eastern Sierras.
Mammoth has historically priced its accommodations in line with its status as a recreational destination; it was always a bit pricey for simple overnight or "pass-through" use (Bishop facilities were invariably more reasonable). But looking at some of the deals you can get these days at the place (mostly online advance bookings) it appears that the cumulative fiscal effects from the '07-'11 recession plus the weather issues this year during what would have been their peak season have prompted management to consider offering a wider range of pricing structures -- particularly in the "off-season". Since much of Mammoth clientele is drawn from Southern California, they need a reasonably compelling reason in this day & age to schlep 250 miles for both winter sports and summer mountain recreation; deep discounts may well accomplish that. It'd be interesting to compare Mammoth rates with those of other Sierra resorts -- especially those more readily accessed from Bay Area or Sacramento -- to see if they've responded to the current environment in similar fashion.
Interestingly I think the trend has reversed with Bishop and Mammoth. The last couple years every overnight stay I've had in Bishop has been well over $100 dollars while Mammoth has been consistently below the $100 threshold. This time around I only paid $65 dollars for my room with tax, not bad for really what was just an overnight trip. Can't say I had much to complain about having something so close to Tioga and Bodie....I still prefer Bishop though simply because it is less of a tourist town and easier to get around.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 12, 2017, 10:55:08 PM
Interestingly I think the trend has reversed with Bishop and Mammoth. The last couple years every overnight stay I've had in Bishop has been well over $100 dollars while Mammoth has been consistently below the $100 threshold. This time around I only paid $65 dollars for my room with tax, not bad for really what was just an overnight trip. Can't say I had much to complain about having something so close to Tioga and Bodie....I still prefer Bishop though simply because it is less of a tourist town and easier to get around.
So room-rate inflation has hit Bishop as well! Haven't stayed there since 2001, so my conjecture is obviously dated. Won't have the opportunity to check it out for quite some time, as the only out-of-Northern-California trip planned is a quick (1 week or so) down-and-back to Hesperia in late September or early October, with a side trip via Glendale and Billy's Deli (my old hometown, so I'm a bit prejudiced -- but that place can give Canter's or Jerry's a run for their money!). If my schedule will allow, I might reacquaint myself with some of the more obscure highways & local roads in the "Orange Belt" on my return trip (possibly CA 216 and/or CA 201 may be on the agenda, along with parts of CA 63 -- or i may just "wing it"). Haven't done this sort of trip for the last 15 years or so (either business or health issues have intervened); it'll be good to get out there once again.
Quote from: sparker on July 13, 2017, 02:03:17 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 12, 2017, 10:55:08 PM
Interestingly I think the trend has reversed with Bishop and Mammoth. The last couple years every overnight stay I've had in Bishop has been well over $100 dollars while Mammoth has been consistently below the $100 threshold. This time around I only paid $65 dollars for my room with tax, not bad for really what was just an overnight trip. Can't say I had much to complain about having something so close to Tioga and Bodie....I still prefer Bishop though simply because it is less of a tourist town and easier to get around.
So room-rate inflation has hit Bishop as well! Haven't stayed there since 2001, so my conjecture is obviously dated. Won't have the opportunity to check it out for quite some time, as the only out-of-Northern-California trip planned is a quick (1 week or so) down-and-back to Hesperia in late September or early October, with a side trip via Glendale and Billy's Deli (my old hometown, so I'm a bit prejudiced -- but that place can give Canter's or Jerry's a run for their money!). If my schedule will allow, I might reacquaint myself with some of the more obscure highways & local roads in the "Orange Belt" on my return trip (possibly CA 216 and/or CA 201 may be on the agenda, along with parts of CA 63 -- or i may just "wing it"). Haven't done this sort of trip for the last 15 years or so (either business or health issues have intervened); it'll be good to get out there once again.
43 has seen a lot of recent upgrades with the roundabouts at Lacey Blvd in addition to CA 137. I published photos from Lacey but the 137 roundabout appears to be brand new and not quite complete. Outside of that 201, 216, 63, and 65 haven't seen much changes recently.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 13, 2017, 12:44:35 PM
43 has seen a lot of recent upgrades with the roundabouts at Lacey Blvd in addition to CA 137. I published photos from Lacey but the 137 roundabout appears to be brand new and not quite complete. Outside of that 201, 216, 63, and 65 haven't seen much changes recently.
Thanks much for the info -- I'll probably check out the 43/137 roundabout -- it should be done by late September. I've always liked taking 43 because of the proximity to the BNSF line (photo ops).
Quote from: sparker on July 13, 2017, 04:06:01 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 13, 2017, 12:44:35 PM
43 has seen a lot of recent upgrades with the roundabouts at Lacey Blvd in addition to CA 137. I published photos from Lacey but the 137 roundabout appears to be brand new and not quite complete. Outside of that 201, 216, 63, and 65 haven't seen much changes recently.
