Olancha-Cartago 4-Lane Project

[oscar]

I will give one caveat tho: The "State Route 190 Connector" just opened, per https://dot.ca.gov/caltrans-near-me/district-9/district-9-news/2024_12_19-sr-190-connector-opens . I haven't seen a map showing where this connector is. Neither Google maps nor AAmaps show it. It is possible this connector will be used to replace that small segment of old US 395. But, again, there hasn't been anything in the CTC agendas about this connector. Potentially there is more information here.

OpenStreetMap (the primary online map used by Travel Mapping in the U.S.) shows the location of the new connector at the west end of CA 190. That matches what I saw when I traveled the new US 395 alignment in late October, where a partially-covered CA 190 marker pointed to an unopened new road.

That doesn't mean the short disconnected old US 395 segment south of N. Haiwee Rd. won't eventually be restored as the primary connector between US 395 and old US 395/CA 190.

[pderocco]

Yes, I was responding to Oscar's comment in #64, which is about a short stretch of now unusable divided highway.

I tend to use Google Earth for pretty much everything except traffic, which it doesn't show, Street View, which is horribly buggy and has no historical imagery, and those rare occasions where I really only want to see a map. For everything else, GE is much more useful, IMHO.

[lstone19]

I think pderocco is talking about abandoning the short section south from Haiwee Rd to where the old and new roads converge. Google Earth has 11/28/2024 imagery and the new 190 connector from near Haiwee Rd on the old 395 to the new 395 is very obvious.

I'm not seeing anything on Google Maps. I don't normally use Google Earth; looking at https://earth.google.com/ , I see what could be a road under construction .

I just compared and the imagery at https://earth.google.com/ is 14 months older (9/2023) than what the Google Earth app has (11/2024) and that "what could be a road under construction" has turned into a real road complete with pavement markings for much of its length (still some work being done). And in the same imagery, demolition of the old 395 south of "what could be a road under construction" is well underway with the old southbound lanes mostly gone and work started on demolishing the old northbound lanes.

You can wait for some state agency to officially say what is happening but for me, the current Google Earth imagery tells me about 95% of what I need to know which is that "what could be a road under construction" is the new 190 and the old 395 is being removed south of it.

[cahwyguy]

I think pderocco is talking about abandoning the short section south from Haiwee Rd to where the old and new roads converge. Google Earth has 11/28/2024 imagery and the new 190 connector from near Haiwee Rd on the old 395 to the new 395 is very obvious.

I'm not seeing anything on Google Maps. I don't normally use Google Earth; looking at https://earth.google.com/ , I see what could be a road under construction .

I just compared and the imagery at https://earth.google.com/ is 14 months older (9/2023) than what the Google Earth app has (11/2024) and that "what could be a road under construction" has turned into a real road complete with pavement markings for much of its length (still some work being done). And in the same imagery, demolition of the old 395 south of "what could be a road under construction" is well underway with the old southbound lanes mostly gone and work started on demolishing the old northbound lanes.

You can wait for some state agency to officially say what is happening but for me, the current Google Earth imagery tells me about 95% of what I need to know which is that "what could be a road under construction" is the new 190 and the old 395 is being removed south of it.

For my website, https://www.cahighways.org , I try to avoid conjecture. When I do the next round of updates, I'll note what is under construction, but I'm not sure we'll see anything official until there are relinquishment or vacation resolutions. I'll agree it sounds likely, but for all we know they are taking up the old road and plan to build a new access road as they indicated in the original Environmental Impact Report. As of right now, the new connector is not in the Postmile Tool ( https://postmile.dot.ca.gov/PMQT/PostmileQueryTool.html? ); however, the postmile tool does show the new bypass (although it doesn't have new R postmiles yet, so this is likely due to using Google Maps underneath). Neither the Route 190 connector nor the new bypass are in the State Highway Network Postmile Tenths database, which was last updated 12/24/2024 ( https://gisdata-caltrans.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/c22341fec9c74c6b9488ee4da23dd967_0/explore?location=36.262940%2C-117.994901%2C14.34 ). It is also not yet in the State Highway Lines database ( https://gisdata-caltrans.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/77f2d7ba94e040a78bfbe36feb6279da_0/explore?location=36.390542%2C-117.822437%2C10.66 ). So although it is possible it will be Route 190, Caltrans has not yet moved the designation over to the route. 

