I took some family that came into Bakersfield over the past week up to Kings Canyon and Sequoia National Park. Basically it gave me an opportunity to take what in my opinion is the most underrated California State Highway which would be 245. CA 245 is a short 42 mile State Highway which runs from CA 198 near Visalia all the way up to CA 180 near the entrance station for Grant Grove in Kings Canyon National Park. Basically all that I'm trying to convey is that this route is a blast to drive since it has a couple hundred curves and gains about 5,000 feet in elevation on the uphill climb into the Sierras. The best part is that unlike the Generals Highway or 180 there is virtually nobody ever on 245 which lets you really test your ability with a car or bike. This go around I had my new Challenger and really got a chance to see what handling capabilities it had.
Really I wanted was to plug how awesome 245 was and see if anyone had some other alternate scenic routes to other popular Californian sites of interest. Another one that comes to mind is CA 140 heading through Merced River Gorge as opposed to the tourist favorite CA 41.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 30, 2016, 03:02:21 PM
I took some family that came into Bakersfield over the past week up to Kings Canyon and Sequoia National Park. Basically it gave me an opportunity to take what in my opinion is the most underrated California State Highway which would be 245. CA 245 is a short 42 mile State Highway which runs from CA 198 near Visalia all the way up to CA 180 near the entrance station for Grant Grove in Kings Canyon National Park. Basically all that I'm trying to convey is that this route is a blast to drive since it has a couple hundred curves and gains about 5,000 feet in elevation on the uphill climb into the Sierras. The best part is that unlike the Generals Highway or 180 there is virtually nobody ever on 245 which lets you really test your ability with a car or bike. This go around I had my new Challenger and really got a chance to see what handling capabilities it had.
I drove it in February, in a pickup truck whose high points don't include handling. It was OK, but I would've preferred to take the Generals Highway (partly closed by snow when I was out there) directly between Kings Canyon and Sequoia.
QuoteReally I wanted was to plug how awesome 245 was and see if anyone had some other alternate scenic routes to other popular Californian sites of interest. Another one that comes to mind is CA 140 heading through Merced River Gorge as opposed to the tourist favorite CA 41.
It will be nicer once the original alignment is reopened (work is underway), to eliminate a detour with two one-lane bridges (shared by both directions of traffic) across the river.
Quote from: oscar on May 07, 2016, 10:43:49 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 30, 2016, 03:02:21 PM
I took some family that came into Bakersfield over the past week up to Kings Canyon and Sequoia National Park. Basically it gave me an opportunity to take what in my opinion is the most underrated California State Highway which would be 245. CA 245 is a short 42 mile State Highway which runs from CA 198 near Visalia all the way up to CA 180 near the entrance station for Grant Grove in Kings Canyon National Park. Basically all that I'm trying to convey is that this route is a blast to drive since it has a couple hundred curves and gains about 5,000 feet in elevation on the uphill climb into the Sierras. The best part is that unlike the Generals Highway or 180 there is virtually nobody ever on 245 which lets you really test your ability with a car or bike. This go around I had my new Challenger and really got a chance to see what handling capabilities it had.
I drove it in February, in a pickup truck whose high points don't include handling. It was OK, but I would've preferred to take the Generals Highway (partly closed by snow when I was out there) directly between Kings Canyon and Sequoia.
QuoteReally I wanted was to plug how awesome 245 was and see if anyone had some other alternate scenic routes to other popular Californian sites of interest. Another one that comes to mind is CA 140 heading through Merced River Gorge as opposed to the tourist favorite CA 41.
It will be nicer once the original alignment is reopened (work is underway), to eliminate a detour with two one-lane bridges (shared by both directions of traffic) across the river.
That was the best part about that trip. Took 245 up, 180 down to Kings Canyon and the Generals Highway back down to 198.
The nice thing about that detour on 140 is that it takes you onto the Yosemite Valley Railroad alignment for a short while. It's too bad you can't stop and take a picture of the rock slide...
197 is about 7 miles long. You'll see the Smith River as it gets close to the ocean, lots of redwood trees and some pretty countryside. It connects US 101 to US 199 in between Brookings and Crescent City.
Rick
Quote from: nexus73 on May 08, 2016, 09:42:28 AM
197 is about 7 miles long. You'll see the Smith River as it gets close to the ocean, lots of redwood trees and some pretty countryside. It connects US 101 to US 199 in between Brookings and Crescent City.
Rick
Yeah I blew right past it yesterday when I was heading into Crescent City. I'll have to check it out on the next pass-thru, I just got way too into high speed mountaineering I was doing out on US 199. :-D
Funny story from my sometimes misspent youth regarding CA 245: Prior to late 1970, it had been CA 69 (you can guess where this story's going!). I was attending UC Riverside at the time and living in a group-housing complex on campus near the dorms; one of my housemates was a guy from Strathmore, a few miles south of the 69 terminus at 198 along CA 65. Always the roadgeek, I had my room plastered with maps -- local, state, US -- and this fellow made the comment that he had a buddy from nearby Lindsay (which was the site of their local high school) who had me beat at the road appreciation game. After a phone call, we drove up to the University of Redlands (a private college in that city) to visit this guy. He was living in a similar complex to ours -- a series of large common rooms, each flanked by several individual small bedrooms. His bedroom was literally plastered with California 69 shields; he must have had at least 20 in the bedroom alone; the common room was decorated with about a half-dozen more! It seems like every time he went home to visit his family he'd drive out to 69 with his local friends after several beers and snag a reassurance shield or two (and he said he returned home about once every other month). Since it turned out the guy was a junior in college; the math more or less added up to 2-3 69 signs pilfered per visit. Seems that district's normal signage was a shield (sometimes directionally bannered but often not) mounted by a couple of long half-inch bolts through a wooden post (no Loctite or Nylok anti-theft measures!). It was relatively easy for a carful of half-drunk college guys to have a sign dismounted in a couple of minutes. All they needed was a pickup or a van, a ladder, and a couple of heavy-duty wrenches -- not uncommon in farming country!
After staring for several minutes with a mixture of awe and dismay, all I could do was shake my head (after all, it was college pranks in the wild, wild '60's and early '70's). When I saw the 1971 maps with 245 signed in place of 69, I figured Caltrans had finally come to the realization that 69 was a number that was going to be problematic -- particularly in a rural area with only sporadic patrolling. They haven't tried to recommission that number elsewhere since -- and something tells me they never will!
Quote from: sparker on July 03, 2016, 04:59:39 AM
Funny story from my sometimes misspent youth regarding CA 245: Prior to late 1970, it had been CA 69 (you can guess where this story's going!). I was attending UC Riverside at the time and living in a group-housing complex on campus near the dorms; one of my housemates was a guy from Strathmore, a few miles south of the 69 terminus at 198 along CA 65. Always the roadgeek, I had my room plastered with maps -- local, state, US -- and this fellow made the comment that he had a buddy from nearby Lindsay (which was the site of their local high school) who had me beat at the road appreciation game. After a phone call, we drove up to the University of Redlands (a private college in that city) to visit this guy. He was living in a similar complex to ours -- a series of large common rooms, each flanked by several individual small bedrooms. His bedroom was literally plastered with California 69 shields; he must have had at least 20 in the bedroom alone; the common room was decorated with about a half-dozen more! It seems like every time he went home to visit his family he'd drive out to 69 with his local friends after several beers and snag a reassurance shield or two (and he said he returned home about once every other month). Since it turned out the guy was a junior in college; the math more or less added up to 2-3 69 signs pilfered per visit. Seems that district's normal signage was a shield (sometimes directionally bannered but often not) mounted by a couple of long half-inch bolts through a wooden post (no Loctite or Nylok anti-theft measures!) it was relatively easy for a carful of half-drunk college guys to have a sign dismounted in a couple of minutes. All they needed was a pickup or a van, a ladder, and a couple of heavy-duty wrenches -- not uncommon in farming country!
After staring for several minutes with a mixture of awe and dismay, all I could do was shake my head (after all, it was college pranks in the wild, wild '60's and early '70's). When I saw the 1971 maps with 245 signed in place of 69, I figured Caltrans had finally come to the realization that 69 was a number that was going to be problematic -- particularly in a rural area with only sporadic patrolling. They haven't tried to recommission that number elsewhere since -- and something tells me they never will!
Geeze...makes me wonder what happened to all those signs, you'd think a lot of them would have hit Ebay by now.
Knowing the area like I do I've always been surprised that 245 just didn't become a northern extension of 65, especially when it got really apparent that the northern segment would never connect to the south. Probably the most infamous story I heard about renumbering due to rural sign theft was US 666 out in Arizona...man I've never heard of a DOT like ADOT that hated a route number so much. The great irony is that Arizona 69 is in a largely urban and patrolled environment and those are rarely stolen...AND I actually have one in my personal collection that I got from a scrapper.
[/list]
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 03, 2016, 10:01:00 AM
Knowing the area like I do I've always been surprised that 245 just didn't become a northern extension of 65, especially when it got really apparent that the northern segment would never connect to the south.
Well, actually, my notes show that Route 69 (later Route 245) was originally part of Route 65, and was renumbered as Route 69 when a new alignment was proposed for Route 65 in 1964. Route 69 was part of LRN 129, defined in 1933.
Quote from: cahwyguy on July 03, 2016, 10:55:40 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 03, 2016, 10:01:00 AM
Knowing the area like I do I've always been surprised that 245 just didn't become a northern extension of 65, especially when it got really apparent that the northern segment would never connect to the south.
Well, actually, my notes show that Route 69 (later Route 245) was originally part of Route 65, and was renumbered as Route 69 when a new alignment was proposed for Route 65 in 1964. Route 69 was part of LRN 129, defined in 1933.
Now that's some irony right there, seems like that whole northern spur was meant to be much greater things just like a lot of the split routes that were never built. Got any good reference materials on the net for the LRN numbers? I have some really good sources for Florida and the pre-1945 route numbers but I can't find anything solid for the LRNs.
There was actually a LRN for the never-developed segment of 65 between 198 and I-80; it was LRN 249. That whole segment has existed as a "line on a map" since the first iteration of the master "California Freeway & Expressway System" was devised in 1959. There was never a formal adoption of alignment for any portion of this corridor except for a short time in the '70's east of Sacramento; even that was later rescinded. The only rumblings of anything being done to advance this corridor came in the early '90's, when eastward expanding housing in the Fresno/Clovis area prompted some locals to opine that an eastern bypass of the metro area partially using the 65 corridor would be appropriate to address traffic needs. This segment would have struck out northwest from the 65/198 junction as previously planned, crossing 180 just east of Minkler and the San Joaquin River immediately downstream from Friant Dam. But the Fresno-initiated plans included intersecting 41 a few miles north of 145, and then turning west on another proposed alignment -- an eastern extension of 152, also a longstanding "dotted line" on the same statewide planning map. The whole thing was envisioned as a large arc around the eastern side of metro Fresno, providing more immediate egress from the expanding eastern suburbs. The concept got legs for a while, but was "back-burnered" by the later part of the decade. I haven't heard of any plans for reviving this plan recently; housing in that area has yet to recover from the recession, so I'm surmising that the corridor is pretty much shelved.