Thanks much for the info -- I'll probably check out the 43/137 roundabout -- it should be done by late September. I've always liked taking 43 because of the proximity to the BNSF line (photo ops).
Doesn't hurt you can skip a lot of the traffic on 99 to Fresno either. Usually I jump off at Avenue 56 and take that west to 43. 99 is six lanes north of 43 which make it way more tolerable. Compared to 65 there are way less people as well which makes it a more peaceful alternate.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 13, 2017, 09:27:09 PM
Quote from: sparker on July 13, 2017, 04:06:01 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 13, 2017, 12:44:35 PM
43 has seen a lot of recent upgrades with the roundabouts at Lacey Blvd in addition to CA 137. I published photos from Lacey but the 137 roundabout appears to be brand new and not quite complete. Outside of that 201, 216, 63, and 65 haven't seen much changes recently.
Thanks much for the info -- I'll probably check out the 43/137 roundabout -- it should be done by late September. I've always liked taking 43 because of the proximity to the BNSF line (photo ops).
Doesn't hurt you can skip a lot of the traffic on 99 to Fresno either. Usually I jump off at Avenue 56 and take that west to 43. 99 is six lanes north of 43 which make it way more tolerable. Compared to 65 there are way less people as well which makes it a more peaceful alternate.
At some point I'll need to shift back over to 99 to get to Bravo Farms in Traver, between Goshen and Kingsburg (have a standing cheese order from friends!). I'll probably access 43 down by Wasco, take it north to 137, then use 137/63/201 and local roads to get to Traver. I'll miss the other roundabouts on 43 north of 198, but will save that for another day.
I don't know how accurate that "END" shield is. There is also an "END" shield on CA-198 well before the entrance gate to the national parks, yet that segment is still maintained by the state. Seems CA-203 ending at the county line is still the legal definition, despite the shield saying otherwise.
Quote from: Quillz on July 31, 2017, 07:46:25 PM
I don't know how accurate that "END" shield is. There is also an "END" shield on CA-198 well before the entrance gate to the national parks, yet that segment is still maintained by the state. Seems CA-203 ending at the county line is still the legal definition, despite the shield saying otherwise.
Actually 198 is right on the Sequoia National Park boundary line. There is even a new shield and end placard this year. If you go to the Generala Highway thread I believe it is the second picture on the road blog I did.
Tricky thing was I don't recall seeing any mileage markers past that end sign for 203. But then again I wasn't really looking for them either past the shield. I'll check some recent state highway maps when I get home to see if there is a gap to The Madera County line.
Edit: Most of the maps I have are too zoomed out to get an accurate depiction if CA 203 ends at the Madera County line or just east of it. Since the eastern terminus of CA 198 became topical here are some pictures of the new signage that was put up this year:
CA 198 Truck End at the Salt Creek Bridge:
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3846/33727020982_4c73e471dd_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/TokNiL)198CAendTb (https://flic.kr/p/TokNiL) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
And the new CA 198 END signage at the boundary line to Sequoia National Park that was put up this year:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4300/35874144170_6d6d53c7de_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/WE5ne5)198CAEndA (https://flic.kr/p/WE5ne5) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
So I might be suffering from a Mandela effect here. I know that at one point, there was a proposal to bring CA-203 over the Sierra by following the San Joaquin River. Thing is, I can't find a map of this. I'm sure I've seen one in the past. I've found several articles about this planned trans-Sierra highway, but most just discuss why it wasn't built. If you trace the general course of the river from Devils Postpile, you can see a potential route eventually ending at CA-168 near Huntington Lake. But I can't find this map... Did it ever exist? Maybe it's just something I drew myself.
If anyone has a map showing this proposed routing, can you share it?
EDIT: Okay, I actually found a sketch on this message board. By me. I guess I did it some years ago and totally forgot. Seems to confirm that there wasn't even an actual proposal on a map, so the idea didn't get very far then.
Quote from: Quillz on September 30, 2022, 05:26:07 PM
So I might be suffering from a Mandela effect here. I know that at one point, there was a proposal to bring CA-203 over the Sierra by following the San Joaquin River. Thing is, I can't find a map of this. I'm sure I've seen one in the past. I've found several articles about this planned trans-Sierra highway, but most just discuss why it wasn't built. If you trace the general course of the river from Devils Postpile, you can see a potential route eventually ending at CA-168 near Huntington Lake. But I can't find this map... Did it ever exist? Maybe it's just something I drew myself.
If anyone has a map showing this proposed routing, can you share it?