PS: I've dropped a note to the District 9 Public Information Officer in charge of this project to get some more official clarification.

[Rothman]

For my website, https://www.cahighways.org , I try to avoid conjecture.

You're one of the proud few that does.  It's incredible how much Roadgeek "history" is really just unconfirmed speculation by dinking around on Google Maps or whatnot and how little is supported by documentation or other research.  Glad you and a few others on here do the dirty work or hold back from making conclusions unsupported by flimsy evidence.

[cahwyguy]

For my website, https://www.cahighways.org , I try to avoid conjecture.

You're one of the proud few that does.  It's incredible how much Roadgeek "history" is really just unconfirmed speculation by dinking around on Google Maps or whatnot and how little is supported by documentation or other research.  Glad you and a few others on here do the dirty work or hold back from making conclusions unsupported by flimsy evidence.

I occasionally will put conjecture, but I always try to make the status clear (e.g., "It appears that..." or "Google maps show..."). I learned from the early days on my site, back in the 1990s, when I didn't do that.

[cahwyguy]

Here is the word on what is happening, direct from the District 9 PIO:

Since the Olancha-Cartago 4-Lane Project is still in construction, the postmile databases won't be updated until the project is officially completed. So, the stretch of old U.S. 395 from State Route 190 in Olancha to the new connector on the southern end of the project won't be redesignated as State Route 190/Business Route 395 until the project is fully completed and the contract closed out. This also applies to the addresses of residents in the area.

 
You are correct. The stretch of U.S. 395 from the southern connector to the southern end of the project is being permanently removed.

 

[pderocco]

Here is the word on what is happening, direct from the District 9 PIO:

Since the Olancha-Cartago 4-Lane Project is still in construction, the postmile databases won't be updated until the project is officially completed. So, the stretch of old U.S. 395 from State Route 190 in Olancha to the new connector on the southern end of the project won't be redesignated as State Route 190/Business Route 395 until the project is fully completed and the contract closed out. This also applies to the addresses of residents in the area.

So that means that the new portion of CA-190 will also be designated as BR-395. That wouldn't make sense unless the rest of the former US-395 also became BR-395, especially if they call it a loop.

[The Ghostbuster]

Further north, is it likely that there will be realignments around Independence and Big Pine (Bishop was already mentioned), so the four-lane US 395 roadway can continue uninterrupted? Also, US 395's exits should be numbered since they have been numbering exits statewide for the last couple of decades.

[cahwyguy]

So that means that the new portion of CA-190 will also be designated as BR-395. That wouldn't make sense unless the rest of the former US-395 also became BR-395, especially if they call it a loop.

I inferred that from how he wrote it, but the portion N of Route 190 will be a county road. I'm betting the BR signage was part of how they got Olancha businesses not to protest the bypass.

Further north, is it likely that there will be realignments around Independence and Big Pine (Bishop was already mentioned), so the four-lane US 395 roadway can continue uninterrupted? Also, US 395's exits should be numbered since they have been numbering exits statewide for the last couple of decades.

Bishop has had a plan for a long time, going back to 2007: https://www.inyocounty.us/sites/default/files/2022-12/07_1009_BAACS_final.pdf . However, I haven't seen anything more come across the CTC minutes, so I think it is a low priority.

I haven't seen anything come across the CTC for planning or funding with respect to Big Pine, but perhaps it was buried.

As for Independence, back in 2007 I noted: In November 2007, it was reported that in Independence (roughly INY 73.35), Caltrans is attempting to widen US 395. However, trees are in the way, according to an article in the LA Times. Specifically, Caltrans engineers say 100 trees are standing in the way of plans to widen a stretch of the route in Independence from two to four lanes and line it with about 400 feet of sidewalks. The project, they say, would improve safety and the flow of vehicles on the rural fringe of the community. The issue has its roots in Caltrans' decade-old proposal to widen US 395 to four lanes between Ridgecrest and Mammoth Mountain. The mile-long stretch, edged with dirt shoulders, is among the last to be expanded.

I don't recall seeing anything since then on this project. However, various articles on the Olancha bypass noted it was the last non-expressway section on US 395 until somewhere N of Mono Lake, so perhaps they expressway-ized some portions while I wasn't looking.