It's interesting that so much north of the San Joaquin River really never ended up developing in the foot hills. It's pretty bare country out there north of Fresno and Lake Millerton. It's interesting to see how few really good ways there to connect to 41 or 180 once 168 ceases to be a freeway. Looks like the project was abandoned for all the right reasons.
Pretty much the whole length of the 65 corridor was intended to extend along the delineation point of "usable" Valley enterprises (agricultural, housing, etc.) to the west and foothills to the east. Incidentally, it was intended to serve as the termination point for CA 59 near Snelling -- part of the reason that route never continued northward along County J59 to either 132 or 108/120 (aside from the $$ it would take to make that road a safe & efficient thoroughfare to and from Gold Country recreational points).
Quote from: sparker on July 03, 2016, 07:29:11 PM
Pretty much the whole length of the 65 corridor was intended to extend along the delineation point of "usable" Valley enterprises (agricultural, housing, etc.) to the west and foothills to the east. Incidentally, it was intended to serve as the termination point for CA 59 near Snelling -- part of the reason that route never continued northward along County J59 to either 132 or 108/120 (aside from the $$ it would take to make that road a safe & efficient thoroughfare to and from Gold Country recreational points).
Yeah that terrain gets pretty rough by the Merced River despite the low elevation. It's a hell of a wild drive even using O'Byrnes Ferry (which is actually fairly decent given the rough terrain) from CA 108 to CA 4 in Copperopolis which I gather is probably roughly where 65 would have been routed along? That probably explains why J59 never became part of CA 59 north of Snelling.
Speaking of other obscure California state routes -- but keeping the discussion in the Valley -- it's interesting to note that after the West Valley segment of I-5 was completed circa 1972, Caltrans adopted/extended several localized routings to serve as connections. While that in itself is not all that uncommon, Caltrans tends to "stick to the plan", adopting routings that have been previously legislatively established and subsequently shown as dotted lines on the official state highway maps. Curiously, none of these routes were shown on previous route listings or maps prior to their adoption & signage. These are (1) the extension of 145 from 180 near Kerman south to 5 Points, then SW to I-5 (and CA 33) north of Coalinga (this is the infamous interchange where a I-5 traveler needs to have his/her windows all the way up to avoid the (mal)odor of the adjacent Harris Ranch stockyards!); (2) the establishment of CA 269 south of 5 Points, along a southern extension of the north-south portion of 145; this crosses I-5 and terminates at CA 33 in Avenal; and (3) CA 165, which serves as a southerly egress connector from I-5 to Los Banos, but which extends north of there to CA 99 at Turlock. In addition to these newly-established routes, 33 was removed from its original surface routing which crossed over I-5 a couple of times before striking out on Derrick Road toward Mendota and multiplexed with I-5 from Harris Ranch to Derrick Rd.
Since none of these routings -- or even the West Valley region in general -- were previously planned by Caltrans or its predecessor before these deployments and reroutings took place (all, IIRC, between 1975 and 1983), exploring the impetus for their establishment would be an interesting exercise. Likely scenario: local state legislators and/or county officials, realizing that the West Valley had always been given short shrift by Caltrans, saw the opening of I-5 through their midst as an opportunity to correct a longstanding situation of either oversight or neglect, and took action to manifest their concerns. Alternate scenario: since this Valley area is dominated by large-scale agribusiness, those various firms pressured Caltrans (directly or indirectly) to provide state-maintained facilities for their transport needs. Either way, the establishment and signage of these routes occurred within a relatively short timespan (at least, historically, for road projects in California!).
Quote from: sparker on July 04, 2016, 02:46:49 PM
Speaking of other obscure California state routes -- but keeping the discussion in the Valley -- it's interesting to note that after the West Valley segment of I-5 was completed circa 1972, Caltrans adopted/extended several localized routings to serve as connections. While that in itself is not all that uncommon, Caltrans tends to "stick to the plan", adopting routings that have been previously legislatively established and subsequently shown as dotted lines on the official state highway maps. Curiously, none of these routes were shown on previous route listings or maps prior to their adoption & signage. These are (1) the extension of 145 from 180 near Kerman south to 5 Points, then SW to I-5 (and CA 33) north of Coalinga (this is the infamous interchange where a I-5 traveler needs to have his/her windows all the way up to avoid the (mal)odor of the adjacent Harris Ranch stockyards!); (2) the establishment of CA 269 south of 5 Points, along a southern extension of the north-south portion of 145; this crossed I-5 and terminated at CA 33 in Avenal; and (3) CA 165, which serves as a southerly egress connector from I-5 to Los Banos, but which extends north of there to CA 99 at Turlock. In addition to these newly-established routes, 33 was removed from its original surface routing which crossed over I-5 a couple of times before striking out on Derrick Road toward Mendota and multiplexed with I-5 from Harris Ranch to Derrick Rd.
Since none of these routings -- or even the West Valley region in general -- were previously planned by Caltrans or its predecessor before these deployments and reroutings took place (all, IIRC, between 1975 and 1983), exploring the impetus for their establishment would be an interesting exercise. Likely scenario: local state legislators and/or county officials, realizing that the West Valley had always been given short shrift by Caltrans, saw the opening of I-5 through their midst as an opportunity to correct a longstanding situation of either oversight or neglect, and took action to manifest their concerns. Alternate scenario: since this Valley area is dominated by large-scale agribusiness, those various firms pressured Caltrans (directly or indirectly) to provide state-maintained facilities for their transport needs. Either way, the establishment and signage of these routes occurred within a relatively short timespan (at least, historically, for road projects in California!).
Funny...wasn't there something about Amazon wanting to open a distribution center near Fresno but they wanted Caltrans to open up CA 198, 41 and 43 to full freeways? Looks like Caltrans balked at that idea (rightfully so in my opinion) and Amazon decided on Tracy instead?
Although it is much farther from Southern California than Fresno, Tracy -- or even neighboring Manteca -- is a very logical place to locate a distribution point: it has rail lines extending in 3 directions (N, S, and W to the Bay Area) as well as Interstate routes doing the same (5,580,205). The only drawback is the regional congestion due to the area being a lower-housing-cost series of "bedroom communities" for the Bay. Amazon will need to engage in some serious logistical planning to avoid having their inbound & outbound shipments caught up in the area's infamous "rush hours" (this from more personal experience than I care to recall)!
Quote from: sparker on July 04, 2016, 03:17:42 PM
Although it is much farther from Southern California than Fresno, Tracy -- or even neighboring Manteca -- is a very logical place to locate a distribution point: it has rail lines extending in 3 directions (N, S, and W to the Bay Area) as well as Interstate routes doing the same (5,580,205). The only drawback is the regional congestion due to the area being a lower-housing-cost series of "bedroom communities" for the Bay. Amazon will need to engage in some serious logistical planning to avoid having their inbound & outbound shipments caught up in the area's infamous "rush hours" (this from more personal experience than I care to recall)!
That's why I'm thinking that the Fresno And Kings County areas were looked at seriously by Amazon, that traffic is going to be a total abortion. It's intriguing to think how much of the character of San Joaquin Valley...specifically Fresno could have changed with all those upgrades Amazon wanted. There are a couple freight lines that run roughly the corridors of 198 and 43 that would have needed some upgrades as well.
If Amazon was pressing for upgrades of 41, 43, and 198, that indicates to me that the actual facility would have been located more toward Hanford or Lemoore than in the denser central Fresno area. If Fresno itself were the location, then they would have more likely pressed for a westward extension of the 180 freeway (perhaps all the way west past Mendota to I-5) and/or a drastic advancement of the timetable for Interstate conversion of 99. Hanford makes sense, because it's right on the main BNSF line through the Valley; while Lemoore is at the western end of the UP spur line extending west from Goshen Junction through Hanford; it used to extend to Coalinga to serve the old oilfields there, but was cut back to Lemoore (to serve the NAS there) back in the late '80's. So those locations would have featured rail and road access -- but without the inherent congestion levels of the Fresno metro area. Also, it would have been even closer to the L.A. market. Since 41 is already expanded to 4-lane expressway standards north of 198, Amazon would likely have pushed for similar (or even full-freeway) upgrades south on that route to I-5 for quicker southbound egress; the same would apply to 198 west to I-5 for north/west movements. From Hanford, Lemoore, or some point in between, I think that Amazon planners would have considered I-5 to be their primary corridor rather than 99 -- principally due to the lack of urbanization along that route. As an aside, they probably never travelled I-5 on a holiday weekend!
Quote from: sparker on July 04, 2016, 04:34:19 PM
If Amazon was pressing for upgrades of 41, 43, and 198, that indicates to me that the actual facility would have been located more toward Hanford or Lemoore than in the denser central Fresno area. If Fresno itself were the location, then they would have more likely pressed for a westward extension of the 180 freeway (perhaps all the way west past Mendota to I-5) and/or a drastic advancement of the timetable for Interstate conversion of 99. Hanford makes sense, because it's right on the main BNSF line through the Valley; while Lemoore is at the western end of the UP spur line extending west from Goshen Junction through Hanford; it used to extend to Coalinga to serve the old oilfields there, but was cut back to Lemoore (to serve the NAS there) back in the late '80's. So those locations would have featured rail and road access -- but without the inherent congestion levels of the Fresno metro area. Also, it would have been even closer to the L.A. market. Since 41 is already expanded to 4-lane expressway standards north of 198, Amazon would likely have pushed for similar (or even full-freeway) upgrades south on that route to I-5 for quicker southbound egress; the same would apply to 198 west to I-5 for north/west movements. From Hanford, Lemoore, or some point in between, I think that Amazon planners would have considered I-5 to be their primary corridor rather than 99 -- principally due to the lack of urbanization along that route. As an aside, they probably never travelled I-5 on a holiday weekend!
Correct I think that they planned to build something at the intersection of 41 and 198 somewhere. The one part of the plans that I thought was actually really beneficial was upgrading 41 north of Lemoore to Fresno as a full freeway. I could in theory seeing completing the 198 expressway to I-5 but it would be a tough sell for the whole route to be a freeway, same thing with 41 south to Kettleman. Apparently all of CA 43 had to be included as a full freeway for whatever reason...I guess they wanted another I-5 connector.
Seriously, 43? To serve as a connector to 5 you'd need to circumnavigate Corcoran, Wasco, and Shafter as well as the smaller towns in between -- not to mention the proximity of the adjacent BNSF tracks. The only way that I can see Amazon even remotely justifying wanting 43 upgrades was if there were to be two facilities along 198; one near the 41 junction as a main distribution warehouse for maximum truck access, plus some sort of office complex/secondary warehouse near the larger town of Hanford, primarily for the convenience (read perks!) of Amazon site management. But even so, 43 upgrades merely evoke a WTF reaction from anyone with access to a map!
Quote from: sparker on July 04, 2016, 05:59:23 PM
Seriously, 43? To serve as a connector to 5 you'd need to circumnavigate Corcoran, Wasco, and Shafter as well as the smaller towns in between -- not to mention the proximity of the adjacent BNSF tracks. The only way that I can see Amazon even remotely justifying wanting 43 upgrades was if there were to be two facilities along 198; one near the 41 junction as a main distribution warehouse for maximum truck access, plus some sort of office complex/secondary warehouse near the larger town of Hanford, primarily for the convenience (read perks!) of Amazon site management. But even so, 43 upgrades merely evoke a WTF reaction from anyone with access to a map!
