Headlines About California Highways - August 2018

[cahwyguy]

Hopefully, your summer has been going well. Mine has been filled with adding maps and visiting the Eastern Sierra of California -- where I've been adding more maps, this time to the county pages. Here are your headlines about California highways for August.

** Note the above: I've been adding maps to my County Sign Route pages. So far, I've done A1 - E21. Yes, I'm sitting in Tahoe on vacation adding maps. The life of a road geek.**

Here's the link to the headlines: https://cahighways.org/wordpress/?p=14631 . For the Route 14U lovers out there, I'll note there's a treat in the headlines.

As usual: Ready, set, discuss.

[TheStranger]

Thanks for the work in these posts as usual!  (reading the one about the Route 37 reroute proposal at the moment)

Did you catch the articles a few months ago about Interstate 280 being retained in SF north of 16th Street?  Let me see if I can find it...

https://www.potreroview.net/interstate-280-to-stay-intact-with-no-mission-bay-caltrain-station/ (I actually hadn't seen this one before)
https://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/New-simpler-plan-for-SF-s-downtown-rail-12855669.php

[theroadwayone]

About the CA-52 thing: There were plans to build the proposed reversible lanes in the median years ago, but they got cut due to budget issues. They're still in long-term plans, though. I read it off keepsandiegomoving.com.

[Max Rockatansky]

The Signed County Route Maps look great so far.

In regards to bypassing Prunedale my personal opinion is that widening CA 156 west of US 101 to CA 1 ought to be a much higher priority.  Yes, Prunedale US 101/CA 156 does get backed up and is a very dated section but it is far from the worst road in the immediate area.

CA 60 east of Moreno Valley ought to be a full freeway all the way to I-10.  That stretch is brutal with all the truck traffic rushing too/from Riverside.

Any priority on CA 140 east of CA 49 ought to be fixing the Furgusson Slide.  That's laughable that funding is going into repaving a section that isn't all that beat up when the Slide still stands with one-lane bridges.  At this point CA 140 ought to just be permanently rerouted north of the Furgusson Slide, I have serious doubts a rock shed will ever happen.

25 north of Hollister ought to be a four-lane expressway to US 101.  Creating a roundabout at two major trucking corridors like that is inviting problems that are worse than the current intersection.   Really the same argument could be said for CA 156 west to US 101...which ironically would make for a full four-lane expressway with what I said above.

[TheStranger]

CA 60 east of Moreno Valley ought to be a full freeway all the way to I-10.  That stretch is brutal with all the truck traffic rushing too/from Riverside.

I wonder if there were any plans (prior to this widening project that is about to commence) to upgrade the Badlands stretch of 60 in the past.  Obviously I-10 following the easier path along US 70/99 between Colton and Beaumont was designed to be the primary through corridor in the area, but that hasn't stopped 60 east of Riverside from being a major truck route all this time.

[theroadwayone]

CA 60 east of Moreno Valley ought to be a full freeway all the way to I-10.  That stretch is brutal with all the truck traffic rushing too/from Riverside.

I wonder if there were any plans (prior to this widening project that is about to commence) to upgrade the Badlands stretch of 60 in the past.  Obviously I-10 following the easier path along US 70/99 between Colton and Beaumont was designed to be the primary through corridor in the area, but that hasn't stopped 60 east of Riverside from being a major truck route all this time.

You'd think that truckers, knowing the nature of that stretch of the 60 would stay on the 10; but the 60 seems more direct.

[Max Rockatansky]

CA 60 east of Moreno Valley ought to be a full freeway all the way to I-10.  That stretch is brutal with all the truck traffic rushing too/from Riverside.

I wonder if there were any plans (prior to this widening project that is about to commence) to upgrade the Badlands stretch of 60 in the past.  Obviously I-10 following the easier path along US 70/99 between Colton and Beaumont was designed to be the primary through corridor in the area, but that hasn't stopped 60 east of Riverside from being a major truck route all this time.

You'd think that truckers, knowing the nature of that stretch of the 60 would stay on the 10; but the 60 seems more direct.

For what it's worth 60 seemed (at least when I was working in SoCal) to move far better westward to downtown Los Angeles than I-10.  I don't recall ever encountering a traffic jam in the Moreno Valley badlands on 60.  I would assume there has always been some sort of long term plan to have that segment of 60 upgraded to a proper freeway grade.