[lstone19]

I don't recall seeing anything since then on this project. However, various articles on the Olancha bypass noted it was the last non-expressway section on US 395 until somewhere N of Mono Lake, so perhaps they expressway-ized some portions while I wasn't looking.

Once the Olancha-Cartago bypass is comeplete, 395 will be four lanes from the 14 junction (I haven't been on 395 south of there) to north of Lee Vining and then after a couple of short two lane stretches, over Conway Summit before going to two lanes up to the NV border.

[oscar]

Also, US 395's exits should be numbered since they have been numbering exits statewide for the last couple of decades.

US 395 has few freeway segments with interchanges (the only ones that get Caltrans-assigned exit numbers) south of the Nevada border. AFAIK, there's one with CA 203 east of Mammoth Lakes. OpenStreetMap thinks it has an exit number, but Caltrans' Cal-NExUS exit lists don't show it (nor any other numbered exit south of the street line), nor does Google Maps Street View. Ditto the CA 14 junction NW of Ridgecrest.

It's not obvious that the possible bypasses of Big Pine, Bishop, and Independence would be built as freeways.

[pderocco]

I don't recall seeing anything since then on this project. However, various articles on the Olancha bypass noted it was the last non-expressway section on US 395 until somewhere N of Mono Lake, so perhaps they expressway-ized some portions while I wasn't looking.

Once the Olancha-Cartago bypass is comeplete, 395 will be four lanes from the 14 junction (I haven't been on 395 south of there) to north of Lee Vining and then after a couple of short two lane stretches, over Conway Summit before going to two lanes up to the NV border.

South of 14, there's almost a hundred miles of US-395, and very little of it is four lanes. That seems really strange to me. Most of it looks easy to widen. South of 58 it has quite a bit of truck traffic, too.

[cahwyguy]

I don't recall seeing anything since then on this project. However, various articles on the Olancha bypass noted it was the last non-expressway section on US 395 until somewhere N of Mono Lake, so perhaps they expressway-ized some portions while I wasn't looking.

Once the Olancha-Cartago bypass is comeplete, 395 will be four lanes from the 14 junction (I haven't been on 395 south of there) to north of Lee Vining and then after a couple of short two lane stretches, over Conway Summit before going to two lanes up to the NV border.

South of 14, there's almost a hundred miles of US-395, and very little of it is four lanes. That seems really strange to me. Most of it looks easy to widen. South of 58 it has quite a bit of truck traffic, too.

Actually, if you read my page on US 395 https://www.cahighways.org/ROUTE395.html , you'll see there has been a series of widening projects between I-15 and the Jct. with Route 14.

[ClassicHasClass]

I don't recall seeing anything since then on this project. However, various articles on the Olancha bypass noted it was the last non-expressway section on US 395 until somewhere N of Mono Lake, so perhaps they expressway-ized some portions while I wasn't looking.

Once the Olancha-Cartago bypass is comeplete, 395 will be four lanes from the 14 junction (I haven't been on 395 south of there) to north of Lee Vining and then after a couple of short two lane stretches, over Conway Summit before going to two lanes up to the NV border.

South of 14, there's almost a hundred miles of US-395, and very little of it is four lanes. That seems really strange to me. Most of it looks easy to widen. South of 58 it has quite a bit of truck traffic, too.

Actually, if you read my page on US 395 https://www.cahighways.org/ROUTE395.html , you'll see there has been a series of widening projects between I-15 and the Jct. with Route 14.

I drive that segment quite a lot and the only things that seems to be getting widened are the shoulders and median. There's still that damn no-pass zone between Adelanto and CA 58 with a couple intermittent passing lanes. Get stuck behind a truck and you're sucking exhaust for awhile.

[pderocco]

Since the early B&W imagery in GE, there's only been six or seven miles of fourlaning, all in the southernmost part. Obviously, that's where it was most needed, but given the extensive fourlaning in the Owens Valley, which is finally wrapping up, that seems out of whack.

There's also the bit where the new 58 freeway crossed, but on 395 they traded one traffic light for three. Someday, they're going to have to build another Kramer Junction Bypass for 395. The two lanes between there and 14 are reasonable, since that's pretty empty, but south of there, it gets busy. I wonder if it's just a different political culture between SBD county and Inyo, or between CalTrans 8 and 9.