Exactly my thoughts. There was an earlier thread somewhere on the subject a couple months back actually with the news article. I can't see any possibly justification for 43, the route is actually pretty adequate other than the slow speed limit. A lot of folks were trying to argue with me that there was a traffic problem which I've NEVER seen on 43...not even near Selma during the morning rush.
Found the thread in question:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=17629.0
Apparently I didn't remember 43 correctly, they wanted north of 198 to at minimum an expressway. Still seems like overkill to me.....
Yeah...even though some of those improvements might have been initiated or prompted by Amazon, it seems Kings County is pretty eager to get in on the Valley freeway bandwagon. I can see at least a 2-lane expressway (with ROW protection & channelization) from 198 to Corcoran along 43, but for the present I just don't see the need for anything more. Unless someone figured that Hanford residents (or, prior to the Tracy decision, future Amazon employees) would be jonesing for some of those fine Selma raisins, an expressway north of 198 would likely not be a cost-effective venture; there is too much driveway access to the present roadway to practically utilize it as an expressway/freeway ROW; new alignment, with the accompanying property-acquisition cost, would be necessary. Even without Amazon, I can see 198 as an expressway facility west to I-5 in my lifetime (and I'm an old fart!) -- but not much else.
I've been surprised how low the traffic volumes are west of the Lemoore NAS on 198. I think part of the reason is that no one uses it for a trans-mountain route like I do - they'd rather (or Google tells them to) take 152 or 46 - and there's really nothing west of Lemoore. Looking at a map, a freeway all the way to I-5 is obvious, but I don't know that it's actually necessary. Then again, it shouldn't be that expensive to do.
Coatimundi....thanks for the post; this thread had been turning into the "Max & Scotty Show (we'll be here all week; don't forget to tip your waitress!)". :) For a largely trans-state road, 198's traffic volume is concentrated between 41 and Sequoia Park. Once, back in 1999, I took 198 west from Coalinga to 25, then north, just to see what the area looked like. Beteween Coalinga and the east CA 146 entrance to the Pinnacles, I don't think I passed more than a dozen vehicles (IIRC, 2 of them were UPS trucks!). And you're right about the likely need for a freeway upgrade for 198 between 5 and 41: unless there's some political pressure emanating from Hanford and/or Visalia regarding the need for enhanced access to and from I-5 (now that Amazon didn't bite on the area), it'll likely stay as is for the time being; the most anyone could expect in the foreseeable future would be an expressway -- a full freeway wouldn't be justified.
That's the thing with 198, it pretty much is still a full expressway between CA 99 and CA 43 but doesn't have a single traffic light or drop below 65 MPH. About the only thing past the air station you get is Harris Ranch before 198 crosses I-5, it's actually a fun as hell road to take out to US 101 regardless if you stay on it or use CA 25. The real interesting part of CA 25 is that it apparently follows part of the San Andreas fault. Correct if I'm wrong but didn't 180 at one point connect out to via Panoche Road 25 or am I just imaging things that were on a drawing board?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 03, 2016, 11:59:01 AM
Got any good reference materials on the net for the LRN numbers? I have some really good sources for Florida and the pre-1945 route numbers but I can't find anything solid for the LRNs.
Umm, the actual legislative acts, perhaps. I've got them all cited in the various pages at http://www.cahighways.org/chronlgy.html
Quote from: cahwyguy on July 05, 2016, 11:28:05 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 03, 2016, 11:59:01 AM
Got any good reference materials on the net for the LRN numbers? I have some really good sources for Florida and the pre-1945 route numbers but I can't find anything solid for the LRNs.
Umm, the actual legislative acts, perhaps. I've got them all cited in the various pages at http://www.cahighways.org/chronlgy.html
Exactly what I was looking for, funny I used to have a book mark for that site but lost it with this new computer.
CA 180 was (and, AFAIK, still is) projected as a "line on a map" west from its present terminus at CA 33 to CA 25 in the vicinity of the Panoche Road (County J1) intersection. No formal alignment has ever been adopted (the first step to actually building a facility) between 33 and 25; all iterations of "dotted line" over the years show it cutting off the present northward arc on Panoche on a more direct trajectory. The last iteration I recall (from a Caltrans map circa 1994-95) showed the route extending from the point where 180 turns NW to access Mendota due west to I-5, jogging south on I-5 for several miles before continuing west to approximately the 25/Panoche junction.
Interestingly, CA 25 north from the junction point through Hollister and on to the terminus at US 101 south of Gilroy was, during the later '70's and early-to-mid '80's, legislatively designated as CA 180 -- although CA 25 signage was retained. The Caltrans white "paddle" markers along the roadside did read "180", with mileage starting at the 101 junction (I personally observed this circa 1982-83). Obviously, the 180 extension was intended to be a principal alternate route to the Valley -- one directly serving Fresno -- to augment 152 to the north. According to my ex, who was born & raised in Fresno, many wealthy Fresnans have 2nd homes in Carmel (including her father; we used that house often) or Pacific Grove (on the Monterey Peninsula); an extended 180, combined with 156 west from Hollister, would have provided a shorter path between the two points -- and that particular group of Fresno residents would have plenty of clout vis-Ã -vis influencing Caltrans to at least engage in some preliminary planning for such a corridor (face it, no one likes slogging through Los Banos!).
The "180" portion of CA 25 was redesignated back to its original "25" number sometime in the late '80's, and the cross-Coast Range section of 180 hasn't been mentioned since. One would expect the usual suspects: lack or lessening of political interest, lack of funding, etc. But that area also poses some other issues: CA 25 essentially sits atop the San Andreas Fault for its entire length, and the area is considered "earthquake central" due to the small quakes occurring almost constantly somewhere in the area. Also, Hollister is no longer the sleepy little San Benito Valley town it once was (my ex thought it "quaint"!); massive housing tracts are everywhere that there is available land (except for some local vineyards whose owners have refused to sell!), driven by the ongoing housing requirements of the Santa Clara (Silicon) Valley to the north. 156 bypassed central Hollister with an expressway in the early '90's, the 25 bypass (in arterial form) was opened a few years ago. The chances for a high-capacity facility connecting 25 SE of Hollister to 156 or 101 are likely sunk by the deployment of all that new housing. This situation likely puts a substantial nail in the coffin of any 180 extension past I-5.
Quote from: sparker on July 05, 2016, 03:46:59 PM
CA 180 was (and, AFAIK, still is) projected as a "line on a map" west from its present terminus at CA 33 to CA 25 in the vicinity of the Panoche Road (County J1) intersection. No formal alignment has ever been adopted (the first step to actually building a facility) between 33 and 25; all iterations of "dotted line" over the years show it cutting off the present northward arc on Panoche on a more direct trajectory. The last iteration I recall (from a Caltrans map circa 1994-95) showed the route extending from the point where 180 turns NW to access Mendota due west to I-5, jogging south on I-5 for several miles before continuing west to approximately the 25/Panoche junction.
Interestingly, CA 25 north from the junction point through Hollister and on to the terminus at US 101 south of Gilroy was, during the later '70's and early-to-mid '80's, legislatively designated as CA 180 -- although CA 25 signage was retained. The Caltrans white "paddle" markers along the roadside did read "180", with mileage starting at the 101 junction (I personally observed this circa 1982-83). Obviously, the 180 extension was intended to be a principal alternate route to the Valley -- one directly serving Fresno -- to augment 152 to the north. According to my ex, who was born & raised in Fresno, many wealthy Fresnans have 2nd homes in Carmel (including her father; we used that house often) or Pacific Grove (on the Monterey Peninsula); an extended 180, combined with 156 west from Hollister, would have provided a shorter path between the two points -- and that particular group of Fresno residents would have plenty of clout vis-Ã -vis influencing Caltrans to at least engage in some preliminary planning for such a corridor (face it, no one likes slogging through Los Banos!).
The "180" portion of CA 25 was redesignated back to its original "25" number sometime in the late '80's, and the cross-Coast Range section of 180 hasn't been mentioned since. One would expect the usual suspects: lack or lessening of political interest, lack of funding, etc. But that area also poses some other issues: CA 25 essentially sits atop the San Andreas Fault for its entire length, and the area is considered "earthquake central" due to the small quakes occurring almost constantly somewhere in the area. Also, Hollister is no longer the sleepy little San Benito Valley town it once was (my ex thought it "quaint"!); massive housing tracts are everywhere that there is available land (except for some local vineyards whose owners have refused to sell!), driven by the ongoing housing requirements of the Santa Clara (Silicon) Valley to the north. 156 bypassed central Hollister with an expressway in the early '90's, the 25 bypass (in arterial form) was opened a few years ago. The chances for a high-capacity facility connecting 25 SE of Hollister to 156 or 101 are likely sunk by the deployment of all that new housing. This situation likely puts a substantial nail in the coffin of any 180 extension past I-5.
I'm probably getting the number off of some old map that probably showed 180 as a mistake with the legislative number, I'll have to go digging through the storage bins sometime to see if I can find it...I swear it showed it. Good god anything is better than that truck and commuter slog over 152...that seems to be the one everyone follows nowadays given the expressway configuration probably gets favorable hits from GPS units.
Incidentally I had a Cousin call me today, I guess her and the family are dropping into San Jose Thursday night and wanted to meet up in Santa Cruz. I'm thinking CA 198 up US 101 is the ticket going up with CA 25 and CA 198 heading back...I hate back tracking but I would like to avoid 46 since it's such a boring drive.
Speaking of Monterrey County and the San Andreas Fault...what are your thoughts on the western segment of CA 146? Apparently that's where the old fault movement was located at before it shifted more to where CA 25 is. It's probably among the poorest maintained or graded of the California State Highways but one of the most intriguing given the weird design.
To tell you the truth, the only time I went to the Pinnacles was from the east side (the "short" 146). The only part of the west 146 I've been on is the part that sits atop Business 101 through Soledad; so I couldn't give you any more status info that you couldn't get from Google Earth! FYI, the Salinas valley is criss-crossed with lots of minor faults of varying activity levels; I can't recall any area highway (state or otherwise) being shut down because of a quake.
198 to 101 (then 183 to Castroville) is not a bad ride if you're going to S. Cruz from Bakersfield. Watch out for 25 from 146 south to 198 though, it didn't seem too well maintained the last time I used it (some sections without center lines -- and crumbling shoulders as well!). It seems to be more of a local-access facility than a through route -- or at least thought of that way by Caltrans.
If you're really bored, you could always take 58 east from Santa Margarita across the Carizzo! :-P
Quote from: sparker on July 05, 2016, 11:36:08 PM
To tell you the truth, the only time I went to the Pinnacles was from the east side (the "short" 146). The only part of the west 146 I've been on is the part that sits atop Business 101 through Soledad; so I couldn't give you any more status info that you couldn't get from Google Earth! FYI, the Salinas valley is criss-crossed with lots of minor faults of varying activity levels; I can't recall any area highway (state or otherwise) being shut down because of a quake.
