CA 14; Antelope Valley Freeway

[Max Rockatansky]

I recently drove much of California State Route 14 on the Antelope Valley Freeway in two trips from CA 138 on Avenue D south to Newhall Pass.  This corridor is interesting to me because it involves Newhall Pass which has been part of numerous historic highways such as; El Camino Viejo, the Stockton-Los Angeles Road, US 99, CA 7 and US 6.  The modern Antelope Valley Freeway is quite scenic, especially heading southbound while descending to Newhall Pass and I-5.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2019/05/california-state-route-14-on-antelope.html

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^
Now if Caltrans can just cobble up the funds for a connection around Mojave to CA 58, a very nice effective bypass for I-15/I-40 traffic to the western reaches of metro L.A. (including Ventura County and the Santa Barbara coast) would be even better.  CA's got enough of their own "Breezewoods" as it stands; even checking one off the list would be an accomplishment!

[nexus73]

^^^^^^^^
Now if Caltrans can just cobble up the funds for a connection around Mojave to CA 58, a very nice effective bypass for I-15/I-40 traffic to the western reaches of metro L.A. (including Ventura County and the Santa Barbara coast) would be even better.  CA's got enough of their own "Breezewoods" as it stands; even checking one off the list would be an accomplishment!

58 as a bypass freeway is already in place around Mojave. 

Rick

[Max Rockatansky]

^^^^^^^^
Now if Caltrans can just cobble up the funds for a connection around Mojave to CA 58, a very nice effective bypass for I-15/I-40 traffic to the western reaches of metro L.A. (including Ventura County and the Santa Barbara coast) would be even better.  CA's got enough of their own "Breezewoods" as it stands; even checking one off the list would be an accomplishment!

58 as a bypass freeway is already in place around Mojave. 

Rick

But 14 is still stuck on Sierra Highway through downtown Mojave.  The route is co-signed partially with CA 58 Business. 

[mrsman]

A good bypass would definitely help LA traffic.  it's a shame that a project like this would probably wouldn't be terribly expensive it's just not on anyone's radar.

Nexus 5X

[ClassicHasClass]

58 as a bypass freeway is already in place around Mojave. 

Rick

But 14 is still stuck on Sierra Highway through downtown Mojave.  The route is co-signed partially with CA 58 Business.

There's always taking the south business leg east to 58 and then going west on 58 from there. Not optimal, but beats the traffic lights.

[nexus73]

58 as a bypass freeway is already in place around Mojave. 

Rick

But 14 is still stuck on Sierra Highway through downtown Mojave.  The route is co-signed partially with CA 58 Business.

There's always taking the south business leg east to 58 and then going west on 58 from there. Not optimal, but beats the traffic lights.

When I went through Mojave and spent the night there, traffic on Business 58 was not exactly onerous.  No Big Deal.  What is big are the amount of windmills.  At night it is fun to sit and watch so many lights that are on them blinking away!

Rick

[sparker]

58 as a bypass freeway is already in place around Mojave. 

Rick

But 14 is still stuck on Sierra Highway through downtown Mojave.  The route is co-signed partially with CA 58 Business.

There's always taking the south business leg east to 58 and then going west on 58 from there. Not optimal, but beats the traffic lights.

When I went through Mojave and spent the night there, traffic on Business 58 was not exactly onerous.  No Big Deal.  What is big are the amount of windmills.  At night it is fun to sit and watch so many lights that are on them blinking away!

Rick

And if you're into that sort of thing, Mojave is a great train-watching spot, as it's the location where the BNSF Barstow-Richmond (CA) line merges with the UP Colton-Sacramento valley line; both use the same track over Tehachapi Pass to Bakersfield (also one of the all-time great trainspotting lines -- with the Tehachapi Loop the "crown jewel" of the whole thing).  Generally 20+ trains per day in each direction, pretty evenly split between UP and BNSF, which today co-own the line. 

[nexus73]

58 as a bypass freeway is already in place around Mojave. 

Rick

But 14 is still stuck on Sierra Highway through downtown Mojave.  The route is co-signed partially with CA 58 Business.

There's always taking the south business leg east to 58 and then going west on 58 from there. Not optimal, but beats the traffic lights.

