Angeles Forest Highway (LA County Route N3)

[Max Rockatansky]

Angeles Forest Highway (Los Angeles County Route N3) is an approximately twenty-five-mile crossing of the San Gabriel Mountains.  Angeles Forest Highway begins at California State Route 14 near Palmdale and Vincent siding.  Angeles Forest Highway crosses the San Gabriel Mountains and Angeles National Forest to Angeles Crest Highway (California State Route 2).  Angeles Forest Highway was completed during 1941 after the opening of the Mill Creek Tunnel and Armstrong Memorial Bridge.  The general corridor Angeles Forest Highway added to the Freeway & Expressway System during 1959 as part of the once proposed Ells Tunnel project.  During the 1960s Angeles Forest Highway would be assigned as Los Angeles County Route N3.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2023/09/angeles-forest-highway-los-angeles.html

[Quillz]

Wasn't this proposed CA-196 at some point?

[Max Rockatansky]

No, that was Upper Big Tujunga Canyon Road.

[TheStranger]

Wasn't this proposed CA-196 at some point?

This is the on-paper  Route 249 if I'm not mistaken (196 was a planned connector that was deleted when 249 was realigned in planning maps).

[Plutonic Panda]

Are they even going to reopen at this year?

[Max Rockatansky]

Not sure about CA 2 but Angeles Forest Highway is fine.  CA 2 is open from La Canada to Upper Tujunga Canyon Road.  If you are inclined to take Angeles Forest Highway to Palmdale and the Mojave it can be done.

[Plutonic Panda]

Not sure about CA 2 but Angeles Forest Highway is fine.  CA 2 is open from La Canada to Upper Tujunga Canyon Road.  If you are inclined to take Angeles Forest Highway to Palmdale and the Mojave it can be done.

Oh I'm aware. Just drove it the other night. Went up CA-2 to the Palmdale highway(for some reason I thought it was referred to that as well) got a late night fast food snack in Palmdale and then headed back up the mountain but opted for Big Tujunga. Someone had a bad wreck a little east of the dam as there were a dozen or so emergency vehicles.

I want to take the Angeles Crest Highway all the to Wrightwood and Beyond. What is wrong with that road? Google Maps claims it opens October 30th but what's the point. I wish they'd keep that road all year round. It'd take some extra money but it could be done.

[Max Rockatansky]

Sometimes 2 is open all year round.  I'd speculate that is largely the reason it is being pushed to reopen this year.  A lot of the Wrightwood locals want 39 back open, having 2 shut down until 2024 probably just isn't acceptable.

[Plutonic Panda]

Sometimes 2 is open all year round.  I'd speculate that is largely the reason it is being pushed to reopen this year.  A lot of the Wrightwood locals want 39 back open, having 2 shut down until 2024 probably just isn't acceptable.

Do you happen to know the next steps for 39 reopening? I would love for that to happen but I haven't heard a peep for awhile.

[Max Rockatansky]

I don't other than a hearing for public comment regarding reopening it was recently held.

[Quillz]

Opening any day now since 1978!

[Max Rockatansky]

Totally open northbound if you don't mind clinching it without a car.

[Quillz]

I think one thing I've learned over the years is that despite the modest heights of the San Gabriels and the Santa Monicas, they are a lot more rugged than might be initially thought. I'm sure budget also plays a role, but it seems the highways through those areas have a tendency to stay closed for a lot longer than even some trans-Sierra highways.

[Max Rockatansky]

Being so close to the San Andreas Fault and very vertical isn't a recipe for small amounts of rockfall. 

[cahwyguy]

Angeles Forest Highway (Los Angeles County Route N3) is an approximately twenty-five-mile crossing of the San Gabriel Mountains.  Angeles Forest Highway begins at California State Route 14 near Palmdale and Vincent siding.  Angeles Forest Highway crosses the San Gabriel Mountains and Angeles National Forest to Angeles Crest Highway (California State Route 2).  Angeles Forest Highway was completed during 1941 after the opening of the Mill Creek Tunnel and Armstrong Memorial Bridge.  The general corridor Angeles Forest Highway added to the Freeway & Expressway System during 1959 as part of the once proposed Ells Tunnel project.  During the 1960s Angeles Forest Highway would be assigned as Los Angeles County Route N3.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2023/09/angeles-forest-highway-los-angeles.html

I think stating this this was LRN 61 is a bit of a stretch. It might have been part of the 1915 Survey, but by 1919 it was no longer part of the definition, and by the time the LRNs were created, Angeles Forest wasn't part of the LRN. LRN 61 became Sign Route 2. Further, the legislative route numbers weren't codified in the legislation until 1935, so it is wrong to say the 1919 legislation defined the LRN (although the number was probably in use by the DOH).

[Max Rockatansky]

Right, that said I haven't quite come up with what I see as a satisfactory way to denote that say something like pre-1935 Codified LRN 61 is different than pre-1935 DOH defined Route 61.  The trouble with the intro paragraph is trying to wedge as much relevant information I can get into short hand form in a way that is easy to understand.  I probably "should"  address the 1935 codifications better in the body of the blogs though.  To that end, the Route definitions do appear on DOH/CHC maps and documents prior to the 1935 codification.  I want to say the earliest references to them I've found off top of my head is the 1912 California Highway Bulletin.