[kendancy66]

CA 60 east of Moreno Valley ought to be a full freeway all the way to I-10.  That stretch is brutal with all the truck traffic rushing too/from Riverside.

I wonder if there were any plans (prior to this widening project that is about to commence) to upgrade the Badlands stretch of 60 in the past.  Obviously I-10 following the easier path along US 70/99 between Colton and Beaumont was designed to be the primary through corridor in the area, but that hasn't stopped 60 east of Riverside from being a major truck route all this time.

You'd think that truckers, knowing the nature of that stretch of the 60 would stay on the 10; but the 60 seems more direct.

For what it's worth 60 seemed (at least when I was working in SoCal) to move far better westward to downtown Los Angeles than I-10.  I don't recall ever encountering a traffic jam in the Moreno Valley badlands on 60.  I would assume there has always been some sort of long term plan to have that segment of 60 upgraded to a proper freeway grade.

Currently, there is big housing development work on the left on CA-60 heading east, as you approach I-10.  That might get in the way of developing a freeway there.  Not sure what is gong to happen to the at-grade intersection there.

[mrsman]

CA 60 east of Moreno Valley ought to be a full freeway all the way to I-10.  That stretch is brutal with all the truck traffic rushing too/from Riverside.

I wonder if there were any plans (prior to this widening project that is about to commence) to upgrade the Badlands stretch of 60 in the past.  Obviously I-10 following the easier path along US 70/99 between Colton and Beaumont was designed to be the primary through corridor in the area, but that hasn't stopped 60 east of Riverside from being a major truck route all this time.

You'd think that truckers, knowing the nature of that stretch of the 60 would stay on the 10; but the 60 seems more direct.

For what it's worth 60 seemed (at least when I was working in SoCal) to move far better westward to downtown Los Angeles than I-10.  I don't recall ever encountering a traffic jam in the Moreno Valley badlands on 60.  I would assume there has always been some sort of long term plan to have that segment of 60 upgraded to a proper freeway grade.

The 60 also has less distance to LA.  For those heading to southern Downtown LA or Santa Monica, they should stay on the 60.  For those heading north and to the 101 take I-10.

Nexus 5X

[sparker]

Two things stand out as a bit questionable:  A roundabout at the 25/156 junction seems a bit gratuitous; the levels of commute traffic on CA 25 alone combined with the interregional stuff on CA 156 would make maneuvering through a roundabout a bit dicey at best and downright hazardous at worst.  Right now it's a channelized intersection with guarded left turns; yes, it does back up at peak commute times, but that is something that wouldn't be ameliorated with a roundabout unless the damn thing was a quarter-mile in diameter with enough distance between entrance/egress points for vehicles to maneuver safely -- somehow, I don't think it would be that big.  Slowing down traffic through there is hardly an issue (I was just through there Labor Day); until the major project to expand CA 25 is underway, including a full interchange with CA 156, dicking around with an admittedly interim roundabout seems pointless.

Second, replacing CA 37 with a parallel facility slightly inland and extending to I-80 through American Canyon seems to be a bit of a stretch; the wetlands extend to within a mile of the present CA 12/121 multiplex from Sonoma to Napa.  What I might suggest as an alternative is to simply abandon the jeopardized CA 37 alignment from Sears Point (37/121 junction) to Mare Island, and construct a freeway parallel to CA 121 and 12/121 all the way to somewhere around the present 12/29/121 junction SW of central Napa; and continue the freeway east on 12/29 and CA 12 through Jameson Canyon to I-80 (expanding upon recent widening of the latter route).  Reroute CA 29 off its current route via Vallejo streets and send it over the present CA 37 freeway north of Vallejo to I-80, where it would terminate where CA 37 does so now.  CA 121 would be truncated (SB) at Napa; the freeway over to Sonoma would be simply CA 12; CA 37 would take over the freeway alignment south to Sears Point and the remainder of CA 37 to US 101 in Novato.  Freeway construction would be on solid ground (a few Carneros-district wineries might be a bit pissed) and unaffected by rising bay waters.  And it would spare American Canyon a duplicative E-W corridor through its midst, as well as save Caltrans quite a few bucks.  The freeway would probably need to be 6 lanes from US 101 over to I-80 to handle the combined traffic; this would involve widening the CA 29 Napa River bridge structures.  Better than trying to "drain the swamp" to deploy a parallel facility which may exhibit the same problems as the current CA 37 alignment down the line.     