When I went through Mojave and spent the night there, traffic on Business 58 was not exactly onerous.  No Big Deal.  What is big are the amount of windmills.  At night it is fun to sit and watch so many lights that are on them blinking away!

Rick

And if you're into that sort of thing, Mojave is a great train-watching spot, as it's the location where the BNSF Barstow-Richmond (CA) line merges with the UP Colton-Sacramento valley line; both use the same track over Tehachapi Pass to Bakersfield (also one of the all-time great trainspotting lines -- with the Tehachapi Loop the "crown jewel" of the whole thing).  Generally 20+ trains per day in each direction, pretty evenly split between UP and BNSF, which today co-own the line. 

For a surprising place to watch trains, try downtown Spokane WA.  I saw plane fuselages all wrapped up on rail cars for the first time there.  20 trains...pfft.  It seemed like a never ending stream of them were rolling through eastern Washington's largest city. 

Rick

[skluth]

58 as a bypass freeway is already in place around Mojave. 

Rick

But 14 is still stuck on Sierra Highway through downtown Mojave.  The route is co-signed partially with CA 58 Business.

There's always taking the south business leg east to 58 and then going west on 58 from there. Not optimal, but beats the traffic lights.

When I went through Mojave and spent the night there, traffic on Business 58 was not exactly onerous.  No Big Deal.  What is big are the amount of windmills.  At night it is fun to sit and watch so many lights that are on them blinking away!

Rick

And if you're into that sort of thing, Mojave is a great train-watching spot, as it's the location where the BNSF Barstow-Richmond (CA) line merges with the UP Colton-Sacramento valley line; both use the same track over Tehachapi Pass to Bakersfield (also one of the all-time great trainspotting lines -- with the Tehachapi Loop the "crown jewel" of the whole thing).  Generally 20+ trains per day in each direction, pretty evenly split between UP and BNSF, which today co-own the line. 

For a surprising place to watch trains, try downtown Spokane WA.  I saw plane fuselages all wrapped up on rail cars for the first time there.  20 trains...pfft.  It seemed like a never ending stream of them were rolling through eastern Washington's largest city. 

Rick

FWIW, Mojave also has one of the great plane "boneyards." It's easily visible from the CA 58 bypass NE of town.

Completely agree with everyone regarding a needed bypass for CA 14 around Mojave. Seems pretty short-sighted not to connect the two freeways. It's only two miles across open desert.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^^
If anyone wondered where a lot of the old Boeing 727's went -- they're stashed at Mojave!  And re Spokane -- Boeing ships most of the fuselages built in Renton and Everett east via BNSF and Montana Rail Link to assembly plants in Kansas and Illinois -- and some actually end up all the way in Charleston, SC!  I saw a trainload of them coming out of Bozeman Tunnel (right alongside I-90 between Bozeman and Livingston, MT) -- they barely fit through the bore!   

[Max Rockatansky]

Made an update to the CA 14/Antelope Freeway blog after driving CA 14 south from Mojave to Palmdale this past weekend.  The blog new includes all of CA 14 from CA 58 southward to I-5 in Newhall Pass.  Interestingly CA 14 south expands to a freeway near Silver King Road near Exit 64 in Kern County but isn't signed as the Antelope Valley Freeway until Avenue D/CA 138 in Los Angeles County near Exit 49.  CA 14 has a nice old reference to US 6 in Mojave with at least one Grand Army of the Republic sign.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2019/05/california-state-route-14-on-antelope.html#comments

[sparker]

Made an update to the CA 14/Antelope Freeway blog after driving CA 14 south from Mojave to Palmdale this past weekend.  The blog new includes all of CA 14 from CA 58 southward to I-5 in Newhall Pass.  Interestingly CA 14 south expands to a freeway near Silver King Road near Exit 64 in Kern County but isn't signed as the Antelope Valley Freeway until Avenue D/CA 138 in Los Angeles County near Exit 49.  CA 14 has a nice old reference to US 6 in Mojave with at least one Grand Army of the Republic sign.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2019/05/california-state-route-14-on-antelope.html#comments

The actual naming of freeways for places served (i.e. "Antelope Valley") is -- or has been -- commonplace in D7; D6, which controls freeways in Kern County, has so far not been inclined to do so; some freeways in that district may have "memorialization" naming placards erected -- but the traditional "L.A." method of naming freeways for their ultimate (or even penultimate) destinations hasn't really been repeated except for the Sacramento area.  Bay area freeways have either honorary names (Nimitz, Serra, MacArthur, Knox) or general descriptions (Bayshore, Eastshore -- even the Redwood Highway!) -- but many of them simply utilize the route number, particularly within the context of radio traffic reports.   