I don't think it ever got that far. It would have popped out around what is now Sierra National Forest Route 81/Mammoth Pool Road.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 30, 2022, 05:27:55 PM
Quote from: Quillz on September 30, 2022, 05:26:07 PM
So I might be suffering from a Mandela effect here. I know that at one point, there was a proposal to bring CA-203 over the Sierra by following the San Joaquin River. Thing is, I can't find a map of this. I'm sure I've seen one in the past. I've found several articles about this planned trans-Sierra highway, but most just discuss why it wasn't built. If you trace the general course of the river from Devils Postpile, you can see a potential route eventually ending at CA-168 near Huntington Lake. But I can't find this map... Did it ever exist? Maybe it's just something I drew myself.
If anyone has a map showing this proposed routing, can you share it?
I don't think it ever got that far. It would have popped out around what is now Sierra National Forest Route 81/Mammoth Pool Road.
Yes... I edited my post. What happened was some years ago, I actually did a little mock-up on Google Maps that followed the course of the river. I was re-reading on the proposal last night and realized I couldn't find a map when I was sure I had seen one. Turns out I was remembering my own Google Maps mock-up.
Quote from: Quillz on September 30, 2022, 05:30:03 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 30, 2022, 05:27:55 PM
Quote from: Quillz on September 30, 2022, 05:26:07 PM
So I might be suffering from a Mandela effect here. I know that at one point, there was a proposal to bring CA-203 over the Sierra by following the San Joaquin River. Thing is, I can't find a map of this. I'm sure I've seen one in the past. I've found several articles about this planned trans-Sierra highway, but most just discuss why it wasn't built. If you trace the general course of the river from Devils Postpile, you can see a potential route eventually ending at CA-168 near Huntington Lake. But I can't find this map... Did it ever exist? Maybe it's just something I drew myself.
If anyone has a map showing this proposed routing, can you share it?
I don't think it ever got that far. It would have popped out around what is now Sierra National Forest Route 81/Mammoth Pool Road.
Yes... I edited my post. What happened was some years ago, I actually did a little mock-up on Google Maps that followed the course of the river. I was re-reading on the proposal last night and realized I couldn't find a map when I was sure I had seen one. Turns out I was remembering my own Google Maps mock-up.
Part of me wonders that if the Forest Service has just extended Mammoth Pool Road would have anyone actually cared enough to object? Somehow I don't think so given how very few people realize Sherman Pass Road exists.
I can confirm that CA 203 goes all the way to the Madera County line. The END shield you saw is a turnable sign for winter maintenance. Mammoth mountain takes over maintenance from that sign to main lodge during the winter months and Caltrans maintains it the rest of the year. I work for Caltrans District 9
Quote from: Inyomono395 on October 01, 2022, 12:45:23 AM
I can confirm that CA 203 goes all the way to the Madera County line. The END shield you saw is a turnable sign for winter maintenance. Mammoth mountain takes over maintenance from that sign to main lodge during the winter months and Caltrans maintains it the rest of the year. I work for Caltrans District 9
It's "turned" 90 degrees in the current Google Street View.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 30, 2022, 05:32:59 PM
Part of me wonders that if the Forest Service has just extended Mammoth Pool Road would have anyone actually cared enough to object? Somehow I don't think so given how very few people realize Sherman Pass Road exists.
Enviro activists will always object, and the existence of the Ansel Adams Wilderness means they will win.
Quote from: pderocco on October 02, 2022, 06:15:09 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 30, 2022, 05:32:59 PM
Part of me wonders that if the Forest Service has just extended Mammoth Pool Road would have anyone actually cared enough to object? Somehow I don't think so given how very few people realize Sherman Pass Road exists.
Enviro activists will always object, and the existence of the Ansel Adams Wilderness means they will win.
Seemingly they never objected to Sherman Pass, the question is why? My theory is that the Forest Service isn't viewed as the same Evil Empire that the DOH was by the late 1960s/early 1970s environmental groups.
All the same, the Ansel Adams Wilderness could always be rescinded if there was enough momentum to do so. Considering what has happened elsewhere with stuff like National Monument designations this past decade I'm always skeptical when someone claims something is forever permanent. Likely to happen though?...of course not.
Last Friday I made a trip up to the Caltrans Library in Sacramento to have a look at the proposed Minaret Summit Highway in the Route 203 file. I can confirm that the corridor was for a brief time proposed as part of Interstate 70. I made an update to the blog attached to this thread incorporating everything I scanned.
https://www.gribblenation.org/2017/07/california-state-203-road-that-could.html
I really wish the Minaret Summit Highway was built, it would be so beautiful to pass by Balloon Dome (barely can see it from any perspectives now) and turn the corner with the Ritter Range in full view to your west as you go up to Minaret Summit. It would also be very interestingly one of the lower southern Sierra passes (lower than both Tioga and Sonora). I love hiking around Mammoth though, so I do feel like the highway would have ruined a bit of that if built as intended (not I-70 though, that's a bit insane).