198 to 101 (then 183 to Castroville) is not a bad ride if you're going to S. Cruz from Bakersfield. Watch out for 25 from 146 south to 198 though, it didn't seem too well maintained the last time I used it (some sections without center lines -- and crumbling shoulders as well!). It seems to be more of a local-access facility than a through route -- or at least thought of that way by Caltrans.
If you're really bored, you could always take 58 east from Santa Margarita across the Carizzo! :-P
25 wasn't actually that bad back in February when I did some climbing up in east Pinnacles. It's bumpy as all hell and one of those roads you can maintain the 55 MPH but you are going to be mindful of deceptive corners south of east 146...at least it's not as bad as Coalinga Road...that's the real wild ride. The last time I was on west 146 was May of 2014, it was in wonky shape but it was very apparently intentional since it was literally straddling every bump in the old faults. Now mind you that was right after Pinnacles was declared a national park so there might be improvements but I highly doubt it.
I'm always up for a Daniel Plainview-esc tour of the places that inspired Little Boston out in those oil fields on 58. There are some wicked dead-man's curves out there in the hills.
I was out on Panoche Road a couple of weeks ago, and was trying to imagine a 46-ish roadway cut through the hills. In theory, I think it would be possible, and it may have even been a more simple proposition than even cutting 198 through those little canyons. The existing road, if you ever want to brave it, is pretty rough in both directions past whatever you want to call Panoche (school, village, bar, etc.). I hadn't driven it in about a year, and I'd swear it had gotten worse from the past winter. It seems like they (local Panoche Valleyers) just do not want anyone going through there. Or maybe they just don't want people to see the sign for Panoche Pass and make fun of it.
If you can brave it, and are okay with your tires, it's a great drive, and the Paicines Valley is always gorgeous.
What I want to do now is La Gloria Road, but only when I get new tires.
But I was on 146 west probably about a year ago to reach Pinnacles, because that's the closer side for us. It gets pretty hairy before the highway officially ends. The stripe disappears, it's open ranchland, and the curve speed limits become a bit more serious. When you hit the park boundary though, it opens up.
Soledad has pushed itself as the "Gateway to the Pinnacles," (there's a section of 101 in Soledad officially named that) but Hollister has called itself essentially the same thing. It seems like most people access it from the eastern side though.
Quote from: sparker on July 05, 2016, 04:01:03 AM
Coatimundi....thanks for the post; this thread had been turning into the "Max & Scotty Show"
I'm pleased as punch to provide traffic to this forum with the idea that, the more traffic it receives, the more attention and use it will receive.
Quote from: coatimundi on July 06, 2016, 01:45:55 AM
I was out on Panoche Road a couple of weeks ago, and was trying to imagine a 46-ish roadway cut through the hills. In theory, I think it would be possible, and it may have even been a more simple proposition than even cutting 198 through those little canyons. The existing road, if you ever want to brave it, is pretty rough in both directions past whatever you want to call Panoche (school, village, bar, etc.). I hadn't driven it in about a year, and I'd swear it had gotten worse from the past winter. It seems like they (local Panoche Valleyers) just do not want anyone going through there. Or maybe they just don't want people to see the sign for Panoche Pass and make fun of it.
If you can brave it, and are okay with your tires, it's a great drive, and the Paicines Valley is always gorgeous.
What I want to do now is La Gloria Road, but only when I get new tires.
But I was on 146 west probably about a year ago to reach Pinnacles, because that's the closer side for us. It gets pretty hairy before the highway officially ends. The stripe disappears, it's open ranchland, and the curve speed limits become a bit more serious. When you hit the park boundary though, it opens up.
Soledad has pushed itself as the "Gateway to the Pinnacles," (there's a section of 101 in Soledad officially named that) but Hollister has called itself essentially the same thing. It seems like most people access it from the eastern side though.
I would like a trip out to see the Idria Mine which would be accessed by Panoche. Problem is that I doubt that dirt road is really well maintained since the town and mine were abandoned in addition to it may be at the Superfund level at this point with the usual accompanying fence....you can see the buildings out there on satellite view though. Personally I didn't find it to be anything nearly as bad as say Old 66 west of Amboy or Kelbaker Road between Kelso and Baker. There is also an abandoned springs resort up there in Diablos called Coalinga Springs which looks like it might easily reached... I've even seen reports about Parkfield-Coalinga Road being well maintained worth the trip so long as it hasn't rained in awhile.
West Pinnacles from my observation was for the more serious hiker while the east was for the casual one. You're higher up in elevation on the east side and you definitely have more facilities. I'm actually surprised that Congress moved it up from a National Monument...it always seemed like with the size it was more monument worthy. I mean they give Pinnalces the upgrade and not Lava Beds National Monument?...that doesn't make sense. At least Pinnacles has some facilities which is more than can be said of a lot of non-park service designated current/former monuments from the last 20 years.
Speaking of that west 146 alignment, if you keep going south of Metz-King City Road that gets pretty wild with maintenance also. You get some decent looks at the tracks following that if you're a train buff.
Fully agree with you re the serious v. casual hiker difference between east & west Pinnacles; after obtaining a flyer from the Park Service, I opted for the more "casual" east side: having no cartilege in my right knee (dating from a 1969 sports injury in college) pretty much made that decision for me! Being also a train buff, I have made the Metz-King City Road detour on more than one occasion -- mainly to see that lonely little RR tunnel extending through an outcropping on the riverside bluff about halfway between King City & Soledad. Considering how SP (owners of the trackage until 1996) had an ongoing program to "daylight" shorter tunnels (i.e., open them up with massive rock cuts) dating from post-WW II, the survival of this one makes it quite unique.
Quote from: sparker on July 06, 2016, 08:48:49 AM
Fully agree with you re the serious v. casual hiker difference between east & west Pinnacles; after obtaining a flyer from the Park Service, I opted for the more "casual" east side: having no cartilege in my right knee (dating from a 1969 sports injury in college) pretty much made that decision for me! Being also a train buff, I have made the Metz-King City Road detour on more than one occasion -- mainly to see that lonely little RR tunnel extending through an outcropping on the riverside bluff about halfway between King City & Soledad. Considering how SP (owners of the trackage until 1996) had an ongoing program to "daylight" shorter tunnels (i.e., open them up with massive rock cuts) dating from post-WW II, the survival of this one makes it quite unique.
Yeah I was wondering what the story was with those tunnels, it was pretty apparent just driving by that they were very old. There seems to be some evidence of some old rail siding towns between Soledad and King City, wouldn't that likely put the origin of the tracks back to the steam days?
One thing the east side has the west doesn't that I've noticed is WAY cooler weather. You'd think that there wouldn't be much of a difference but the west side feels like a desert and the east was substantially wetter...at least the couple times I've visited.
Quote from: sparker on July 05, 2016, 03:46:59 PM
CA 180 was (and, AFAIK, still is) projected as a "line on a map" west from its present terminus at CA 33 to CA 25 in the vicinity of the Panoche Road (County J1) intersection. No formal alignment has ever been adopted (the first step to actually building a facility) between 33 and 25
The proposed extension of 180 west to I-5 has had some discussion in recent years:
http://dot.ca.gov/dist6/environmental/projects/sr180westside/index.html
http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist6/environmental/projects/sr180westside/doc/180westside2_030113.pdf
I always figured that the more recent "jog" along I -5 within the CA 180 proposed alignment was to position the eastern portion to Fresno as a form of SIU, to be addressed separately from the trans-mountain portion of the route. It also allowed that eastern portion to intersect I-5 somewhat north of the original (1959, 1965) projection -- providing a more seamless access to Fresno from northerly points along I-5 (including 152 and 580, of course). A secondary benefit of the split alignment would be to more closely tailor the mountainous portion to the Coast Range topography. It appears from Chris' document cites, there are mid-to-long range plans afoot to build out 180 east of I-5 to at least (upgradeable) expressway standards; considering the about 1M metro population of Fresno, that is hardly surprising. Looks like the posters to this board aren't the only ones who don't want to slog through Los Banos on their way east or west!
Quote from: sparker on July 06, 2016, 03:27:47 PM
Looks like the posters to this board aren't the only ones who don't want to slog through Los Banos on their way east or west!
With regards to that: the Los Banos bypass isn't even projected to be finished until 2040!
http://www.losbanosenterprise.com/2015/07/30/224380/highway-plans-meet-resistance.html
That long delay is in part due to cancellation of a funding plan that had been in place:
http://www.losbanosenterprise.com/2014/04/17/219733/mcag-votes-to-divert-funds-from.html
I certainly don't fault the local Los Banos residents for objecting to "Band-Aid" measures along the in-town segment of CA 152; there is little justification for their crosstown egress being truncated or limited by "improvements" on the highway -- even basic inconvenience is difficult to rationalize. And it seems like the "shovel", as in "shovel ready", is being used for more than one purpose ("break out the Bandini, folks; we're spreading it wide & deep"). Projects of any major scale don't seem to catch a break these days, regardless of continuing/longstanding need. The rationale appears to be that expediting 5-10 projects of more localized or concentrated importance is worth "back-burnering" longer-distance travel upgrades.
In response to Max's inquiry about the Southern Pacific Coast Line -- it was fully completed from L.A. to San Jose in 1901, which, of course, puts it squarely at the peak of the steam locomotive. There were indeed numerous sidings and loading areas along the Salinas Valley portion of the line; most of them were taken up as agriculture consolidated into larger-scale farming operations with more centralized rail transfer facilities, usually in the larger towns such as King City and Soledad. Dieselization of the Coast Line took place from 1945 to 1958; the last "holdout" for mainline steam on the S.P. system was in the Bay Area, where the water necessary for steam operations was relatively plentiful. S.P., of course, dieselized its desert operations (from L.A. east into Texas) first in order to obviate the need for water supplies (and stops) along the route; Bakersfield to Sacramento and over to the Bay were the last regions to switch over circa 1957-58. (Most of this info gleaned from Joseph Strapac's extensive volumes on SP's history and equipment rosters).
Quote
Rescinding the resolution allows officials to use $3 million of the collected fees toward a grant to fund another construction project, the Campus Parkway, which will connect Highway 99 and UC Merced.
That really sucks. Divert money from something that's actually needed so that the wealthy parents and other visitors have a pretty way to get to a campus that they built in the middle of no where for mostly no reason. It also seems to have the purpose of driving development to a new "University Community." Maybe it's to attract faculty who want the prestige of a UC but don't want to live in Merced. It seems like the developers should be paying for a large portion of this.
http://www.co.merced.ca.us/pdfs/planning/cplan/completed/university/final_university_community_plan.pdf
I've driven the existing section of Campus Parkway, and it's a little ridiculous: divided parkway in the middle of farm fields.
It's all part of the Merced Loop project, which aims to construct a full 360 around the city, some of it at expressway standards. A tiny section of the Atwater-Merced Expressway, where it intersects CA 99, is already complete.
https://www.cityofmerced.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=13578
I don't know how Los Banos could handle losing 152 plowing through the city. I find it annoying that I have to look at that town on the way back from the San Joaquin Valley, but they would likely lose a lot of those roadside businesses.