[TheStranger]

Made an update to the CA 14/Antelope Freeway blog after driving CA 14 south from Mojave to Palmdale this past weekend.  The blog new includes all of CA 14 from CA 58 southward to I-5 in Newhall Pass.  Interestingly CA 14 south expands to a freeway near Silver King Road near Exit 64 in Kern County but isn't signed as the Antelope Valley Freeway until Avenue D/CA 138 in Los Angeles County near Exit 49.  CA 14 has a nice old reference to US 6 in Mojave with at least one Grand Army of the Republic sign.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2019/05/california-state-route-14-on-antelope.html#comments

The actual naming of freeways for places served (i.e. "Antelope Valley") is -- or has been -- commonplace in D7; D6, which controls freeways in Kern County, has so far not been inclined to do so; some freeways in that district may have "memorialization" naming placards erected -- but the traditional "L.A." method of naming freeways for their ultimate (or even penultimate) destinations hasn't really been repeated except for the Sacramento area.  Bay area freeways have either honorary names (Nimitz, Serra, MacArthur, Knox) or general descriptions (Bayshore, Eastshore -- even the Redwood Highway!) -- but many of them simply utilize the route number, particularly within the context of radio traffic reports.   

IIRC both Serra and MacArthur, while honorary names, each are derived from a parallel street that already had that name (Junipero Serra Boulevard in SF/Daly City/Colma/South San Francisco/San Bruno, MacArthur Boulevard in Oakland).  Bayshore and Eastshore also have those origins; the Central Freeway is the only commonly used "directional" name from the SF pre-freeway revolt era (280 east of 1 is rarely called the "Southern Freeway" and the Western Freeway portion of I-80 never was built).

LA had two named for parallel streets (Sepulveda, Colorado) but both eventually became geographic (San Diego, Ventura).  the Ventura Freeway does parallel the older Ventura Boulevard but both were primarily named for the destination.  (IIRC, wasn't the Hollywood Freeway south of 134 originally the Cahuenga Parkway?  Could argue that was named more for the pass than for the parallel Cahuenga Boulevard, similar to the case with Artesia Boulevard/Artesia Freeway along Route 91).  The former name of the San Bernardino Freeway, Ramona Parkway, IIRC also applied to an older parallel surface street that still exists.

In San Diego, what was US 101 south of downtown San Diego and is now I-5 was given the honorary Montgomery Freeway name, and former US 395 (now Route 163) the Cabrillo Freeway moniker.   Originally Route 94 was the "Helix Freeway" due to the nearby mountain of that name, but has been the MLK Freeway for three decades now.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^^^
Re the Hollywood Freeway:  Only the original segment over the top of Cahuenga Pass -- the portion that originally featured the San Fernando branch of the Pacific Electric interurban rail line down the middle -- was labeled the "Cahuenga Parkway"; the design features were markedly similar to that of the Arroyo Seco Parkway to the east.  Regarding the situation with parallel streets that served as state highway alignments pre-freeway:  many of those got their names from either their ultimate destinations or, in some cases, interim cities through which they passed.  There were a few exceptions; the Ramona Parkway got its name from the original trail that connected the San Gabriel Mission with its "satellite" mission (never part of the original group of 23) in downtown Riverside.     