That's the interesting part to this. I knew there was conventional highway concepts for quite awhile. I didn't realize until recently that this was part of the westward expansion of I-70. Pretty much nothing I've ever read suggested this was the case overtly until I had a look at the file in the Caltrans Library.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 26, 2024, 02:26:10 PMThat's the interesting part to this. I knew there was conventional highway concepts for quite awhile. I didn't realize until recently that this was part of the westward expansion of I-70. Pretty much nothing I've ever read suggested this was the case overtly until I had a look at the file in the Caltrans Library.
It almost sounds like it was a last ditch attempt to get a highway built after the Sierra Club got their way with stopping the traditional highway. I remember the Wikipedia article on it has something interesting that was the final nail in the coffin:
"Plans for a Trans-Sierra Highway connecting the Eastern Sierra and the San Joaquin Valley via Minaret Summit had been discussed since the early days of highway building.[3] The gap between Minaret Road, which runs northeast into the Sierra from North Fork, California, and the end of the Reds Meadow Road is less than 10 miles or 16 kilometres. An area southwest of Minaret Summit was not included in the Wilderness Act of 1964 in order to leave a corridor for this potential highway. While Governor of California, Ronald Reagan made a horse packing trip into the area. Afterwards he supported conservationists' efforts to prevent this highway. Reagan continued his efforts after being elected President in 1980 and the area was eventually designated wilderness by the California Wilderness Act of 1984.[3] The Sierra Nevada escarpment is now a continuous Wilderness from Ball Mountain (near Inyokern) to Tioga Pass, a distance of about 150 miles (240 km)."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minaret_Summit
Thing is though, the concept for a freeway died a natural death before 1970. Even early conventional highway concepts had little support all the way back to the 1930s and even 1901. The environmental resistance to the project in this case sure seems a totally secondary factor to the simple fact that the state didn't want to adopt a highway beyond Minaret Summit. Calling this an environmental win after the fact just doesn't line up with how everything played out.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 26, 2024, 03:21:38 PMThing is though, the concept for a freeway died a natural death before 1970. Even early conventional highway concepts had little support all the way back to the 1930s and even 1901. The environmental resistance to the project in this case sure seems a totally secondary factor to the simple fact that the state didn't want to adopt a highway beyond Minaret Summit. Calling this an environmental win after the fact just doesn't line up with how everything played out.
it is a shame though, considering the route goes down to 7,000 feet very quickly after Minaret Summit and from the looks of the terrain wouldn't need to go back up much over 8,000, once it gets past the Ritter Range, I'd think snow removal wouldn't be a very bad issue.
Yeah, from everything I have seen about Minaret, it really came down to "it would cost too much to build or maintain." With as much trouble as Caltrans has keeping Donner open, this would be over 2,000 feet higher with a substantial length of road over 6-7,000 feet. US 395 in the area routinely closes for extended periods in the winter. Sure, it would make it easier to get to the east slope, but anything over 8,000 in the Sierra is going to have major reliability issues.
And a freeway along the US 6 corridor in Nevada? That makes less sense than the proposals to build one along US 50. Even if another Sierra crossing is involved, there's just too much nothing in there. It would easily be the most remote stretch of the Interstate system outside of Alaska.
Quote from: Voyager on March 26, 2024, 03:35:50 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on March 26, 2024, 03:21:38 PMThing is though, the concept for a freeway died a natural death before 1970. Even early conventional highway concepts had little support all the way back to the 1930s and even 1901. The environmental resistance to the project in this case sure seems a totally secondary factor to the simple fact that the state didn't want to adopt a highway beyond Minaret Summit. Calling this an environmental win after the fact just doesn't line up with how everything played out.
it is a shame though, considering the route goes down to 7,000 feet very quickly after Minaret Summit and from the looks of the terrain wouldn't need to go back up much over 8,000, once it gets past the Ritter Range, I'd think snow removal wouldn't be a very bad issue.
You'd be surprised. Again, look at the snow and drifting issues along 395. It would be another Snow Chi Minh Trail, except with much higher volumes of snow.
Quote from: cl94 on March 26, 2024, 03:42:59 PMYeah, from everything I have seen about Minaret, it really came down to "it would cost too much to build or maintain." With as much trouble as Caltrans has keeping Donner open, this would be over 2,000 feet higher with a substantial length of road over 6-7,000 feet. US 395 in the area routinely closes for extended periods in the winter. Sure, it would make it easier to get to the east slope, but anything over 8,000 in the Sierra is going to have major reliability issues.
And a freeway along the US 6 corridor in Nevada? That makes less sense than the proposals to build one along US 50. Even if another Sierra crossing is involved, there's just too much nothing in there. It would easily be the most remote stretch of the Interstate system outside of Alaska.
Quote from: Voyager on March 26, 2024, 03:35:50 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on March 26, 2024, 03:21:38 PMThing is though, the concept for a freeway died a natural death before 1970. Even early conventional highway concepts had little support all the way back to the 1930s and even 1901. The environmental resistance to the project in this case sure seems a totally secondary factor to the simple fact that the state didn't want to adopt a highway beyond Minaret Summit. Calling this an environmental win after the fact just doesn't line up with how everything played out.
it is a shame though, considering the route goes down to 7,000 feet very quickly after Minaret Summit and from the looks of the terrain wouldn't need to go back up much over 8,000, once it gets past the Ritter Range, I'd think snow removal wouldn't be a very bad issue.