Quote from: sparker on July 06, 2016, 05:34:17 PM
In response to Max's inquiry about the Southern Pacific Coast Line -- it was fully completed from L.A. to San Jose in 1901, which, of course, puts it squarely at the peak of the steam locomotive. There were indeed numerous sidings and loading areas along the Salinas Valley portion of the line; most of them were taken up as agriculture consolidated into larger-scale farming operations with more centralized rail transfer facilities, usually in the larger towns such as King City and Soledad. Dieselization of the Coast Line took place from 1945 to 1958; the last "holdout" for mainline steam on the S.P. system was in the Bay Area, where the water necessary for steam operations was relatively plentiful. S.P., of course, dieselized its desert operations (from L.A. east into Texas) first in order to obviate the need for water supplies (and stops) along the route; Bakersfield to Sacramento and over to the Bay were the last regions to switch over circa 1957-58. (Most of this info gleaned from Joseph Strapac's extensive volumes on SP's history and equipment rosters).
Figured as much but I never really got through in Monterrey County for looking for rail siding ruins. The real gems are out in Mojave on the Santa Fe line that runs by National Trails Highway/San Bernardino CR 66. Basically in one stretch from Ludlow to I-40 along US 95 you have the following rail siding towns I know of; Ludlow, Klondike, Siberia, Bagdad, Amboy, Bristol, Cadiz, Danby, Essex, Goffs, Homer, Ibis, Jaba and Klienfelter. Out of that list you have some that are really completely intact like Ludlow, Amboy, Essex and Goffs while I've at least able to find a foundation or two if not rail sign for everything but Bristol and Jaba. I've also seen documents that talk about rail sidings called Bannock, Saltus (which may be Bristol) and Ash Hill but I can't pin down REAL locations like the others. It seems that only Chambless came after the rail siding era as a result of US 66 running through the area and basically seems to the only one with signs of life today. You had almost completely unique situation out there in the Mojave where a railroad route was eventually co-aligned with a US Highway which in this case was 66 carrying a ton of major traffic west, basically it kept a lot of those places going until I-40 was opened since there wasn't anything else substantial between Barstow and Needles. I'm starting to work on what I can find out in San Joaquin Valley but it would seem that given most of the land the rails run along is farmed that the bulk of the rail sidings are long gone.
Quote from: coatimundi on July 06, 2016, 06:55:50 PM
Quote
Rescinding the resolution allows officials to use $3 million of the collected fees toward a grant to fund another construction project, the Campus Parkway, which will connect Highway 99 and UC Merced.
That really sucks. Divert money from something that's actually needed so that the wealthy parents and other visitors have a pretty way to get to a campus that they built in the middle of no where for mostly no reason. It also seems to have the purpose of driving development to a new "University Community." Maybe it's to attract faculty who want the prestige of a UC but don't want to live in Merced. It seems like the developers should be paying for a large portion of this.
http://www.co.merced.ca.us/pdfs/planning/cplan/completed/university/final_university_community_plan.pdf
I've driven the existing section of Campus Parkway, and it's a little ridiculous: divided parkway in the middle of farm fields.
It's all part of the Merced Loop project, which aims to construct a full 360 around the city, some of it at expressway standards. A tiny section of the Atwater-Merced Expressway, where it intersects CA 99, is already complete.
https://www.cityofmerced.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=13578
I don't know how Los Banos could handle losing 152 plowing through the city. I find it annoying that I have to look at that town on the way back from the San Joaquin Valley, but they would likely lose a lot of those roadside businesses.
Speaking of 152....sucked it up and used that to get up to US 101 and San Jose today and boy did I regret it. Had a truck blow a tire right in front of me and had to pull an old Motorweek emergency lane change at about 64 MPH... Further up towards the 1,400 foot mark near Pacheco Pass the traffic shut down due to a truck in the left lane. Really Caltrans needs to seriously upgrade CA 156 and CA 152 east of US 101...those roads are death traps until it blows up to four lanes on Pacheco Pass and even that could use complete uphill lanes. At least CHP got someone who was tailgating left lane traffic coming down into the CA 152/CA 156 interchange.
Aside from that went to Big Basin Redwood State Park with my Cousin's family up CA 9 and through CA 268. I took them over CA 35 along Skyline for awhile too....made my Cousin and her kid nauseated on CA 268 when it narrowed down due to the redwoods. I honestly can't understand how that stays a signed state highway with those poor design conditions but it's a hell of a lot of fun if you are entering from the north terminus. I got a couple freaked out "oh my god is a log truck?" out of my Cousin. :-D I managed to dodge most of the traffic by taking CA 85 and CA 17 to I-280....staying the night here before heading home in the morning. I'm taking the scenic detour on CA 25 and CA 198 on the way home...San Andreas be damned.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 08, 2016, 10:31:54 PM
Really Caltrans needs to seriously upgrade CA 156 and CA 152 east of US 101...those roads are death traps until it blows up to four lanes on Pacheco Pass and even that could use complete uphill lanes
There is a truck lane on 152 westbound approaching Pacheco Pass. I've actually never been on 152 west of the 156 split to Gilroy, but 156 between SJB and Hollister is slated to be turned into a freeway. Currently in the design phase and, as always, significantly delayed. I say let it be delayed, and let the Stockton and Fresno folks sit in their vehicular recliners on top of each other if they really want to come over here for the weekends.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 08, 2016, 10:31:54 PM
made my Cousin and her kid nauseated on CA 268 when it narrowed down due to the redwoods. I honestly can't understand how that stays a signed state highway
236? I mean, it provides the only access to a state park, so I would assume that's why. 130 is almost as bad, especially toward the top, by the observatory, and it has some gnarly drop-offs. That one really has no reason to be a state route, except that I believe the observatory is state-funded through a UC.
Quote from: coatimundi on July 09, 2016, 12:23:58 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 08, 2016, 10:31:54 PM
Really Caltrans needs to seriously upgrade CA 156 and CA 152 east of US 101...those roads are death traps until it blows up to four lanes on Pacheco Pass and even that could use complete uphill lanes
There is a truck lane on 152 westbound approaching Pacheco Pass. I've actually never been on 152 west of the 156 split to Gilroy, but 156 between SJB and Hollister is slated to be turned into a freeway. Currently in the design phase and, as always, significantly delayed. I say let it be delayed, and let the Stockton and Fresno folks sit in their vehicular recliners on top of each other if they really want to come over here for the weekends.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 08, 2016, 10:31:54 PM
made my Cousin and her kid nauseated on CA 268 when it narrowed down due to the redwoods. I honestly can't understand how that stays a signed state highway
236? I mean, it provides the only access to a state park, so I would assume that's why. 130 is almost as bad, especially toward the top, by the observatory, and it has some gnarly drop-offs. That one really has no reason to be a state route, except that I believe the observatory is state-funded through a UC.
Yes 236, sorry had a couple beers (I'm not passing up free Reds, who would?) tonight given that I'm just sitting around. Yeah...but that's the thing, is that the standard Caltrans wants to abide by? Why not just post a "236 end" at the the state park boundary or something to that affect? With CA 9 being the south and north terminus point wouldn't some sort scenic highway sign saying "Big Basin Highway" suffice? I don't know..probably just being picky in regards to the route signage. I just look at something like Bodie with 270 terminating when the pavement ends and don't see how CA 9 wouldn't be sufficient. I would venture a guess that some stray motorist probably has gone down 236 a time or two over the years and gotten more than they bargained for in regards to a rough ride.
I'm pretty sure you're right about 130 being funded by a University. With 130 even though it terminates somewhere near the lick observatory you COULD take a paved road all the way east to I-5 if you really wanted to.
Oh...apparently my Cousin's husband had a run in with the Deadman's curve on CA 17 coming back from Santa Clara yesterday. I briefed them on the infamy of CA 17 between the coast and San Jose; being from Virginia they seemed surprised that so many main roads just plow through the mountains in exrpessway forms.
In regards to 152 it sure looked like Caltrans is working on the third lane eastbound for a brief 3 mile segment near the top of the uphill grade. End of the day I really wish that I bitten the bullet and taken 198 all the way over to King City but I talked myself out of it due to the southward trek it takes through the Diablos. Tomorrow being a weekend will sure make things easier getting through Hollister on 25 though.
Quote from: coatimundi on July 09, 2016, 12:23:58 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 08, 2016, 10:31:54 PM
Really Caltrans needs to seriously upgrade CA 156 and CA 152 east of US 101...those roads are death traps until it blows up to four lanes on Pacheco Pass and even that could use complete uphill lanes
There is a truck lane on 152 westbound approaching Pacheco Pass. I've actually never been on 152 west of the 156 split to Gilroy, but 156 between SJB and Hollister is slated to be turned into a freeway. Currently in the design phase and, as always, significantly delayed. I say let it be delayed, and let the Stockton and Fresno folks sit in their vehicular recliners on top of each other if they really want to come over here for the weekends.
CA-152 west of the 152-156 intersection is a conventional 2-lane highway and is still considered to be quite dangerous. Long (and I mean *long*) term plans call for a 4-lane highway to be built starting at the US 101/CA-25 interchange south of Gilroy and proceed east to the 152-156 junction. Due to funding issues, local agencies are looking at tolling this highway to help pay for it.
As for CA-156 between San Juan Bautista and Hollister, I am not aware of any plans to make that segment a freeway. I am, however, aware of plans to convert the 2-lane segment between US 101 and CA-1 into a 4-lane expressway/freeway with the possibility of using tolls to pay for that road as well.
Quote from: myosh_tino on July 09, 2016, 12:38:35 AM
Quote from: coatimundi on July 09, 2016, 12:23:58 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 08, 2016, 10:31:54 PM
Really Caltrans needs to seriously upgrade CA 156 and CA 152 east of US 101...those roads are death traps until it blows up to four lanes on Pacheco Pass and even that could use complete uphill lanes
There is a truck lane on 152 westbound approaching Pacheco Pass. I've actually never been on 152 west of the 156 split to Gilroy, but 156 between SJB and Hollister is slated to be turned into a freeway. Currently in the design phase and, as always, significantly delayed. I say let it be delayed, and let the Stockton and Fresno folks sit in their vehicular recliners on top of each other if they really want to come over here for the weekends.
CA-152 west of the 152-156 intersection is a conventional 2-lane highway and is still considered to be quite dangerous. Long (and I mean *long*) term plans call for a 4-lane highway to be built starting at the US 101/CA-25 interchange south of Gilroy and proceed east to the 152-156 junction. Due to funding issues, local agencies are looking at tolling this highway to help pay for it.
As for CA-156 between San Juan Bautista and Hollister, I am not aware of any plans to make that segment a freeway. I am, however, aware of plans to convert the 2-lane segment between US 101 and CA-1 into a 4-lane expressway/freeway with the possibility of using tolls to pay for that road as well.
An expressway would be a massive improvement for both highways regardless. I hit some stop and go heading into Gilroy that was backed up almost for a mile on that left hand turn CA 152 takes at the light at the junction with Ferguson Road.