[Max Rockatansky]

Two things stand out as a bit questionable:  A roundabout at the 25/156 junction seems a bit gratuitous; the levels of commute traffic on CA 25 alone combined with the interregional stuff on CA 156 would make maneuvering through a roundabout a bit dicey at best and downright hazardous at worst.  Right now it's a channelized intersection with guarded left turns; yes, it does back up at peak commute times, but that is something that wouldn't be ameliorated with a roundabout unless the damn thing was a quarter-mile in diameter with enough distance between entrance/egress points for vehicles to maneuver safely -- somehow, I don't think it would be that big.  Slowing down traffic through there is hardly an issue (I was just through there Labor Day); until the major project to expand CA 25 is underway, including a full interchange with CA 156, dicking around with an admittedly interim roundabout seems pointless.   

The junction of CA 25/CA 156 is already four-lanes in all directions.  Anything less than a full expressway at this point with the traffic volume would be a waste of money.

[Interstate Trav]

CA 60 east of Moreno Valley ought to be a full freeway all the way to I-10.  That stretch is brutal with all the truck traffic rushing too/from Riverside.

I wonder if there were any plans (prior to this widening project that is about to commence) to upgrade the Badlands stretch of 60 in the past.  Obviously I-10 following the easier path along US 70/99 between Colton and Beaumont was designed to be the primary through corridor in the area, but that hasn't stopped 60 east of Riverside from being a major truck route all this time.

You'd think that truckers, knowing the nature of that stretch of the 60 would stay on the 10; but the 60 seems more direct.

For what it's worth 60 seemed (at least when I was working in SoCal) to move far better westward to downtown Los Angeles than I-10.  I don't recall ever encountering a traffic jam in the Moreno Valley badlands on 60.  I would assume there has always been some sort of long term plan to have that segment of 60 upgraded to a proper freeway grade.

The 60 also has less distance to LA.  For those heading to southern Downtown LA or Santa Monica, they should stay on the 60.  For those heading north and to the 101 take I-10.

Nexus 5X

There is plans to add a Truck climbing Lane along Eastbound I read online i think on the Riverside County Traffic websight.

I'm hoping they make it a full freeway as well, and with that new development they are making a new interchange on the 60 . 

[sparker]

CA 60 east of Moreno Valley ought to be a full freeway all the way to I-10.  That stretch is brutal with all the truck traffic rushing too/from Riverside.

I wonder if there were any plans (prior to this widening project that is about to commence) to upgrade the Badlands stretch of 60 in the past.  Obviously I-10 following the easier path along US 70/99 between Colton and Beaumont was designed to be the primary through corridor in the area, but that hasn't stopped 60 east of Riverside from being a major truck route all this time.

You'd think that truckers, knowing the nature of that stretch of the 60 would stay on the 10; but the 60 seems more direct.

For what it's worth 60 seemed (at least when I was working in SoCal) to move far better westward to downtown Los Angeles than I-10.  I don't recall ever encountering a traffic jam in the Moreno Valley badlands on 60.  I would assume there has always been some sort of long term plan to have that segment of 60 upgraded to a proper freeway grade.

The 60 also has less distance to LA.  For those heading to southern Downtown LA or Santa Monica, they should stay on the 60.  For those heading north and to the 101 take I-10.

Nexus 5X

There is plans to add a Truck climbing Lane along Eastbound I read online i think on the Riverside County Traffic websight.

I'm hoping they make it a full freeway as well, and with that new development they are making a new interchange on the 60 . 

It's not just widening; the curvature of the existing expressway would need a good deal of straightening to accommodate high volumes of commercial traffic at high (65+) speeds.  Having driven that road countless times, sharing it with big rigs isn't a pleasant experience.  It was built to follow the "badlands" topology of the immediate area and to get CA 60 from the eastern edge of Moreno Valley over to the San Timoteo Canyon/Beaumont area by slicing diagonally across the ridgeline, which has yielded the existing alignment.  This is a project that -- to do it right -- would require "straightlining" much of the curvature while carving out a path at least wide enough to accommodate 6 lanes (plus a climbing lane each direction).  And yes -- there is sufficient traffic, particularly of the commercial variety, to warrant such construction. 