You'd be surprised. Again, look at the snow and drifting issues along 395. It would be another Snow Chi Minh Trail, except with much higher volumes of snow.
I doubt it would have remained a year round pass, but I do wonder how early in the season it would get plowed/opened if it had been built (Sonora usually opens early to mid-May and Tioga is around late May to early June).
It's really interesting to see the proposed alignment matched what I drew up some years ago. So I was pretty close with my guess. It also would have indirectly addressed the CA-168 gap, similar to how Sherman Pass Road unofficially makes CA-190 a trans-Sierra route.
However, my thoughts haven't really changed. Even ignoring all the environmental concerns, I'm just not sure what benefit you'd gain from this. It's not like it would be open any more often than the other trans-Sierra routes are. And then you're just dividing limited resources even further to keep it maintained. No doubt it would be pretty in the summer, but the only true benefit I can see is it would let people in the Bay Area reach Mammoth a bit easier. It wouldn't do much for SoCal, as most motorists utilize CA-14 and US-395.
I think this is another example of "we can do this, but should we do this?"
The "we can, but should we?" is why local governments generally preferred the Sonora Pass tunnel. That pass could realistically have a short-ish tunnel around 7,000 feet (base elevation on the east side) and, thanks to the canyons on both sides keeping things sheltered, it likely could have stayed open all year with little more expense than Echo or Donner. Such a tunnel would be far more useful than a high mountain road, especially because it would have connected to high-quality roads on both ends and made a good route across the mountains.
Quote from: cl94 on March 26, 2024, 05:44:56 PMThe "we can, but should we?" is why local governments generally preferred the Sonora Pass tunnel. That pass could realistically have a short-ish tunnel around 7,000 feet (base elevation on the east side) and, thanks to the canyons on both sides keeping things sheltered, it likely could have stayed open all year with little more expense than Echo or Donner. Such a tunnel would be far more useful than a high mountain road, especially because it would have connected to high-quality roads on both ends and made a good route across the mountains.
Does the tunnel plan explain why they seem to have tried building 108 to expressway/freeway standards all the way to Strawberry? I always wondered why they had an expressway to Pinecrest (not exactly a busy resort/ski area).
I can certainly see a purpose for a Forest Service Road connecting the end of Mammoth Pool Road to Minaret Summit (a surprisingly small gap). I would be lying if I didn't say my thought process wasn't influenced by the erratic on/off stance of Yosemite National Park requiring reservations for the Tioga Pass Road. To me a gravel grade would be just fine and would be in step with the great Sierra Vista Scenic Byway.
Regarding Sonora Pass I think the intent was always to improve that whole corridor to an expressway. The tunnel concept seems to have never really advanced very far.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 26, 2024, 06:54:45 PMI can certainly see a purpose for a Forest Service Road connecting the end of Mammoth Pool Road to Minaret Summit (a surprisingly small gap). I would be lying if I didn't say my thought process wasn't influenced by the erratic on/off stance of Yosemite National Park requiring reservations for the Tioga Pass Road. To me a gravel grade would be just fine and would be in step with the great Sierra Vista Scenic Byway.
Regarding Sonora Pass I think the intent was always to improve that whole corridor to an expressway. The tunnel concept seems to have never really advanced very far.
I read that it's only about a 5-8 mile gap between the end of the furthest forest service road branch in that area to Reds Meadow Road at its end?
Quote from: Voyager on March 26, 2024, 07:25:22 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on March 26, 2024, 06:54:45 PMI can certainly see a purpose for a Forest Service Road connecting the end of Mammoth Pool Road to Minaret Summit (a surprisingly small gap). I would be lying if I didn't say my thought process wasn't influenced by the erratic on/off stance of Yosemite National Park requiring reservations for the Tioga Pass Road. To me a gravel grade would be just fine and would be in step with the great Sierra Vista Scenic Byway.
Regarding Sonora Pass I think the intent was always to improve that whole corridor to an expressway. The tunnel concept seems to have never really advanced very far.
I read that it's only about a 5-8 mile gap between the end of the furthest forest service road branch in that area to Reds Meadow Road at its end?
Yes, it is literally that short as the bird flies now from Squaw Dome.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 26, 2024, 02:26:10 PMThat's the interesting part to this. I knew there was conventional highway concepts for quite awhile. I didn't realize until recently that this was part of the westward expansion of I-70. Pretty much nothing I've ever read suggested this was the case overtly until I had a look at the file in the Caltrans Library.