Quote from: myosh_tino on July 09, 2016, 12:38:35 AM
Quote from: coatimundi on July 09, 2016, 12:23:58 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 08, 2016, 10:31:54 PM
Really Caltrans needs to seriously upgrade CA 156 and CA 152 east of US 101...those roads are death traps until it blows up to four lanes on Pacheco Pass and even that could use complete uphill lanes
There is a truck lane on 152 westbound approaching Pacheco Pass. I've actually never been on 152 west of the 156 split to Gilroy, but 156 between SJB and Hollister is slated to be turned into a freeway. Currently in the design phase and, as always, significantly delayed. I say let it be delayed, and let the Stockton and Fresno folks sit in their vehicular recliners on top of each other if they really want to come over here for the weekends.
CA-152 west of the 152-156 intersection is a conventional 2-lane highway and is still considered to be quite dangerous. Long (and I mean *long*) term plans call for a 4-lane highway to be built starting at the US 101/CA-25 interchange south of Gilroy and proceed east to the 152-156 junction. Due to funding issues, local agencies are looking at tolling this highway to help pay for it.
As for CA-156 between San Juan Bautista and Hollister, I am not aware of any plans to make that segment a freeway. I am, however, aware of plans to convert the 2-lane segment between US 101 and CA-1 into a 4-lane expressway/freeway with the possibility of using tolls to pay for that road as well.
I found a 2014 project sheet for SR 156 between San Juan Bautista and Hollister here: http://dot.ca.gov/dist05/projects/sbt156/fact_sheet.pdf
It states that the road will be widened to four-lane expressway standards and that construction is scheduled a year from now, in July 2017.
Quote from: myosh_tino on July 09, 2016, 12:38:35 AM
As for CA-156 between San Juan Bautista and Hollister, I am not aware of any plans to make that segment a freeway.
Third item in "Construction Projects":
http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist05/paffairs/sanbenito/sbtcog.pdf
If you Google it, you'll probably also find some mentions of it. It's been muddling about for a few years.
156 west is TAMC's deal while east is San Benito's. I think the former has a genuine chance of coming to fruition while the latter will just remain a line item for many years. The people in Hollister will fight it.
Quote from: myosh_tino on July 09, 2016, 12:38:35 AM
CA-152 west of the 152-156 intersection is a conventional 2-lane highway and is still considered to be quite dangerous. Long (and I mean *long*) term plans call for a 4-lane highway to be built starting at the US 101/CA-25 interchange south of Gilroy and proceed east to the 152-156 junction. Due to funding issues, local agencies are looking at tolling this highway to help pay for it.
It seems like this will take some time. I did find a fact sheet, but it doesn't show much in the way of funding.
http://www.vta.org/sfc/servlet.shepherd/version/download/068A0000001Fbxs
The map on this link shows you are correct. SR 152 will be realigned to the south of Gilroy per this map. This would allow a continuous four-lane corridor all the way to US 101.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 09, 2016, 12:41:27 AM
Quote from: myosh_tino on July 09, 2016, 12:38:35 AM
CA-152 west of the 152-156 intersection is a conventional 2-lane highway and is still considered to be quite dangerous. Long (and I mean *long*) term plans call for a 4-lane highway to be built starting at the US 101/CA-25 interchange south of Gilroy and proceed east to the 152-156 junction. Due to funding issues, local agencies are looking at tolling this highway to help pay for it.
An expressway would be a massive improvement for both highways regardless. I hit some stop and go heading into Gilroy that was backed up almost for a mile on that left hand turn CA 152 takes at the light at the junction with Ferguson Road.
Not sure how familiar you are with CA-152 but that signal at Ferguson was only put in a couple of years ago. Before, westbound traffic had a make a hard left turn (from a turn pocket) to remain on CA-152.
As for a potential bypass, I did a little digging (using Google) and apparently, there are many opposed to a toll road including the city of Gilroy, environmentalists and agricultural interests in the San Joaquin valley who are concerned that a toll road would increase costs of getting their goods to market. If this thing is built in the next 10-20 years, I'd be really surprised.
Quote from: myosh_tino on July 09, 2016, 12:54:51 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 09, 2016, 12:41:27 AM
Quote from: myosh_tino on July 09, 2016, 12:38:35 AM
CA-152 west of the 152-156 intersection is a conventional 2-lane highway and is still considered to be quite dangerous. Long (and I mean *long*) term plans call for a 4-lane highway to be built starting at the US 101/CA-25 interchange south of Gilroy and proceed east to the 152-156 junction. Due to funding issues, local agencies are looking at tolling this highway to help pay for it.
An expressway would be a massive improvement for both highways regardless. I hit some stop and go heading into Gilroy that was backed up almost for a mile on that left hand turn CA 152 takes at the light at the junction with Ferguson Road.
Not sure how familiar you are with CA-152 but that signal at Ferguson was only put in a couple of years ago. Before, westbound traffic had a make a hard left turn (from a turn pocket) to remain on CA-152.
As for a potential bypass, I did a little digging (using Google) and apparently, there are many opposed to a toll road including the city of Gilroy, environmentalists and agricultural interests in the San Joaquin valley who are concerned that a toll road would increase costs of getting their goods to market. If this thing is built in the next 10-20 years, I'd be really surprised.
Had a couple run ins over the years mainly from where 156 terminates. I saw what you were talking about with the hard left though where that light is. It's almost one of those situations where maybe a large traffic circle would work better with a more consistent flow of traffic rather than the back up that light is causing?
What kind of tolls are they talking that has San Joaquin farm folks so upset? Say if it cost $3.00 dollars for each pass through even that's probably going to be offset by the gains in transport time on each truck.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 09, 2016, 01:04:31 AM
What kind of tolls are they talking that has San Joaquin farm folks so upset? Say if it cost $3.00 dollars for each pass through even that's probably going to be offset by the gains in transport time on each truck.
I don't have any idea but here's something to think about.
The auto toll on our local toll bridges runs $4-6. A 5-axle 18-wheeler crossing the same bridge has to pay a $25 toll. Looking to see how the toll roads in Orange County operate, it appears that tolls for big rigs compared to cars roughly follow the same ratio. On CA-73, autos pay $5-8 while big rigs pay $20-32 depending on time of day.
Quote from: myosh_tino on July 09, 2016, 01:30:03 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 09, 2016, 01:04:31 AM
What kind of tolls are they talking that has San Joaquin farm folks so upset? Say if it cost $3.00 dollars for each pass through even that's probably going to be offset by the gains in transport time on each truck.
I don't have any idea but here's something to think about.
The auto toll on our local toll bridges runs $4-6. A 5-axle 18-wheeler crossing the same bridge has to pay a $25 toll. Looking to see how the toll roads in Orange County operate, it appears that tolls for big rigs compared to cars roughly follow the same ratio. On CA-73, autos pay $5-8 while big rigs pay $20-32 depending on time of day.
Ah, yes that's true...but would Caltrans really follow the same toll schedule for a non-urban corridor? If they were considering a similar rate to CA 73 then yeah I see why those farmers would be pretty angry. At minimum at least seems like there a consensus that an upgrade really needs to be done...too bad it will be a slow go.
To my knowledge, all toll roads and bridges charge by the axle. Even facilities like the Ohio Turnpike and the rural toll roads in Oklahoma. It's to offset the extra wear on the road.
These new facility bypass toll roads, where an existing free facility is bypassed, never work. When traffic volumes slack off - and they're relatively low most of the day on 152 - then no one wants to pay the toll. Two examples of this in Texas: Hardy Toll Road in Houston (it was basically subsidized by the much more successful Sam Houston Tollway) and SH 130 that has already gone bankrupt.
Unless there's significant development east of Gilroy - and there may very well be some day - that creates traffic impediments on the existing corridor, I don't see how a toll facility would be economically feasible.
Quote from: coatimundi on July 09, 2016, 01:36:16 PM
These new facility bypass toll roads, where an existing free facility is bypassed, never work. When traffic volumes slack off - and they're relatively low most of the day on 152 - then no one wants to pay the toll. Two examples of this in Texas: Hardy Toll Road in Houston (it was basically subsidized by the much more successful Sam Houston Tollway) and SH 130 that has already gone bankrupt.
If you look at the document Andy linked to in an earlier post, the only proposed interchanges would be at CA-156, CA-25, Bolsa Road and US 101. There doesn't appear to be any access between the proposed toll road and the existing highway.
It looks like the eastern end is at the existing 152, but its sole purpose would be to suck traffic off of 152.
A Gilroy bypass is a good idea and would get good use; I just think that a toll road would not.
Quote from: coatimundi on July 09, 2016, 04:10:06 PM
It looks like the eastern end is at the existing 152, but its sole purpose would be to suck traffic off of 152.
A Gilroy bypass is a good idea and would get good use; I just think that a toll road would not.
What I'm saying is I don't believe there's going to be an exit to the old highway at the east end of the proposed toll road. If you're on west CA-152 past CA-156, your only option is to use the toll road.
Quote from: myosh_tino on July 09, 2016, 04:17:30 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on July 09, 2016, 04:10:06 PM
It looks like the eastern end is at the existing 152, but its sole purpose would be to suck traffic off of 152.
A Gilroy bypass is a good idea and would get good use; I just think that a toll road would not.
What I'm saying is I don't believe there's going to be an exit to the old highway at the east end of the proposed toll road. If you're on west CA-152 past CA-156, your only option is to use the toll road.
Hence all the rage about the trucks having to use the toll...if they had an option to dive off onto an older alignment there wouldn't be so much angst. Regardless the urban sprawl has backed up to 152 and 156...not to mention that it's one of the primary routes to get out of San Joaquin Valley to the Bay area or Monterrey.
I'm just surprised the plan as shown actually intersects 152 a mile or so west of the 152/156 junction; that route would require a multilane facility over the existing steep hill (both directions) immediately west of the junction. The ridge that 152 presently surmounts only extends less than a mile southward; continuing the expressway/freeway south on 156 for a mile or so before turning west would avoid this hill completely, making the route considerably more "truck-friendly" (and likely less costly to construct; I'd guess that, at least westbound, a truck climbing lane would be appropriate) -- which seems to be one of the main rationales for the route upgrade in the first place. The rest of the corridor seems fine, curving north around the airport.
If this route is ever developed, I would hope Caltrans would deploy seamless freeway access from south 101 to east 152 (please, no parclo shit, citing a Santa Teresa Blvd. extension as an excuse :no:).
Quote from: myosh_tino on July 09, 2016, 04:17:30 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on July 09, 2016, 04:10:06 PM
It looks like the eastern end is at the existing 152, but its sole purpose would be to suck traffic off of 152.
A Gilroy bypass is a good idea and would get good use; I just think that a toll road would not.
What I'm saying is I don't believe there's going to be an exit to the old highway at the east end of the proposed toll road. If you're on west CA-152 past CA-156, your only option is to use the toll road.
Then the traffic would just stay on 156 and go through Dunneville to get around the tolls. I'm sure those people have to deal enough with that now on the weekends.
I don't know about 152 but, locally, it's just known that you don't get on 156 on Friday or Sunday in the summers. If you have to go that way, you take back routes, and that's what Prunedale residents do just to get around for errands. But the Central Valley folks seem relatively content to not go through the trouble of finding a back route and sitting in traffic. Once you put a $5 toll in their way though, then I think that will get them looking at other options, especially when those other options don't add that much time to the drive.
It's just like LA: every little vehicular orifice is eventually filled. And that's exacerbated when money comes into play.