[gonealookin]

A few photos taken 1/20/2025:

As I said upthread, I think it's misleading to the traveler to sign the former alignment of US 395 through Olancha as a Business Route, because there's barely any business along there.  Nevertheless, on the northbound expressway the Business Route signage appears twice.  Seriously, they ought to put a blue "JERKY" sign on that top one, because there is one gas station, one cafe attached to the motel/RV park, and the jerky place across from the Mobil station.

Here is the word on what is happening, direct from the District 9 PIO:
...
The stretch of U.S. 395 from the southern connector to the southern end of the project is being permanently removed.

It's a goner already.  Torn up and being used as a construction staging area.



At the north end of the project, you can drive the old alignment of 395 as far as Lake Street in Cartago.  At that point you make a left and turn on to a short temporary road (barely more than 100 yards or so), a westerly extension of Lake Street, that meets the southbound lanes of the expressway, which presently are carrying two-way traffic.





So that intersection will be realigned when the new northbound lanes are completed and the expressway is fully opened.

[oscar]

As I said upthread, I think it's misleading to the traveler to sign the former alignment of US 395 through Olancha as a Business Route, because there's barely any business along there.  Nevertheless, on the northbound expressway the Business Route signage appears twice.  Seriously, they ought to put a blue "JERKY" sign on that top one, because there is one gas station, one cafe attached to the motel/RV park, and the jerky place across from the Mobil station.

The business route apparently goes also to Cartago, which has a small motel:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/GNHqPwBicKXS4HZN8

Did you see any business route signage on US 395 southbound (new alignment) in Cartago? My hunch is that the business route's north end is/will be at the intersection with Lake Street in Cartago.

[gonealookin]

The business route apparently goes also to Cartago, which has a small motel:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/GNHqPwBicKXS4HZN8

Did you see any business route signage on US 395 southbound (new alignment) in Cartago? My hunch is that the business route's north end is/will be at the intersection with Lake Street in Cartago.

I didn't turn around and look at 395 southbound for signage.  That Lake Street location does appear to be approximately where the old alignment will terminate on the north end.  Past the "Road Closed" sign you can see that the old pavement continues, and part of that might be kept as a short frontage road to serve a private property or two, but a short distance north of there the old pavement has been removed, as the new northbound lanes will run basically on the old alignment, probably with some slight regrading and curve smoothing to accommodate a 75 mph modern expressway rather than the former 55 mph two-lane road.

OK, so one cafe/motel/RV park, one other very small motel, one Mobil/C-store and one jerky store (in addition to the Crystal Geyser plant, but that's a truck destination only, not retail).  Once the full impact of the bypass settles in for a while I'd doubt they all survive, especially the gas station/C-store which is quite some distance off the new alignment.  It's my opinion that the blue Gas/Food/Lodging informational signs are sufficient here and a "Business Route" designation leads the traveler to expect more services available.

[pderocco]

Those US-395 shields look strangely non-standard.

[ClassicHasClass]

Could be county-erected. I don't see California decals on them.

[cahwyguy]

Business routes, in general, are not defined at the state level and are for convenience only. So, yeah, they are locally designated and signed, often at the behest of communities to retain the "old road" traffic when a bypass is installed. And, yes, there need not be significant businesses there -- they are an attempt, sometimes futile, to keep a community alive when it is bypassed.

[pderocco]

Business routes, in general, are not defined at the state level and are for convenience only. So, yeah, they are locally designated and signed, often at the behest of communities to retain the "old road" traffic when a bypass is installed. And, yes, there need not be significant businesses there -- they are an attempt, sometimes futile, to keep a community alive when it is bypassed.

So does that mean that the business loop signs for CA-54 in El Cajon (mentioned in another thread) are as valid as these? Or are only certain kinds of business routes, like Interstate business loops, designated by CalTrans or the state? I notice that in TravelMapping, there are Interstate, US, and state highway business routes in California, but that 54 isn't among them. And so far they're not listing a US-395 business route either.

[oscar]

Business routes, in general, are not defined at the state level and are for convenience only. So, yeah, they are locally designated and signed, often at the behest of communities to retain the "old road" traffic when a bypass is installed. And, yes, there need not be significant businesses there -- they are an attempt, sometimes futile, to keep a community alive when it is bypassed.