To that, the initial survey that evolved into LRN 61 very much was the same corridor of what became Angeles Forest Highway north of CA 2.  The waypoints the original survey called for are the same as Angeles Forest Highway.  Too bad Route 61/LRN 61 had a planned routing change in the in between years when the California Highway Bulletin ended in 1916 and the CHPWs began in 1924.  I would love to know why the corridor changed, the initial routing seems through modern eyes to be superior.  Either way, I think that I did a better job in the body of part 1 of the blog explaining that Angeles Forest Highway was never state anything outside that 1915 survey.

[cahwyguy]

Right, that said I haven't quite come up with what I see as a satisfactory way to denote that say something like pre-1935 Codified LRN 61 is different than pre-1935 DOH defined Route 61.  The trouble with the intro paragraph is trying to wedge as much relevant information I can get into short hand form in a way that is easy to understand.  I probably "should"  address the 1935 codifications better in the body of the blogs though.  To that end, the Route definitions do appear on DOH/CHC maps and documents prior to the 1935 codification.  I want to say the earliest references to them I've found off top of my head is the 1912 California Highway Bulletin.

To that, the initial survey that evolved into LRN 61 very much was the same corridor of what became Angeles Forest Highway north of CA 2.  The waypoints the original survey called for are the same as Angeles Forest Highway.  Too bad Route 61/LRN 61 had a planned routing change in the in between years when the California Highway Bulletin ended in 1916 and the CHPWs began in 1924.  I would love to know why the corridor changed, the initial routing seems through modern eyes to be superior.  Either way, I think that I did a better job in the body of part 1 of the blog explaining that Angeles Forest Highway was never state anything outside that 1915 survey.

I think it could be more explicit in noting that the post 1919 LRN 61 corresponds to Sign Route 2. Right now, it says nothing about that, which creates the impression that it is still applying to N3 (at least until you get to the discussion on the Edison Post Road).

[Max Rockatansky]

Right, that said I haven't quite come up with what I see as a satisfactory way to denote that say something like pre-1935 Codified LRN 61 is different than pre-1935 DOH defined Route 61.  The trouble with the intro paragraph is trying to wedge as much relevant information I can get into short hand form in a way that is easy to understand.  I probably "should"  address the 1935 codifications better in the body of the blogs though.  To that end, the Route definitions do appear on DOH/CHC maps and documents prior to the 1935 codification.  I want to say the earliest references to them I've found off top of my head is the 1912 California Highway Bulletin.

To that, the initial survey that evolved into LRN 61 very much was the same corridor of what became Angeles Forest Highway north of CA 2.  The waypoints the original survey called for are the same as Angeles Forest Highway.  Too bad Route 61/LRN 61 had a planned routing change in the in between years when the California Highway Bulletin ended in 1916 and the CHPWs began in 1924.  I would love to know why the corridor changed, the initial routing seems through modern eyes to be superior.  Either way, I think that I did a better job in the body of part 1 of the blog explaining that Angeles Forest Highway was never state anything outside that 1915 survey.

I think it could be more explicit in noting that the post 1919 LRN 61 corresponds to Sign Route 2. Right now, it says nothing about that, which creates the impression that it is still applying to N3 (at least until you get to the discussion on the Edison Post Road).

I'll have a look at this afternoon.  I'm wrapping up a new blog as I write this.  Jessica wants me to get some Fall stuff out of the shed, I'll have some time after that.

[dbz77]

It is a useful shortcut from travelers from points south or southeast of La Canada Flintridge (which includes Pasadena and downtown Los Angeles) to the Owens Valley and the eastern Sierras.

[Plutonic Panda]

I believe I posted about this and I'm not sure why it was either deleted or I never uploaded it. However there's a Facebook page dedicated to this road. I can't link it because I'm using a friends iPad and I don't have my Facebook account linked to this device. at any rate, it shows drone pictures of work being done for this road to reopen ultimately leading to upper big to Tujunga Canyon Road reopening as well.

I'm not too happy with Caltrans lack of transparency, regarding the work being done in potential reopening dates. I also wish they would leave this road open year-round.

[Max Rockatansky]

You mean Angeles Crest Highway (CA 2) right?  Angeles Forest Highway arguably has better design and significantly less slide prone.

[dbz77]

You mean Angeles Crest Highway (CA 2) right?  Angeles Forest Highway arguably has better design and significantly less slide prone.

Angeles Forest Hwy is part of the route between central Los Angeles (and points east and south) and the Owens Valley, Mammoth Ski Area, and Reno.

[pderocco]

Yeah, if CA-14 is closed by a wildfire.

[RZF]

To me, it looks like a plausible route for everyone in the Southland not living near the SF Valley or Santa Clarita - Angeles Crest (CA 2) to Angeles Forest to CA 14. Seems that it saves a ton of miles. You wouldn't have to jog northwest by taking I-5 to CA 14. I assume if you're not in a time crunch and you want to save gas (which is still expensive), it's the better route to the Antelope Valley and beyond.

[pderocco]

To me, it looks like a plausible route for everyone in the Southland not living near the SF Valley or Santa Clarita - Angeles Crest (CA 2) to Angeles Forest to CA 14. Seems that it saves a ton of miles. You wouldn't have to jog northwest by taking I-5 to CA 14. I assume if you're not in a time crunch and you want to save gas (which is still expensive), it's the better route to the Antelope Valley and beyond.

I've driven it more times than I can count, and I love its scenic beauty, but it's not a shortcut unless something's very wrong on 14. It's a two-lane winding mountain road with cliffs in many places, blind curves, and occasional rock fall.

My favorite 14 alternate is Sierra Highway (the old 14, and before that, US-6). Once you're out of Santa Clarita, it's a lovely ride, quite fast, and usually has very little traffic given its proximity to 14.