Off-topic, but all of CA-245 was once part of CA-65, according to the original 1934 highway plan. It was changed because CA-65 has been intended for a long time to connect farther northward into the Sacramento area.
To add to the topic (and maybe it's already been mentioned), but one of my favorite scenic routes is CA-150 to CA-192 to CA-154 to CA-246. It's a long bypass of the 101 to the south, but is mainly in the foothills north of the coast, and offers some fantastic views on clear days, especially once you ascend into the San Marcos Pass. (Historically, all of this was once simply CA-150).
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 05, 2016, 07:59:13 AM
That's the thing with 198, it pretty much is still a full expressway between CA 99 and CA 43 but doesn't have a single traffic light or drop below 65 MPH. About the only thing past the air station you get is Harris Ranch before 198 crosses I-5, it's actually a fun as hell road to take out to US 101 regardless if you stay on it or use CA 25. The real interesting part of CA 25 is that it apparently follows part of the San Andreas fault. Correct if I'm wrong but didn't 180 at one point connect out to via Panoche Road 25 or am I just imaging things that were on a drawing board?
According to some old highway maps I've got, CA-180 (on paper) has its western terminus at CA-25, although it presently ends at CA-33, and I believe it always has. There is talk of extending it west to I-5, but I have no idea if this will ever happen.
Quote from: Quillz on July 10, 2016, 11:58:17 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 05, 2016, 07:59:13 AM
That's the thing with 198, it pretty much is still a full expressway between CA 99 and CA 43 but doesn't have a single traffic light or drop below 65 MPH. About the only thing past the air station you get is Harris Ranch before 198 crosses I-5, it's actually a fun as hell road to take out to US 101 regardless if you stay on it or use CA 25. The real interesting part of CA 25 is that it apparently follows part of the San Andreas fault. Correct if I'm wrong but didn't 180 at one point connect out to via Panoche Road 25 or am I just imaging things that were on a drawing board?
According to some old highway maps I've got, CA-180 (on paper) has its western terminus at CA-25, although it presently ends at CA-33, and I believe it always has. There is talk of extending it west to I-5, but I have no idea if this will ever happen.
Do you happen to have a scan? I'm pretty sure that you're referring to the map I've seen but unable to track down that had 180 out to 25.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 11, 2016, 12:08:40 AM
Quote from: Quillz on July 10, 2016, 11:58:17 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 05, 2016, 07:59:13 AM
That's the thing with 198, it pretty much is still a full expressway between CA 99 and CA 43 but doesn't have a single traffic light or drop below 65 MPH. About the only thing past the air station you get is Harris Ranch before 198 crosses I-5, it's actually a fun as hell road to take out to US 101 regardless if you stay on it or use CA 25. The real interesting part of CA 25 is that it apparently follows part of the San Andreas fault. Correct if I'm wrong but didn't 180 at one point connect out to via Panoche Road 25 or am I just imaging things that were on a drawing board?
According to some old highway maps I've got, CA-180 (on paper) has its western terminus at CA-25, although it presently ends at CA-33, and I believe it always has. There is talk of extending it west to I-5, but I have no idea if this will ever happen.
Do you happen to have a scan? I'm pretty sure that you're referring to the map I've seen but unable to track down that had 180 out to 25.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FhcxaYao.png&hash=706c204abe5e5d6721ddaa52f9dfe0785a63f668)
That would be the one...that's basically showing 180 heading west along Panoche Road. Seems as we discussed earlier that the route did possibly exist legislatively for a little bit which is probably where the map maker got the information from:
From cahighways.org:
In 1963, the first two segments were defined as "(a) Route 101 near Gilroy to Route 156. (b) Route 156 to Route 99 near Fresno passing near Paicines and Mendota."
In 1965 Chapter 1371 split (b) into two segments: "(b) Route 156 to Route 5 passing near Paicines. (c) Route 5 to Route 99 passing near Mendota."
In 1984, Chapter 409 deleted (a), truncated (b), and clarified (d): "(b) Route 156 Route 25 near Paicines to Route 5. [...] (d) The General Grant Grove section of Kings Canyon National Park to Kings Canyon River Kings Canyon National Park boundary near Cedar Grove." The former (a) and the segment removed from (b) were transferred to Route 25. This resulted in the current definition of (a)
Pre 1964 Signage History
In 1934, Route 180 was (to be) signed along the route from Jct Route 25 at Pacines to Jct. Route 7 (US 395) at Independence, via Fresno. Oddly, it was part of LRN 263, defined in 1959, and does not appear to have been part of the state highway system between 1933 and 1959. The routing was only "proposed" in 1963, and likely corresponds to a county route. "Tis a puzzlement"
Status
Unconstructed Unconstructed; the traversable local routing may be signed as County Route J1. The traversable route is Panoche Road and San Benito County Road with no plans for improvement. The 32' San Benito County Road has a structural section consisting of chip seal over Class 4 asphaltic base. No state adoption is requested or recommended. Panoche Road between San Benito County and I-5 is an unimproved dirt road. If a new state highway is constructed in the area, a new alignment is recommended, and it is unlikely any of the existing road would be incorporated. State adoption of Panoche Road was not recommended.
Also interesting to note that the same map shows a proposed routing of CA-180 across the Sierra to end at US-395 (then CA-7). Not sure how that would have worked, would have required entirely new roadway most likely, and certainly will never happen because now the Sequoia Nat'l Park is there. (Also interesting to note that any such eastern extension would be running through the highest peaks of the Sierra).
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FGLT0Gb7.png&hash=ed9b19821c9f0a7604779eaa5b3a11a9725ffc8b)
Quote from: Quillz on July 11, 2016, 12:43:22 AM
Also interesting to note that the same map shows a proposed routing of CA-180 across the Sierra to end at US-395 (then CA-7)
Aren't most of the routes that end in the Sierras like that? Like 190 and 168? Where the idea was started with just a line on a map in a planning office, but the execution was too difficult, contentious, and/or expensive to actually follow through with.
Something about disconnected routes really annoys me. They should just be renumbered.
Quote from: coatimundi on July 11, 2016, 01:26:25 AM
Quote from: Quillz on July 11, 2016, 12:43:22 AM
Also interesting to note that the same map shows a proposed routing of CA-180 across the Sierra to end at US-395 (then CA-7)
Aren't most of the routes that end in the Sierras like that? Like 190 and 168? Where the idea was started with just a line on a map in a planning office, but the execution was too difficult, contentious, and/or expensive to actually follow through with.
Something about disconnected routes really annoys me. They should just be renumbered.
The southern crossings, yes. 168 and 190 still have cross-Sierra connections "on paper" even today, yet won't happen either due to geography or wilderness areas being the way. The northern crossings were feasible due to the lower topography. And I agree that discontiguous sections should just be different highways altogether.
Quote from: coatimundi on July 11, 2016, 01:26:25 AM
Quote from: Quillz on July 11, 2016, 12:43:22 AM
Also interesting to note that the same map shows a proposed routing of CA-180 across the Sierra to end at US-395 (then CA-7)
Aren't most of the routes that end in the Sierras like that? Like 190 and 168? Where the idea was started with just a line on a map in a planning office, but the execution was too difficult, contentious, and/or expensive to actually follow through with.
Something about disconnected routes really annoys me. They should just be renumbered.
Some were more realistic than others but none were cheap crossing the Sierra, now you have too much environmental red tape too. 190 probably has the best chance out of the split Sierra routes or once planned to be complete with Sherman Pass via J41. The road is already surfaced but it's....dubious... Another non-Sierra example is the planned route of 178 crossing the high mountains around Death Valley.
Just bumping this up this the whole 65, 69 and 245 discussion brewed back up.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 11, 2016, 07:42:12 AM
Quote from: coatimundi on July 11, 2016, 01:26:25 AM
Quote from: Quillz on July 11, 2016, 12:43:22 AM
Also interesting to note that the same map shows a proposed routing of CA-180 across the Sierra to end at US-395 (then CA-7)
Aren't most of the routes that end in the Sierras like that? Like 190 and 168? Where the idea was started with just a line on a map in a planning office, but the execution was too difficult, contentious, and/or expensive to actually follow through with.
Something about disconnected routes really annoys me. They should just be renumbered.
Some were more realistic than others but none were cheap crossing the Sierra, now you have too much environmental red tape too. 190 probably has the best chance out of the split Sierra routes or once planned to be complete with Sherman Pass via J41. The road is already surfaced but it's....dubious... Another non-Sierra example is the planned route of 178 crossing the high mountains around Death Valley.
I actually drove the entire J41 or w/e it's called while on field study. Entered the Sierra around Kennedy Meadows, took another road that led to J41, there was also a detour south to CA-178. Surprisingly, the road was pretty good quality, well-paved and while not much in the way of shoulders, it was far from what I'd consider a dangerous road. I could realistically see all of it being part of CA-190, especially since these roads already exist, as opposed to whatever proposed alignment Caltrans has had on the books for decades.
With talk of a possible Olancha bypass, perhaps this is a catalyst to finally get a completed CA-190.
Quote from: Quillz on July 18, 2016, 11:25:45 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 11, 2016, 07:42:12 AM
Quote from: coatimundi on July 11, 2016, 01:26:25 AM
Quote from: Quillz on July 11, 2016, 12:43:22 AM
Also interesting to note that the same map shows a proposed routing of CA-180 across the Sierra to end at US-395 (then CA-7)
Aren't most of the routes that end in the Sierras like that? Like 190 and 168? Where the idea was started with just a line on a map in a planning office, but the execution was too difficult, contentious, and/or expensive to actually follow through with.
Something about disconnected routes really annoys me. They should just be renumbered.
Some were more realistic than others but none were cheap crossing the Sierra, now you have too much environmental red tape too. 190 probably has the best chance out of the split Sierra routes or once planned to be complete with Sherman Pass via J41. The road is already surfaced but it's....dubious... Another non-Sierra example is the planned route of 178 crossing the high mountains around Death Valley.
I actually drove the entire J41 or w/e it's called while on field study. Entered the Sierra around Kennedy Meadows, took another road that led to J41, there was also a detour south to CA-178. Surprisingly, the road was pretty good quality, well-paved and while not much in the way of shoulders, it was far from what I'd consider a dangerous road. I could realistically see all of it being part of CA-190, especially since these roads already exist, as opposed to whatever proposed alignment Caltrans has had on the books for decades.
With talk of a possible Olancha bypass, perhaps this is a catalyst to finally get a completed CA-190.
Then why would the present California state route 245 be so "crooked" with turns on the north side of the route?
Quote from: Quillz on July 18, 2016, 11:25:45 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 11, 2016, 07:42:12 AM
Quote from: coatimundi on July 11, 2016, 01:26:25 AM
Quote from: Quillz on July 11, 2016, 12:43:22 AM
Also interesting to note that the same map shows a proposed routing of CA-180 across the Sierra to end at US-395 (then CA-7)
Aren't most of the routes that end in the Sierras like that? Like 190 and 168? Where the idea was started with just a line on a map in a planning office, but the execution was too difficult, contentious, and/or expensive to actually follow through with.
Something about disconnected routes really annoys me. They should just be renumbered.