[Interstate Trav]

CA 60 east of Moreno Valley ought to be a full freeway all the way to I-10.  That stretch is brutal with all the truck traffic rushing too/from Riverside.

I wonder if there were any plans (prior to this widening project that is about to commence) to upgrade the Badlands stretch of 60 in the past.  Obviously I-10 following the easier path along US 70/99 between Colton and Beaumont was designed to be the primary through corridor in the area, but that hasn't stopped 60 east of Riverside from being a major truck route all this time.

You'd think that truckers, knowing the nature of that stretch of the 60 would stay on the 10; but the 60 seems more direct.

For what it's worth 60 seemed (at least when I was working in SoCal) to move far better westward to downtown Los Angeles than I-10.  I don't recall ever encountering a traffic jam in the Moreno Valley badlands on 60.  I would assume there has always been some sort of long term plan to have that segment of 60 upgraded to a proper freeway grade.

The 60 also has less distance to LA.  For those heading to southern Downtown LA or Santa Monica, they should stay on the 60.  For those heading north and to the 101 take I-10.

Nexus 5X

There is plans to add a Truck climbing Lane along Eastbound I read online i think on the Riverside County Traffic websight.

I'm hoping they make it a full freeway as well, and with that new development they are making a new interchange on the 60 . 

It's not just widening; the curvature of the existing expressway would need a good deal of straightening to accommodate high volumes of commercial traffic at high (65+) speeds.  Having driven that road countless times, sharing it with big rigs isn't a pleasant experience.  It was built to follow the "badlands" topology of the immediate area and to get CA 60 from the eastern edge of Moreno Valley over to the San Timoteo Canyon/Beaumont area by slicing diagonally across the ridgeline, which has yielded the existing alignment.  This is a project that -- to do it right -- would require "straightlining" much of the curvature while carving out a path at least wide enough to accommodate 6 lanes (plus a climbing lane each direction).  And yes -- there is sufficient traffic, particularly of the commercial variety, to warrant such construction. 

I actually live only 41 miles east of the 60-10 jct in Beaumont and have driven it more times then I can remember.
I do agree with widening it, making it straighter.  I honestly avoid the 60 when I can because of the way people drive through there, and the turns are tight and semis don't for the most part drive very safely.  That pass might have been ok for the 1960's but for today needs to be re worked. 

I completely agree with making it 6 lanes each way plus a truck lane east bound.  The freeway does get a lot of traffic.  I prefer the 10 in Calimesa because it is wider and no sharp curves.

[skluth]

CA 60 east of Moreno Valley ought to be a full freeway all the way to I-10.  That stretch is brutal with all the truck traffic rushing too/from Riverside.

I wonder if there were any plans (prior to this widening project that is about to commence) to upgrade the Badlands stretch of 60 in the past.  Obviously I-10 following the easier path along US 70/99 between Colton and Beaumont was designed to be the primary through corridor in the area, but that hasn't stopped 60 east of Riverside from being a major truck route all this time.

You'd think that truckers, knowing the nature of that stretch of the 60 would stay on the 10; but the 60 seems more direct.

For what it's worth 60 seemed (at least when I was working in SoCal) to move far better westward to downtown Los Angeles than I-10.  I don't recall ever encountering a traffic jam in the Moreno Valley badlands on 60.  I would assume there has always been some sort of long term plan to have that segment of 60 upgraded to a proper freeway grade.

The 60 also has less distance to LA.  For those heading to southern Downtown LA or Santa Monica, they should stay on the 60.  For those heading north and to the 101 take I-10.

Nexus 5X

There is plans to add a Truck climbing Lane along Eastbound I read online i think on the Riverside County Traffic websight.

I'm hoping they make it a full freeway as well, and with that new development they are making a new interchange on the 60 . 