So does that mean that the business loop signs for CA-54 in El Cajon (mentioned in another thread) are as valid as these? Or are only certain kinds of business routes, like Interstate business loops, designated by CalTrans or the state? I notice that in TravelMapping, there are Interstate, US, and state highway business routes in California, but that 54 isn't among them. And so far they're not listing a US-395 business route either.

US 395 Business in Ridgecrest is in Travel Mapping. I expect the new US 395 Business in Olancha/Cartago will be too, once it's completed (as mentioned above, the north end is still being worked on).

WRT "Business 54", even though Caltrans usually doesn't maintain business routes, its approval might be needed for a locality to create one from mileage relinquished from the state highway system, and/or to maintain signage pointing travelers to a business route from the parent route. Several legal route descriptions in the Streets and Highway Code (not including the section for route 54) call for localities with relinquished mileage to "apply to the department for approval of a business route designation in accordance with Chapter 20, Topic 21, of the Highway Design Manual". I don't know if the city of El Cajon obtained such an approval (the truncation of state route 54 in El Cajon came after Caltrans' most recent official list of state business routes in 1991).  But the wonky business route signage in El Cajon (green Interstate, rather than state, route markers), as well as the absence of any signage on I-8 directing travelers to the supposed business route, hint that the Business 54 designation was a do-it-yourself project by the city.

[mrsman]

Business routes, in general, are not defined at the state level and are for convenience only. So, yeah, they are locally designated and signed, often at the behest of communities to retain the "old road" traffic when a bypass is installed. And, yes, there need not be significant businesses there -- they are an attempt, sometimes futile, to keep a community alive when it is bypassed.

So does that mean that the business loop signs for CA-54 in El Cajon (mentioned in another thread) are as valid as these? Or are only certain kinds of business routes, like Interstate business loops, designated by CalTrans or the state? I notice that in TravelMapping, there are Interstate, US, and state highway business routes in California, but that 54 isn't among them. And so far they're not listing a US-395 business route either.

US 395 Business in Ridgecrest is in Travel Mapping. I expect the new US 395 Business in Olancha/Cartago will be too, once it's completed (as mentioned above, the north end is still being worked on).

WRT "Business 54", even though Caltrans usually doesn't maintain business routes, its approval might be needed for a locality to create one from mileage relinquished from the state highway system, and/or to maintain signage pointing travelers to a business route from the parent route. Several legal route descriptions in the Streets and Highway Code (not including the section for route 54) call for localities with relinquished mileage to "apply to the department for approval of a business route designation in accordance with Chapter 20, Topic 21, of the Highway Design Manual". I don't know if the city of El Cajon obtained such an approval (the truncation of state route 54 in El Cajon came after Caltrans' most recent official list of state business routes in 1991).  But the wonky business route signage in El Cajon (green Interstate, rather than state, route markers), as well as the absence of any signage on I-8 directing travelers to the supposed business route, hint that the Business 54 designation was a do-it-yourself project by the city.

Here is a link to the other thread generally about erroneous signage.  The discussion about CA-54 seems to start here:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=87.msg2963551#msg2963551

CA-54 in El Cajon isn't really a business route, which in CA terminology seems to indicate an alternate routing, usually historical.  It is more properly a relinquished route.  CA-54 has been shortened, as opposed to moving to a new parallel alignment. 

Despite all of this, even though this section of road is not maintained by Caltrans, there is still a value in navigational purposes (I believe) for letting people know that you can take this Jamacha Road/Blvd as a decent bypass in this area.  While a surface street, it doesn't have too many traffic signals and does provide a good connection to roadways to the south while bypassing central San Diego. And yes, the roadway was once part of CA-54, even though it no longer is.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=87.msg2963846#msg2963846

kphoger made the following sign in jest, but in all seriousness this is probably what local authorities should do.  Historic routes can range from the grand and majestic US 66 to just the more practical CA-54 with the acknowledgement that this used to be a state highway and despite relinquishment to local control, is still a valid route to get you where you need to go if you eventually want to reach the South Bay Freeway section of CA-54.

Another decent possibility is blue pentagon 54 (similar to blue pentagon 66 in San Bernardino County).  It denotes a locally maintained route but maintains the same number.  And fortunately, as we know in California there is one number for one road, even if it changes between Interstate, state, US, or local.  (Think of CA-210 and I-210 being one roadway, I envision similar for 54.)