This is a very good find. Until now, I had only known there was a planned routing of westward extension of I-70 over the Sierra but could not locate documentation that conclusively demonstrates it was studied. And it rightfully got the "no build" treatment, which is wise considering the location ... tons of snowfall, ample scenery, and extensive mountains. Even if the grades were made gentler, the generous amount of snow that occurs annually at Mammoth would made this freeway very difficult to maintain in the winter. Until seeing the excerpts you had found, I was under the impression any routing of I-70 would be further north, perhaps along SR 88 or even US 50 (even though I had no proof of that from any formal study). Thank you for sharing!
Quote from: andy3175 on April 21, 2024, 10:27:05 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on March 26, 2024, 02:26:10 PMThat's the interesting part to this. I knew there was conventional highway concepts for quite awhile. I didn't realize until recently that this was part of the westward expansion of I-70. Pretty much nothing I've ever read suggested this was the case overtly until I had a look at the file in the Caltrans Library.
This is a very good find. Until now, I had only known there was a planned routing of westward extension of I-70 over the Sierra but could not locate documentation that conclusively demonstrates it was studied. And it rightfully got the "no build" treatment, which is wise considering the location ... tons of snowfall, ample scenery, and extensive mountains. Even if the grades were made gentler, the generous amount of snow that occurs annually at Mammoth would made this freeway very difficult to maintain in the winter. Until seeing the excerpts you had found, I was under the impression any routing of I-70 would be further north, perhaps along SR 88 or even US 50 (even though I had no proof of that from any formal study). Thank you for sharing!
US 50 was conceptually explored as part of the 1973 Federal Aid Highway Act. Adam will eventually have something on that for our page as he found a bunch of documents regarding it.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 21, 2024, 10:40:49 PMUS 50 was conceptually explored as part of the 1973 Federal Aid Highway Act. Adam will eventually have something on that for our page as he found a bunch of documents regarding it.
That's right! I had forgotten about that but had encountered the freeway proposal when I was researching Lake Tahoe-area roads. I'll look forward to the update on your site. I am glad you're taking the time to research these things, as I just don't have the time as I used to. Thanks.
This idea of a Sonora Pass Tunnel is one that I had never heard of. But if the idea was to build it at around 7000 feet, it looks to me like it would need to be over ten miles long, not seven. And this is four times longer than any other road tunnel in the country\. And most people would prefer to see the sights going over the mountains, not to spend ten minutes in claustrophobic darkness. Besides, it's too far north. Something closer to the middle of the vast uncrossable part of the Sierra Nevada would be more useful.
9 miles (the approximate distance required from the base on the east side) is totally feasible and was about the same length as the longest road tunnel that existed in the late 70s.
The biggest problem with anything further south is that any pass would be higher, any tunnel longer, and any tunnel would pass through a portion of the Sierra with far more tectonic and volcanic activity. A tunnel in the Mammoth area is not feasible because Mammoth Mountain itself and the surrounding region have high levels of volcanic activity. Something in the Kings Canyon area
may be feasible under modern standards, but the national park exists to stop construction of a road across the Sierra.
Quote from: andy3175 on April 21, 2024, 11:15:37 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on April 21, 2024, 10:40:49 PMUS 50 was conceptually explored as part of the 1973 Federal Aid Highway Act. Adam will eventually have something on that for our page as he found a bunch of documents regarding it.
That's right! I had forgotten about that but had encountered the freeway proposal when I was researching Lake Tahoe-area roads. I'll look forward to the update on your site. I am glad you're taking the time to research these things, as I just don't have the time as I used to. Thanks.
And by the time it was explored for federal funding, it was DOA because of Tahoe protections. California would have needed to get shovels in the ground by the mid-1960s to have any shot at getting it built.
(personal opinion emphasized)
Even the US 50 freeway alignment adoption included a tunnel through Echo Summit. Echo Summit and Sonora Pass at minimum were a considerable distance north of the Kern Canyon Fault (irony being that moved last week around Caliente-Bodfish Road).
Quote from: cl94 on April 22, 2024, 01:27:44 AM9 miles (the approximate distance required from the base on the east side) is totally feasible and was about the same length as the longest road tunnel that existed in the late 70s.
The biggest problem with anything further south is that any pass would be higher, any tunnel longer, and any tunnel would pass through a portion of the Sierra with far more tectonic and volcanic activity. A tunnel in the Mammoth area is not feasible because Mammoth Mountain itself and the surrounding region have high levels of volcanic activity. Something in the Kings Canyon area may be feasible under modern standards, but the national park exists to stop construction of a road across the Sierra.
Quote from: andy3175 on April 21, 2024, 11:15:37 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on April 21, 2024, 10:40:49 PMUS 50 was conceptually explored as part of the 1973 Federal Aid Highway Act. Adam will eventually have something on that for our page as he found a bunch of documents regarding it.