From what I've read in SF library archives, when the full complement of freeways within the city was contemplated in the mid-50's, the three east-west freeway arteries would have been named the "southern" (present I-280 but originally US 101), "central" (I-80 out through the GG Park "panhandle and into the main park area itself), and "northern" -- originally the full path of I-480 from I-80 at the western anchorage of the Bay Bridge out to the Golden Gate bridge approach;  but later the eastern portion was referred to as the Embarcadero Freeway, with the "Northern" monicker applied to US 101 north from the Central Freeway west of Van Ness Avenue to the E-W I-480 alignment, and the combination of I-480 and US 101 west from there to the GG Bridge and I-280, which was, of course, to follow CA 1 within the city.   Apparently there was no thought given to an "eastern" and/or "western" freeway name, despite the presence of DOH plans for the N-S freeway south of I-80 (now part of the I-280 northernmost "spur" and the original CA 87 "bayside" route past Candlestick Park) as well as I-280, which would have been the logical choice for a "western" designation -- although later it was planned that the portion south of I-80 be considered part of the J. Serra freeway.

[TheStranger]

From what I've read in SF library archives, when the full complement of freeways within the city was contemplated in the mid-50's, the three east-west freeway arteries would have been named the "southern" (present I-280 but originally US 101), "central" (I-80 out through the GG Park "panhandle and into the main park area itself), and "northern" -- originally the full path of I-480 from I-80 at the western anchorage of the Bay Bridge out to the Golden Gate bridge approach;  but later the eastern portion was referred to as the Embarcadero Freeway, with the "Northern" monicker applied to US 101 north from the Central Freeway west of Van Ness Avenue to the E-W I-480 alignment, and the combination of I-480 and US 101 west from there to the GG Bridge and I-280, which was, of course, to follow CA 1 within the city.   Apparently there was no thought given to an "eastern" and/or "western" freeway name, despite the presence of DOH plans for the N-S freeway south of I-80 (now part of the I-280 northernmost "spur" and the original CA 87 "bayside" route past Candlestick Park) as well as I-280, which would have been the logical choice for a "western" designation -- although later it was planned that the portion south of I-80 be considered part of the J. Serra freeway.

https://cahighways.org/073-080.html#080

This notes that the I-80 segment in the Panhandle was considered to be the "Western Freeway" at one point, probably once the Central name was applied to the entire 101 corridor between the Bayshore Freeway and the never-built portion of 480 paralleling Lombard.

[Max Rockatansky]

I recently drove through CA 14 between US 395 and CA 58.  That being the case I added some new photo stock to the California State Route 14 which now features the entire highway.  CA 14 for the most part is largely still aligned over the corridor occupied by the first CA 7 and US 6. 

https://www.gribblenation.org/2019/05/california-state-route-14-on-antelope.html?m=1

[The Ghostbuster]

Maybe CA 14 should have remained US 6 when the highway was truncated out of Long Beach in 1964. Or would the duplex with US 395 have been too long to justify having US 6 end at Interstate 5 instead of ending in Bishop?

[Max Rockatansky]

Maybe CA 14 should have remained US 6 when the highway was truncated out of Long Beach in 1964. Or would the duplex with US 395 have been too long to justify having US 6 end at Interstate 5 instead of ending in Bishop?

I would say far too long.  A better designation would have been to revert it to CA 7 IMO.  The bouncing around of all those freeway numbers circa 64 really screwed up CA 7 in the long run. 

[mrsman]

Maybe CA 14 should have remained US 6 when the highway was truncated out of Long Beach in 1964. Or would the duplex with US 395 have been too long to justify having US 6 end at Interstate 5 instead of ending in Bishop?

I would say far too long.  A better designation would have been to revert it to CA 7 IMO.  The bouncing around of all those freeway numbers circa 64 really screwed up CA 7 in the long run.

There is precedent for such.  Before US 66 was extended to Santa Monica, Santa Monica Blvd was CA-2.  Then it became US 66, with CA-2 truncated in the Silver Lake area of L.A.  After US 66 was decommissioned, CA-2 was reconnected to Santa Monica, again via Santa Monica Blvd.  [The routing in the Silver Lake area was slightly different - in the early days, Fletcher-Glendale-Rowena-Hyperion-Fountain-Myra-SM Blvd.  In later days, Glendale Fwy-Glendale-Alvarado-Hollywood Fwy-SM Blvd.]