It's not just widening; the curvature of the existing expressway would need a good deal of straightening to accommodate high volumes of commercial traffic at high (65+) speeds.  Having driven that road countless times, sharing it with big rigs isn't a pleasant experience.  It was built to follow the "badlands" topology of the immediate area and to get CA 60 from the eastern edge of Moreno Valley over to the San Timoteo Canyon/Beaumont area by slicing diagonally across the ridgeline, which has yielded the existing alignment.  This is a project that -- to do it right -- would require "straightlining" much of the curvature while carving out a path at least wide enough to accommodate 6 lanes (plus a climbing lane each direction).  And yes -- there is sufficient traffic, particularly of the commercial variety, to warrant such construction. 

I actually live only 41 miles east of the 60-10 jct in Beaumont and have driven it more times then I can remember.
I do agree with widening it, making it straighter.  I honestly avoid the 60 when I can because of the way people drive through there, and the turns are tight and semis don't for the most part drive very safely.  That pass might have been ok for the 1960's but for today needs to be re worked. 

I completely agree with making it 6 lanes each way plus a truck lane east bound.  The freeway does get a lot of traffic.  I prefer the 10 in Calimesa because it is wider and no sharp curves.

I just moved to the area (Palm Springs), but I concur with everything you've said. I'm not normally a fan of expanding roads in environmentally sensitive areas, but after driving through the CA-60 Badlands I have to say it's desperately in need of upgrading. It's dangerous, with a high accident rate in both directions; the downhill to Moreno Valley has a higher rate due to cars losing control and it's easy to see why. I've already been stuck behind a truck going about 45 in the left lane heading home; I'm sure it's a fairly frequent problem for drivers. It needs three lanes each way with no trucks or trailers of any type in the left lane both ways.

[Occidental Tourist]

I'm old enough to remember when the 60 through the badlands had no center divider.  Although the road was much less traveled, the accidents were much worse.

[sparker]

I'm old enough to remember when the 60 through the badlands had no center divider.  Although the road was much less traveled, the accidents were much worse.

I do remember that configuration back in my UCR days in the late '60's and early '70's; IIRC, it was double-double painted lines (similar to US 101 through the redwoods).  It eventually got a thrie-beam divider somewhere around 1979-80, later upgraded to the current K-rail.  That certainly lessened the rate of horrific head-ons -- but the retention of most of the original curvature meant that the overall accident rate was hardly ameliorated.  And now that the Beaumont area is seeing exceptionally rapid housing development within a couple of miles of the 10/60 junction, that situation is going to deteriorate until something major is done to that section of CA 60.     

[djsekani]

There are also more warehouse/logistics facilities being built out near the east end of Moreno Valley, so I wouldn't expect the semi-truck situation to improve anytime soon if nothing is done to the 60.

There are far more shipping facilities located along CA-60 than I-10 east of Los Angeles, and as a result the 60 gets roughly double the truck traffic. At any given time during the day, the right two lanes will probably be nothing but semis.

[sparker]

There are also more warehouse/logistics facilities being built out near the east end of Moreno Valley, so I wouldn't expect the semi-truck situation to improve anytime soon if nothing is done to the 60.

There are far more shipping facilities located along CA-60 than I-10 east of Los Angeles, and as a result the 60 gets roughly double the truck traffic. At any given time during the day, the right two lanes will probably be nothing but semis.

Absolutely correct; CA 60, I-710, and I-605 essentially function as "conveyor belts" for traffic from the ports of L.A. and Long Beach to the warehouses in the City of Industry, dominated, of course, by merchandise from China and Korea.  And in the last several years that function has extended east to Montclair, Chino, and Ontario, with CA 60 being the major arterial for that traffic.  Except for the slight break afforded by Chino Hills, the "warehouse district" starts at I-605 and extends east well past I-15 to Mira Loma -- and more facilities are added each ensuing year.  Parallel I-10 also features high truck volumes -- but most of that is through stuff looking to get to Cajon or Beaumont passes; warehouses on that freeway start near Ontario and extend east all the way into Redlands.  Nevertheless, truck traffic on CA 60 heading east toward Phoenix tends to stay on CA 60 all the way out to Beaumont -- primarily because I-10 is considerably more congested during weekdays between I-15 and I-215, mainly because of the commercial destinations along I-10 in the Fontana & Rialto areas.     