That's right! I had forgotten about that but had encountered the freeway proposal when I was researching Lake Tahoe-area roads. I'll look forward to the update on your site. I am glad you're taking the time to research these things, as I just don't have the time as I used to. Thanks.
And by the time it was explored for federal funding, it was DOA because of Tahoe protections. California would have needed to get shovels in the ground by the mid-1960s to have any shot at getting it built.
(personal opinion emphasized)
Another advantage of a 108/Sonora Pass tunnel alignment for an I-70 extension is that it would have lined up nicely with passing just south of Stockton (and the Port of) and then as an east/southeast entry to the Bay Area via the Altamont Pass/I-580/I-205/SR 120.
Quote from: cl94 on April 22, 2024, 01:27:44 AM9 miles (the approximate distance required from the base on the east side) is totally feasible and was about the same length as the longest road tunnel that existed in the late 70s.
What tunnel was that? Something in the Alps?
Quote from: pderocco on April 22, 2024, 08:50:13 PMWhat tunnel was that? Something in the Alps?
Arlberg and Gotthard are both from that period. Construction of both started in the early 70s, both opened late 70s-1980. Now, Europe is much more willing to build long tunnels than we are, but that length isn't a real problem.
Quote from: heynow415 on April 22, 2024, 12:38:08 PMQuote from: cl94 on April 22, 2024, 01:27:44 AM9 miles (the approximate distance required from the base on the east side) is totally feasible and was about the same length as the longest road tunnel that existed in the late 70s.
The biggest problem with anything further south is that any pass would be higher, any tunnel longer, and any tunnel would pass through a portion of the Sierra with far more tectonic and volcanic activity. A tunnel in the Mammoth area is not feasible because Mammoth Mountain itself and the surrounding region have high levels of volcanic activity. Something in the Kings Canyon area may be feasible under modern standards, but the national park exists to stop construction of a road across the Sierra.
Quote from: andy3175 on April 21, 2024, 11:15:37 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on April 21, 2024, 10:40:49 PMUS 50 was conceptually explored as part of the 1973 Federal Aid Highway Act. Adam will eventually have something on that for our page as he found a bunch of documents regarding it.
That's right! I had forgotten about that but had encountered the freeway proposal when I was researching Lake Tahoe-area roads. I'll look forward to the update on your site. I am glad you're taking the time to research these things, as I just don't have the time as I used to. Thanks.
And by the time it was explored for federal funding, it was DOA because of Tahoe protections. California would have needed to get shovels in the ground by the mid-1960s to have any shot at getting it built.
(personal opinion emphasized)
Another advantage of a 108/Sonora Pass tunnel alignment for an I-70 extension is that it would have lined up nicely with passing just south of Stockton (and the Port of) and then as an east/southeast entry to the Bay Area via the Altamont Pass/I-580/I-205/SR 120.
I always thought it was strange how 108/120 are basically freeways up to the Sonora area and then 108 has sections that keep going as random freeway and expressway in the mountains for it to just go straight into a windy road after Strawberry and Pinecrest Lake.
I believe both were intended to be freeway/expressway all the way to the crest of the Sierra Nevada range. Stuff like the freeway alignment which was intended to replace the Priest Grade were wild to read about in the CHPWs.
Quote from: Voyager on April 23, 2024, 04:31:09 PMQuote from: heynow415 on April 22, 2024, 12:38:08 PMAnother advantage of a 108/Sonora Pass tunnel alignment for an I-70 extension is that it would have lined up nicely with passing just south of Stockton (and the Port of) and then as an east/southeast entry to the Bay Area via the Altamont Pass/I-580/I-205/SR 120.
I always thought it was strange how 108/120 are basically freeways up to the Sonora area and then 108 has sections that keep going as random freeway and expressway in the mountains for it to just go straight into a windy road after Strawberry and Pinecrest Lake.
The Sonora "freeway" section is relatively new in the grand scheme of things but the three short expressway segments east of Knights Landing, through Twain Harte, and at Long Barn have been in place 50+ years. It is unfortunate that the notion of extending 120 east of 99 as a freeway to Oakdale is basically dead, though Escalon and Oakdale are probably rightly concerned that a freeway bypassing those communities would be a huge hit to them economically.
Four-laning 108(120) from the east end of the Knights Ferry segment to Yosemite Junction would seem like a relatively simple project given the ruralness and terrain; getting from the Junction through Jamestown to the Sonora segment would be a much bigger challenge. The section from the east end of the Sonora segment to the Twain Harte expressway is supposedly in the works. It's unlikely that the gap from Twain Harte to Long Barn would ever be built since trying to thread it through Mi-Wuk Village and other hamlets along the way, plus the terrain, is likely not justifiable from a cost, environmental, and constructability standpoint. And beyond Pinecrest it just isn't needed.