While it would have been nice for US 6 to continue to have extended down to Long Beach to have a true coast to coast US route, the US 6 routing did not make sense in CA.  This was largely N-S within the state, so no need for an E-W highway designation.  And as mentioned on another thread, following US 6 from Utah (or further east) to L.A. is far less direct than simply using the US 91 and US 66 routing that was far more prominent.  IMO, what should have happened after 1964, especially as US 395 would have been truncated to Hesperia, was to route US 395 down current CA 14 to I-5 and make the US 395 to Hesperia a state highway.  More traffic at Bradys Junction takes current CA 14 to LA than current US 395 to Hesperia and San Bernardino.  North of Bradys the SB long distance control on US 395 is Los Angeles.  It makes sense since the more prominent routing of traffic along the Sierra Hwy would be Reno-Bishop-Mojave-Lancaster-Palmdale-Santa Clarita.  This was all (within CA) once CA-7 and should all be one routing as a new post-1964 US 395.

[SeriesE]

CA-14 is very pretty in spring during the poppy bloom. Last spring I even saw some poppies growing in the exit gore!

[Max Rockatansky]

Maybe CA 14 should have remained US 6 when the highway was truncated out of Long Beach in 1964. Or would the duplex with US 395 have been too long to justify having US 6 end at Interstate 5 instead of ending in Bishop?

I would say far too long.  A better designation would have been to revert it to CA 7 IMO.  The bouncing around of all those freeway numbers circa 64 really screwed up CA 7 in the long run.

There is precedent for such.  Before US 66 was extended to Santa Monica, Santa Monica Blvd was CA-2.  Then it became US 66, with CA-2 truncated in the Silver Lake area of L.A.  After US 66 was decommissioned, CA-2 was reconnected to Santa Monica, again via Santa Monica Blvd.  [The routing in the Silver Lake area was slightly different - in the early days, Fletcher-Glendale-Rowena-Hyperion-Fountain-Myra-SM Blvd.  In later days, Glendale Fwy-Glendale-Alvarado-Hollywood Fwy-SM Blvd.]

While it would have been nice for US 6 to continue to have extended down to Long Beach to have a true coast to coast US route, the US 6 routing did not make sense in CA.  This was largely N-S within the state, so no need for an E-W highway designation.  And as mentioned on another thread, following US 6 from Utah (or further east) to L.A. is far less direct than simply using the US 91 and US 66 routing that was far more prominent.  IMO, what should have happened after 1964, especially as US 395 would have been truncated to Hesperia, was to route US 395 down current CA 14 to I-5 and make the US 395 to Hesperia a state highway.  More traffic at Bradys Junction takes current CA 14 to LA than current US 395 to Hesperia and San Bernardino.  North of Bradys the SB long distance control on US 395 is Los Angeles.  It makes sense since the more prominent routing of traffic along the Sierra Hwy would be Reno-Bishop-Mojave-Lancaster-Palmdale-Santa Clarita.  This was all (within CA) once CA-7 and should all be one routing as a new post-1964 US 395.

It would have been great to see US 395 down the corridor of US 6/CA 7 at least to I-5/US 99.  That said it took a pretty long time after 1964 for US 395 to get truncated out of the San Diego Area.  That was probably driven by the slow development of I-15E. 

[sparker]

Maybe CA 14 should have remained US 6 when the highway was truncated out of Long Beach in 1964. Or would the duplex with US 395 have been too long to justify having US 6 end at Interstate 5 instead of ending in Bishop?

I would say far too long.  A better designation would have been to revert it to CA 7 IMO.  The bouncing around of all those freeway numbers circa 64 really screwed up CA 7 in the long run.

There is precedent for such.  Before US 66 was extended to Santa Monica, Santa Monica Blvd was CA-2.  Then it became US 66, with CA-2 truncated in the Silver Lake area of L.A.  After US 66 was decommissioned, CA-2 was reconnected to Santa Monica, again via Santa Monica Blvd.  [The routing in the Silver Lake area was slightly different - in the early days, Fletcher-Glendale-Rowena-Hyperion-Fountain-Myra-SM Blvd.  In later days, Glendale Fwy-Glendale-Alvarado-Hollywood Fwy-SM Blvd.]