[TheStranger]

Something that just occurred to me:  Based on the route history maps of US 466 that Max recently posted...is the northern half of today's Route 229 going through the town of Creston a portion of former 466 (before 466 was moved to the modern Route 46 alignment between US 101 in Paso Robles and Route 41 in Shandon)?

1938/1956 map of US 466 from Max:


Route 229 map from Cahighways:

[Max Rockatansky]

Something that just occurred to me:  Based on the route history maps of US 466 that Max recently posted...is the northern half of today's Route 229 going through the town of Creston a portion of former 466 (before 466 was moved to the modern Route 46 alignment between US 101 in Paso Robles and Route 41 in Shandon)?

1938/1956 map of US 466 from Max:


Route 229 map from Cahighways:

Yes it is, it's also the boundary for where the one-lane section of 229 begins.  Crazy to think of US 466 barreling down a dirt road but it was once true. 

[TheStranger]

Something that just occurred to me:  Based on the route history maps of US 466 that Max recently posted...is the northern half of today's Route 229 going through the town of Creston a portion of former 466 (before 466 was moved to the modern Route 46 alignment between US 101 in Paso Robles and Route 41 in Shandon)?

Yes it is, it's also the boundary for where the one-lane section of 229 begins.  Crazy to think of US 466 barreling down a dirt road but it was once true. 

Ooh!

This leads to some interesting observations via Google Maps:

- looks like Little Farm Road is the old 466 northeast of Creston, judging from the treeline/property divide that leaves a space for possible former right of way (where modern Route 41 then continues westward)
https://www.google.com/maps/place/CA-41+%26+Little+Farm+Rd,+California+93446/@35.5364554,-120.5114043,478m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x80ecbfe6774b4661:0x2b8b44ae9472ab3!8m2!3d35.5364531!4d-120.5102397

- At Little Farm and La Panza Roads, the paved section of Little Farm ends and a very narrow old road meanders southwest to Route 229 at the north edge of Creston.  This correlates with the bend in the US 466 routing past Creston in the 1938 and 1956 maps that doesn't exist on what would be Route 229 in the 1963 map:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Little+Farm+Rd+%26+La+Panza+Rd,+California+93446/@35.5257001,-120.5238285,2509m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x80ecbfe261f43557:0xdff4bb55a5032938!8m2!3d35.528401!4d-120.513443

[Max Rockatansky]

Something that just occurred to me:  Based on the route history maps of US 466 that Max recently posted...is the northern half of today's Route 229 going through the town of Creston a portion of former 466 (before 466 was moved to the modern Route 46 alignment between US 101 in Paso Robles and Route 41 in Shandon)?

Yes it is, it's also the boundary for where the one-lane section of 229 begins.  Crazy to think of US 466 barreling down a dirt road but it was once true. 

Ooh!

This leads to some interesting observations via Google Maps:

- looks like Little Farm Road is the old 466 northeast of Creston, judging from the treeline/property divide that leaves a space for possible former right of way (where modern Route 41 then continues westward)
https://www.google.com/maps/place/CA-41+%26+Little+Farm+Rd,+California+93446/@35.5364554,-120.5114043,478m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x80ecbfe6774b4661:0x2b8b44ae9472ab3!8m2!3d35.5364531!4d-120.5102397

- At Little Farm and La Panza Roads, the paved section of Little Farm ends and a very narrow old road meanders southwest to Route 229 at the north edge of Creston.  This correlates with the bend in the US 466 routing past Creston in the 1938 and 1956 maps that doesn't exist on what would be Route 229 in the 1963 map:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Little+Farm+Rd+%26+La+Panza+Rd,+California+93446/@35.5257001,-120.5238285,2509m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x80ecbfe261f43557:0xdff4bb55a5032938!8m2!3d35.528401!4d-120.513443

Here's a Street View of where the old 466 alignment and modern 229 meet up, with some evidence of pavement/property line curvature that was mostly removed when 229 was built as a direct shot north from here to 41:
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.522652,-120.5228273,3a,60y,84.66h,91.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1syNuE6LO4cIqqzZ1JoD4ltQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

All adds up if you pull up a map of the area on historicaerials and pull the 1956 image.  There is even a US 466 shield posted, the route 41 currently takes wasn't built yet.  West of Creston US 466 followed Rocky Canyon Road which is partially abandoned.  It looks like US 466 enters Atascadero over the Salinas River on Acadia Road and Sycamore Road. 