Quote from: heynow415 on April 24, 2024, 01:17:28 PMQuote from: Voyager on April 23, 2024, 04:31:09 PMQuote from: heynow415 on April 22, 2024, 12:38:08 PMAnother advantage of a 108/Sonora Pass tunnel alignment for an I-70 extension is that it would have lined up nicely with passing just south of Stockton (and the Port of) and then as an east/southeast entry to the Bay Area via the Altamont Pass/I-580/I-205/SR 120.
I always thought it was strange how 108/120 are basically freeways up to the Sonora area and then 108 has sections that keep going as random freeway and expressway in the mountains for it to just go straight into a windy road after Strawberry and Pinecrest Lake.
The Sonora "freeway" section is relatively new in the grand scheme of things but the three short expressway segments east of Knights Landing, through Twain Harte, and at Long Barn have been in place 50+ years. It is unfortunate that the notion of extending 120 east of 99 as a freeway to Oakdale is basically dead, though Escalon and Oakdale are probably rightly concerned that a freeway bypassing those communities would be a huge hit to them economically.
Four-laning 108(120) from the east end of the Knights Ferry segment to Yosemite Junction would seem like a relatively simple project given the ruralness and terrain; getting from the Junction through Jamestown to the Sonora segment would be a much bigger challenge. The section from the east end of the Sonora segment to the Twain Harte expressway is supposedly in the works. It's unlikely that the gap from Twain Harte to Long Barn would ever be built since trying to thread it through Mi-Wuk Village and other hamlets along the way, plus the terrain, is likely not justifiable from a cost, environmental, and constructability standpoint. And beyond Pinecrest it just isn't needed.
They are making 108/120 a freeway to Oakdale (eventually)
https://northcountycorridorphase1.com/project-overview/#:~:text=The%20ultimate%20North%20County%20Corridor,was%20segmented%20into%20four%20phases.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 23, 2024, 06:11:55 PMI believe both were intended to be freeway/expressway all the way to the crest of the Sierra Nevada range. Stuff like the freeway alignment which was intended to replace the Priest Grade were wild to read about in the CHPWs.
Have a link or photos of the Priest Grade plans? I figured that was what they were going for by the half completed Don
Pedro Reservoir overpass on 120.
Quote from: Voyager on April 24, 2024, 07:44:09 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on April 23, 2024, 06:11:55 PMI believe both were intended to be freeway/expressway all the way to the crest of the Sierra Nevada range. Stuff like the freeway alignment which was intended to replace the Priest Grade were wild to read about in the CHPWs.
Have a link or photos of the Priest Grade plans? I figured that was what they were going for by the half completed Don
Pedro Reservoir overpass on 120.
Photo 28:
https://www.gribblenation.org/2022/07/california-state-route-120new-priest.html?m=1
Quote from: Voyager on April 24, 2024, 07:42:59 PMQuote from: heynow415 on April 24, 2024, 01:17:28 PMQuote from: Voyager on April 23, 2024, 04:31:09 PMQuote from: heynow415 on April 22, 2024, 12:38:08 PMAnother advantage of a 108/Sonora Pass tunnel alignment for an I-70 extension is that it would have lined up nicely with passing just south of Stockton (and the Port of) and then as an east/southeast entry to the Bay Area via the Altamont Pass/I-580/I-205/SR 120.
I always thought it was strange how 108/120 are basically freeways up to the Sonora area and then 108 has sections that keep going as random freeway and expressway in the mountains for it to just go straight into a windy road after Strawberry and Pinecrest Lake.
The Sonora "freeway" section is relatively new in the grand scheme of things but the three short expressway segments east of Knights Landing, through Twain Harte, and at Long Barn have been in place 50+ years. It is unfortunate that the notion of extending 120 east of 99 as a freeway to Oakdale is basically dead, though Escalon and Oakdale are probably rightly concerned that a freeway bypassing those communities would be a huge hit to them economically.
Four-laning 108(120) from the east end of the Knights Ferry segment to Yosemite Junction would seem like a relatively simple project given the ruralness and terrain; getting from the Junction through Jamestown to the Sonora segment would be a much bigger challenge. The section from the east end of the Sonora segment to the Twain Harte expressway is supposedly in the works. It's unlikely that the gap from Twain Harte to Long Barn would ever be built since trying to thread it through Mi-Wuk Village and other hamlets along the way, plus the terrain, is likely not justifiable from a cost, environmental, and constructability standpoint. And beyond Pinecrest it just isn't needed.
They are making 108/120 a freeway to Oakdale (eventually)
https://northcountycorridorphase1.com/project-overview/#:~:text=The%20ultimate%20North%20County%20Corridor,was%20segmented%20into%20four%20phases.
That's not the original 120 project. 120 was supposed to continue directly east of the current 120 fwy/99 interchnage on a new alignment that would ultimately sweep around the north side of Oakdale. It's discussed extensively here: https://www.cahighways.org/ROUTE120.html . 108 to Modesto has its own issues so the North County project is certainly needed as well.