While it would have been nice for US 6 to continue to have extended down to Long Beach to have a true coast to coast US route, the US 6 routing did not make sense in CA.  This was largely N-S within the state, so no need for an E-W highway designation.  And as mentioned on another thread, following US 6 from Utah (or further east) to L.A. is far less direct than simply using the US 91 and US 66 routing that was far more prominent.  IMO, what should have happened after 1964, especially as US 395 would have been truncated to Hesperia, was to route US 395 down current CA 14 to I-5 and make the US 395 to Hesperia a state highway.  More traffic at Bradys Junction takes current CA 14 to LA than current US 395 to Hesperia and San Bernardino.  North of Bradys the SB long distance control on US 395 is Los Angeles.  It makes sense since the more prominent routing of traffic along the Sierra Hwy would be Reno-Bishop-Mojave-Lancaster-Palmdale-Santa Clarita.  This was all (within CA) once CA-7 and should all be one routing as a new post-1964 US 395.

It would have been great to see US 395 down the corridor of US 6/CA 7 at least to I-5/US 99.  That said it took a pretty long time after 1964 for US 395 to get truncated out of the San Diego Area.  That was probably driven by the slow development of I-15E. 

Yeah-- it really wasn't until the 1982 redesignation of I-15E to I-215 that there was a concerted effort to eliminate US 395 signage.  By that time, work was progressing rapidly on I-15 north of San Diego, but the area from Temecula to Riverside on old 395 was still a mixture of facilities.  But with the number "215" in the mix rather than the suffixed 15E (which would have eventually been replaced with another number in any case), D8 elected to post "CA 215" signage on the non-freeway portions (or, in some instances, either "TO I-15" SB or "TO I-215" NB) when near the points where those routes were already in operation -- I-15 through Temecula proper and I-215 signage replacing I-15E north of Moreno Valley.  But it wasn't until 1995 when the Perris-CA 60 section of old 395 was fully rebuilt as a freeway, with the last grade crossing near Sun City being eliminated a couple of years later.

But the idea of shunting US 395 over to the (now) CA 14 alignment is intriguing:  if I were a DOH planner back in '63 when the new configuration was being formulated (or pulled out of a quasi-random ass!), I would have gritted my teeth and done 395 that way -- but extending it down I-5 as far as the Hollywood Freeway split in Arleta (now CA 170), and run 395 over that freeway to terminate at US 101 (in North Hollywood) just like the original 395 did in San Diego.  What's now CA 91 would have retained its partial original SSR 14 number as CA 14, and US 395 from Hesperia to Inyokern would be the new CA 91.  Still don't know how I'd handle the numbering of the section from San Diego to Colton; might have moved the number 77 down from the Bay Area to match all the other 70's in the region.  Nevertheless, everything south of Devore would be rendered moot four years down the line with the extension of I-15 south of I-10.

[mrsman]

Maybe CA 14 should have remained US 6 when the highway was truncated out of Long Beach in 1964. Or would the duplex with US 395 have been too long to justify having US 6 end at Interstate 5 instead of ending in Bishop?

I would say far too long.  A better designation would have been to revert it to CA 7 IMO.  The bouncing around of all those freeway numbers circa 64 really screwed up CA 7 in the long run.

There is precedent for such.  Before US 66 was extended to Santa Monica, Santa Monica Blvd was CA-2.  Then it became US 66, with CA-2 truncated in the Silver Lake area of L.A.  After US 66 was decommissioned, CA-2 was reconnected to Santa Monica, again via Santa Monica Blvd.  [The routing in the Silver Lake area was slightly different - in the early days, Fletcher-Glendale-Rowena-Hyperion-Fountain-Myra-SM Blvd.  In later days, Glendale Fwy-Glendale-Alvarado-Hollywood Fwy-SM Blvd.]

While it would have been nice for US 6 to continue to have extended down to Long Beach to have a true coast to coast US route, the US 6 routing did not make sense in CA.  This was largely N-S within the state, so no need for an E-W highway designation.  And as mentioned on another thread, following US 6 from Utah (or further east) to L.A. is far less direct than simply using the US 91 and US 66 routing that was far more prominent.  IMO, what should have happened after 1964, especially as US 395 would have been truncated to Hesperia, was to route US 395 down current CA 14 to I-5 and make the US 395 to Hesperia a state highway.  More traffic at Bradys Junction takes current CA 14 to LA than current US 395 to Hesperia and San Bernardino.  North of Bradys the SB long distance control on US 395 is Los Angeles.  It makes sense since the more prominent routing of traffic along the Sierra Hwy would be Reno-Bishop-Mojave-Lancaster-Palmdale-Santa Clarita.  This was all (within CA) once CA-7 and should all be one routing as a new post-1964 US 395.