[TheStranger]

Something that just occurred to me:  Based on the route history maps of US 466 that Max recently posted...is the northern half of today's Route 229 going through the town of Creston a portion of former 466 (before 466 was moved to the modern Route 46 alignment between US 101 in Paso Robles and Route 41 in Shandon)?

Yes it is, it's also the boundary for where the one-lane section of 229 begins.  Crazy to think of US 466 barreling down a dirt road but it was once true. 

Ooh!

This leads to some interesting observations via Google Maps:

- looks like Little Farm Road is the old 466 northeast of Creston, judging from the treeline/property divide that leaves a space for possible former right of way (where modern Route 41 then continues westward)
https://www.google.com/maps/place/CA-41+%26+Little+Farm+Rd,+California+93446/@35.5364554,-120.5114043,478m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x80ecbfe6774b4661:0x2b8b44ae9472ab3!8m2!3d35.5364531!4d-120.5102397

- At Little Farm and La Panza Roads, the paved section of Little Farm ends and a very narrow old road meanders southwest to Route 229 at the north edge of Creston.  This correlates with the bend in the US 466 routing past Creston in the 1938 and 1956 maps that doesn't exist on what would be Route 229 in the 1963 map:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Little+Farm+Rd+%26+La+Panza+Rd,+California+93446/@35.5257001,-120.5238285,2509m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x80ecbfe261f43557:0xdff4bb55a5032938!8m2!3d35.528401!4d-120.513443

Here's a Street View of where the old 466 alignment and modern 229 meet up, with some evidence of pavement/property line curvature that was mostly removed when 229 was built as a direct shot north from here to 41:
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.522652,-120.5228273,3a,60y,84.66h,91.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1syNuE6LO4cIqqzZ1JoD4ltQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

All adds up if you pull up a map of the area on historicaerials and pull the 1956 image.  There is even a US 466 shield posted, the route 41 currently takes wasn't built yet.  West of Creston US 466 followed Rocky Canyon Road which is partially abandoned.  It looks like US 466 enters Atascadero over the Salinas River on Acadia Road and Sycamore Road. 

A correction on my earlier note:

I had presumed that the dirt road Little Farm Road follows southwest of La Panza was the 466 alignment, but the 1956 map on HistoricAerials actually shows a slightly different routing:

from Little Farm Road (called "Shandon Road" in 1956) and La Panza Road junction, 466 then went northwest on La Panza before an abandoned stretch of road that connects it westward to today's 229.  It is pretty visible on Google Maps:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Creston,+CA+93432/@35.5298862,-120.5210968,479m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x80ec9551c5dda985:0xc7fa4ea9c77fbd03!8m2!3d35.5188572!4d-120.5236187

This is where that abandoned section of 466 meets up with 229:
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.5290468,-120.5219632,3a,60y,58.27h,75.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1so8ain49pL9v62pv_rOeBmw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

It no longer connects to La Panza as I think there was either a small bridge or fording of a creek at the point where La Panza now continues northwest towards Route 41.


Here is La Panza looking west towards the abandoned US 466 alignment:
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.5303859,-120.5181002,3a,60y,282.39h,88.05t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqpyPhOW90dq9rxNkUtS_8g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

The 1943 HistoricAerials topographic map has a US 466 shield on modern-day Route 41 right where it meets Camp 8 Road.


---

As for Sycamore Road and Acacia Road, I do see the part of Acacia where the alignment just peters out in one of those dead-ends that hints at a former crossing.  The HistoricAerials 1954 topographic map shows that alignment as well (and Google Maps street view has a good look at where Acacia once crossed the river).  From that map, 466 followed Capistrano Avenue and West Mall to then-US 101/El Camino Real, at the Sunken Gardens park and past city hall. (East Mall used to extend further up towards Capistrano Avenue but was subsumed by the Atascadero Junior High School sometime after the 1950s; not sure if it was ever part of 466)

[Max Rockatansky]

^^^

Now you know what I'm in for with Part 3 or 4 of the US 466 Legacy Series.  Drawing historic alignment maps for the Creston/Atascadero area is going to be time consuming.