It would have been great to see US 395 down the corridor of US 6/CA 7 at least to I-5/US 99.  That said it took a pretty long time after 1964 for US 395 to get truncated out of the San Diego Area.  That was probably driven by the slow development of I-15E. 

Yeah-- it really wasn't until the 1982 redesignation of I-15E to I-215 that there was a concerted effort to eliminate US 395 signage.  By that time, work was progressing rapidly on I-15 north of San Diego, but the area from Temecula to Riverside on old 395 was still a mixture of facilities.  But with the number "215" in the mix rather than the suffixed 15E (which would have eventually been replaced with another number in any case), D8 elected to post "CA 215" signage on the non-freeway portions (or, in some instances, either "TO I-15" SB or "TO I-215" NB) when near the points where those routes were already in operation -- I-15 through Temecula proper and I-215 signage replacing I-15E north of Moreno Valley.  But it wasn't until 1995 when the Perris-CA 60 section of old 395 was fully rebuilt as a freeway, with the last grade crossing near Sun City being eliminated a couple of years later.

But the idea of shunting US 395 over to the (now) CA 14 alignment is intriguing:  if I were a DOH planner back in '63 when the new configuration was being formulated (or pulled out of a quasi-random ass!), I would have gritted my teeth and done 395 that way -- but extending it down I-5 as far as the Hollywood Freeway split in Arleta (now CA 170), and run 395 over that freeway to terminate at US 101 (in North Hollywood) just like the original 395 did in San Diego.  What's now CA 91 would have retained its partial original SSR 14 number as CA 14, and US 395 from Hesperia to Inyokern would be the new CA 91.  Still don't know how I'd handle the numbering of the section from San Diego to Colton; might have moved the number 77 down from the Bay Area to match all the other 70's in the region.  Nevertheless, everything south of Devore would be rendered moot four years down the line with the extension of I-15 south of I-10.

sparker, your idea above is intriguing.  Since post-1964, there are so few US highways left in CA, the ones that remain do signify the most important corridors.  CA 14 as a corridor is certainly more "national" in scope than the Hesperia-Inyokern segment.  And to connect that with the CA 170 freeway does further signify that the 170 freeway is not just a 7 mile local freeway in the SFV, but part of a national network connecting US 101 to north-central and north-eastern CA.  But there had to have been some foresight that US 395 would be truncated to Hesperia, which it seems wasn't really an idea until almost 20 years later.

Of course, pre-1964, there was a short lived plan to route US 6 along Lankershim (or the parallel 170 freeway) and the US 101 Hollywood Freeway as a truck friendly connection toward the Harbor Freeway (which also was part of US 6 at the time). 

[sparker]

Maybe CA 14 should have remained US 6 when the highway was truncated out of Long Beach in 1964. Or would the duplex with US 395 have been too long to justify having US 6 end at Interstate 5 instead of ending in Bishop?

I would say far too long.  A better designation would have been to revert it to CA 7 IMO.  The bouncing around of all those freeway numbers circa 64 really screwed up CA 7 in the long run.

There is precedent for such.  Before US 66 was extended to Santa Monica, Santa Monica Blvd was CA-2.  Then it became US 66, with CA-2 truncated in the Silver Lake area of L.A.  After US 66 was decommissioned, CA-2 was reconnected to Santa Monica, again via Santa Monica Blvd.  [The routing in the Silver Lake area was slightly different - in the early days, Fletcher-Glendale-Rowena-Hyperion-Fountain-Myra-SM Blvd.  In later days, Glendale Fwy-Glendale-Alvarado-Hollywood Fwy-SM Blvd.]

While it would have been nice for US 6 to continue to have extended down to Long Beach to have a true coast to coast US route, the US 6 routing did not make sense in CA.  This was largely N-S within the state, so no need for an E-W highway designation.  And as mentioned on another thread, following US 6 from Utah (or further east) to L.A. is far less direct than simply using the US 91 and US 66 routing that was far more prominent.  IMO, what should have happened after 1964, especially as US 395 would have been truncated to Hesperia, was to route US 395 down current CA 14 to I-5 and make the US 395 to Hesperia a state highway.  More traffic at Bradys Junction takes current CA 14 to LA than current US 395 to Hesperia and San Bernardino.  North of Bradys the SB long distance control on US 395 is Los Angeles.  It makes sense since the more prominent routing of traffic along the Sierra Hwy would be Reno-Bishop-Mojave-Lancaster-Palmdale-Santa Clarita.  This was all (within CA) once CA-7 and should all be one routing as a new post-1964 US 395.

It would have been great to see US 395 down the corridor of US 6/CA 7 at least to I-5/US 99.  That said it took a pretty long time after 1964 for US 395 to get truncated out of the San Diego Area.  That was probably driven by the slow development of I-15E. 

Yeah-- it really wasn't until the 1982 redesignation of I-15E to I-215 that there was a concerted effort to eliminate US 395 signage.  By that time, work was progressing rapidly on I-15 north of San Diego, but the area from Temecula to Riverside on old 395 was still a mixture of facilities.  But with the number "215" in the mix rather than the suffixed 15E (which would have eventually been replaced with another number in any case), D8 elected to post "CA 215" signage on the non-freeway portions (or, in some instances, either "TO I-15" SB or "TO I-215" NB) when near the points where those routes were already in operation -- I-15 through Temecula proper and I-215 signage replacing I-15E north of Moreno Valley.  But it wasn't until 1995 when the Perris-CA 60 section of old 395 was fully rebuilt as a freeway, with the last grade crossing near Sun City being eliminated a couple of years later.

But the idea of shunting US 395 over to the (now) CA 14 alignment is intriguing:  if I were a DOH planner back in '63 when the new configuration was being formulated (or pulled out of a quasi-random ass!), I would have gritted my teeth and done 395 that way -- but extending it down I-5 as far as the Hollywood Freeway split in Arleta (now CA 170), and run 395 over that freeway to terminate at US 101 (in North Hollywood) just like the original 395 did in San Diego.  What's now CA 91 would have retained its partial original SSR 14 number as CA 14, and US 395 from Hesperia to Inyokern would be the new CA 91.  Still don't know how I'd handle the numbering of the section from San Diego to Colton; might have moved the number 77 down from the Bay Area to match all the other 70's in the region.  Nevertheless, everything south of Devore would be rendered moot four years down the line with the extension of I-15 south of I-10.

sparker, your idea above is intriguing.  Since post-1964, there are so few US highways left in CA, the ones that remain do signify the most important corridors.  CA 14 as a corridor is certainly more "national" in scope than the Hesperia-Inyokern segment.  And to connect that with the CA 170 freeway does further signify that the 170 freeway is not just a 7 mile local freeway in the SFV, but part of a national network connecting US 101 to north-central and north-eastern CA.  But there had to have been some foresight that US 395 would be truncated to Hesperia, which it seems wasn't really an idea until almost 20 years later.

Of course, pre-1964, there was a short lived plan to route US 6 along Lankershim (or the parallel 170 freeway) and the US 101 Hollywood Freeway as a truck friendly connection toward the Harbor Freeway (which also was part of US 6 at the time). 

I remember that plan; at that time I was but a junior-high (aka middle) school student about 6 miles away in Glendale; formulated in '62 before the decision to do a general statewide renumbering, Lankershim was intended to be a "placeholder" until the full Hollywood Freeway extension was constructed.  Of course, DOH put that plan on permanent hiatus when the US 6 truncation became part of the renumbering.  CA 170 signage was never applied to Lankershim, nor to any of the Hollywood Freeway sections until it reached Roscoe Blvd. in the summer of 1967 (the full extension to I-5 opened the following summer). 

But the addition of the I-15 San Diego extension after 1968 pretty much upset the apple cart as far as the designation scheme between the Inland Empire and San Diego; D8 and D11 virtually scrambled to cobble up both interim and permanent solutions, culminating by the '80's in what's out there today.