Some were more realistic than others but none were cheap crossing the Sierra, now you have too much environmental red tape too. 190 probably has the best chance out of the split Sierra routes or once planned to be complete with Sherman Pass via J41. The road is already surfaced but it's....dubious... Another non-Sierra example is the planned route of 178 crossing the high mountains around Death Valley.
I actually drove the entire J41 or w/e it's called while on field study. Entered the Sierra around Kennedy Meadows, took another road that led to J41, there was also a detour south to CA-178. Surprisingly, the road was pretty good quality, well-paved and while not much in the way of shoulders, it was far from what I'd consider a dangerous road. I could realistically see all of it being part of CA-190, especially since these roads already exist, as opposed to whatever proposed alignment Caltrans has had on the books for decades.
With talk of a possible Olancha bypass, perhaps this is a catalyst to finally get a completed CA-190.
Yeah I know...total quality road with nothing really all that bad about it. I know there is an "official" Caltrans adopted route that is much more straight across the Sierra but it really doesn't stand much chance. I'm actually planning on hitting the overlook that views Mount Whitney this Friday maybe and doubling back to Barstow....looks like Mineral King is going to be a Wednesday thing.
Quote from: ACSCmapcollector on July 18, 2016, 11:30:22 PM
Quote from: Quillz on July 18, 2016, 11:25:45 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 11, 2016, 07:42:12 AM
Quote from: coatimundi on July 11, 2016, 01:26:25 AM
Quote from: Quillz on July 11, 2016, 12:43:22 AM
Also interesting to note that the same map shows a proposed routing of CA-180 across the Sierra to end at US-395 (then CA-7)
Aren't most of the routes that end in the Sierras like that? Like 190 and 168? Where the idea was started with just a line on a map in a planning office, but the execution was too difficult, contentious, and/or expensive to actually follow through with.
Something about disconnected routes really annoys me. They should just be renumbered.
Some were more realistic than others but none were cheap crossing the Sierra, now you have too much environmental red tape too. 190 probably has the best chance out of the split Sierra routes or once planned to be complete with Sherman Pass via J41. The road is already surfaced but it's....dubious... Another non-Sierra example is the planned route of 178 crossing the high mountains around Death Valley.
I actually drove the entire J41 or w/e it's called while on field study. Entered the Sierra around Kennedy Meadows, took another road that led to J41, there was also a detour south to CA-178. Surprisingly, the road was pretty good quality, well-paved and while not much in the way of shoulders, it was far from what I'd consider a dangerous road. I could realistically see all of it being part of CA-190, especially since these roads already exist, as opposed to whatever proposed alignment Caltrans has had on the books for decades.
With talk of a possible Olancha bypass, perhaps this is a catalyst to finally get a completed CA-190.
Then why would the present California state route 245 be so "crooked" with turns on the north side of the route?
Because there is a pretty tall climb from Badger to CA 180. Towards the northern terminus of CA 245 you go above 5,000 relatively quickly near the end of the route. There is no way to build a reasonable road with a low uphill grade in a straight shot.
At this point, seems like Caltrans should simply take over maintenance of J41 and whatever else is already there. This would put CA-190's junction with US-395 at what is now the Nine Mile Canyon Road, quite a bit south of Olancha, but hardly an issue, I think. That's the only realistic way there will ever be a CA-190 extension, and even then, I strongly doubt this will ever occur.
Quote from: Quillz on July 18, 2016, 11:33:31 PM
At this point, seems like Caltrans should simply take over maintenance of J41 and whatever else is already there. This would put CA-190's junction with US-395 at what is now the Nine Mile Canyon Road, quite a bit south of Olancha, but hardly an issue, I think. That's the only realistic way there will ever be a CA-190 extension, and even then, I strongly doubt this will ever occur.
I'd settle for a renumber of J41 to J190 along with renumbering some of those forest routes to the same designation. Seems legit enough to imply the route to me..Florida the hell out of it
Caltrans doesn't want another Sierra route to plow, I'm sure.
Quote from: coatimundi on July 19, 2016, 12:54:33 AM
Caltrans doesn't want another Sierra route to plow, I'm sure.
True....but outside of I-80, US 50 and CA 88 it's not like they do anyways. So basically Sherman Pass is just like 108, 4 and 120 in that regard already. It's funny that they never dropped the official routing of CA 190 even though it will never happen. Might be more viable for all weather though if it was ever built over Olancha or Haiwee Pass...I can't find anything published on their heights but Sherman is 9,200 feet above sea level.
They probably don't want the maintenance in general. Any mountain route will be expensive to maintain, what with slip-outs, regular resurfacing, guardrail maintenance, mudslides, and such, all of which require SHOPP funding that is increasingly less there.
Quote from: cahwyguy on July 19, 2016, 08:07:02 AM
They probably don't want the maintenance in general. Any mountain route will be expensive to maintain, what with slip-outs, regular resurfacing, guardrail maintenance, mudslides, and such, all of which require SHOPP funding that is increasingly less there.
Right and don't me wrong, I think the existing roadway over Sherman Pass is more than sufficient as a summer Sierra pass. Seems like it would be a lot easier to just go to Inyo County and the Forest Service in Sequoia National Forest then ask them to throw up some FR190 and J190 signs then call it a day. Wouldn't be too different than CA 59 becoming J59 north of Snelling. Basically I go back to something like Florida which frequently does stuff like that maintaining State Route designations that cross over to county ones with the same route number. Might be something worth considering in places with route relinquishment gaps, put it back on the counties.
Thought I'd pull this thread down off Sherman Pass (hope there's cel service up there) and back toward another weird-ass California state highway -- but staying, for the time being, east of the Sierra. One of the most arrow-straight highways out there is CA 167, from US 395 to the Nevada border north of Mono Lake. Besides its linearity, a couple of other things about this route are unusual. Originally, it was a spur route of LRN 40, which comprised SSR (later CA) 120 from CA 108 east to the Yosemite Park boundary, and then from the Tioga Pass park boundary to US 395, plus the section from US 395 to US 6 (Benton Jct.). About 1953 or so the "Pole Line" highway was added to the state highway system as an access road into Nevada (and the U.S. ordinance storage facility at Hawthorne, NV), connecting with (now) NV 359. What is unusual is that the Division of Highways, rather than just picking the next number available (in the 200's by that time) for this route, designated it another section of LRN 40 -- as if they were planning to reroute SSR 120 onto that route rather than the 395-to-6 section, which featured regular winter closures. Of course, the 1964 renumbering undid such a designation; in their pull-it-out-of-a-hat '64 style, they renumbered it as CA 167.
Recently the route has been touted as part of the most efficient Los Angeles-to-Boise route for commercial and recreational traffic -- although it has not been included in the NHS; a STRAHNET route accomplishing the same function diverges from US 395 onto US 6 at Bishop, using that route to NV 360, which functions as a "cutoff" to north US 95, which backtracks into Hawthorne. But there are more services along US 395 between Bishop and the CA 167 intersection; probably the reason the CA 167 alternative has gained popularity for regular drivers between L.A. and the Boise area. I've driven the highway a couple of times -- while passing through a largely desolate area, it's a pretty nice overall drive (albeit needing some pavement work near the state line!).
I didn't know it was at one point considered to be an extension of CA-120, that's very interesting. I've passed the route once, never driven on it. I do know you can see the route extend nearly 10 miles into the distance as a straight line.
120 kind of worked out as is since the eastern terminus is at US 6. Speaking of seeing forever, you have a decent view of 167 and US 395 from the top of the Mono Lake overlook....weird part of the state indeed:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1255.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fhh630%2FMadMaxRockatansky73%2FIMG_5438_zps83iragqk.jpg&hash=9365fbc7ed51c83531de59e66de1c5478d22d855)
I've done several field trips out in the Mono Lake/Eastern Sierra area. Utilized CA-120 a lot. I'm actually surprised it's a road that doesn't get plowed in the winter, since it doesn't have any steep ascents or descents, no sharp curves, etc. It runs through a relatively flat area.
Quote from: Quillz on August 02, 2016, 11:18:36 PM
I've done several field trips out in the Mono Lake/Eastern Sierra area. Utilized CA-120 a lot. I'm actually surprised it's a road that doesn't get plowed in the winter, since it doesn't have any steep ascents or descents, no sharp curves, etc. It runs through a relatively flat area.
Are you talking Tioga? If that's the case that probably has to do with the Parks Service more than anything else. I'm fairly certain the Park Service doesn't use road salt at all and just does the best they can with a plow. If it was state maintained I would certainly think it would be somewhat viable to keep open given the terrain is so much more gentle than 108 and 4....both of those have 20% plus grades coming down the eastern slope.
QuoteAre you talking Tioga?
No, the easternmost segment between 395 and 6.
Quote from: Quillz on August 03, 2016, 12:01:34 AM
QuoteAre you talking Tioga?
No, the easternmost segment between 395 and 6.
No shit, they close that section?...wow that makes no sense at all.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 03, 2016, 12:05:02 AM
Quote from: Quillz on August 03, 2016, 12:01:34 AM
QuoteAre you talking Tioga?
No, the easternmost segment between 395 and 6.
No shit, they close that section?...wow that makes no sense at all.
Yes, it's often closed in the winter. I think the last few years it's been open due to a pretty warm winter, but I know some years, it does see some heavy snowfall. But like I said, it's a fairly simple segment to maintain, so I don't know why it wouldn't be.
Actually, CA 120 between 395 and 6, while a benign drive in the summer, is prone to severe snow drifts during the winter. While the western end of this section sits at about 6800 foot altitude, and the eastern end at Benton Jct. is even lower at about 5700 feet, the center segment rises to about 8200 foot elevation -- higher than Conway Summit to the north on 395. And the very lack of variation of the terrain around the highway contributes to heavy snow drifting during winter months -- there's not much in the way of steep hills for the snow to fall off -- it tends to stay packed up on the ground (and the highway); there's nothing stopping it from "piling on", so to speak. Plowing would be pointless -- by the time the road was plowed from one end of the snowdrift area to the other, it would have been overtaken by more drifting in the plow's wake. It's actually one of the later spring openings on a state highway in that area; the crews tend to wait until most of the pack has melted off before plowing it through. The saving grace is that it takes a sizeable snowstorm to pack it up in the first place, so it's often late November or even early December before 120 is closed in that area.
I seem to recall 120 at Sagehen Summit closed for a period this past winter, when all the other passes were also closed.
Tioga Pass isn't a matter of NPS' desire to not salt the roads - I don't believe they salt anywhere in California - but it's because of the danger of allowing throngs of snow-unready tourists up there. It's also the highest road pass in the Sierras, at almost 10,000', and going there just after opening, you can see how much snow it actually gets.
Quote from: coatimundi on August 03, 2016, 01:17:40 AM
I seem to recall 120 at Sagehen Summit closed for a period this past winter, when all the other passes were also closed.
Tioga Pass isn't a matter of NPS' desire to not salt the roads - I don't believe they salt anywhere in California - but it's because of the danger of allowing throngs of snow-unready tourists up there. It's also the highest road pass in the Sierras, at almost 10,000', and going there just after opening, you can see how much snow it actually gets.
It's not just California, it's basically every unit I've been to in the winter time. I was in Utah a couple years back after a heavy blizzard and I was driving over a good 2-3 inch layer of compacted snow in Bryce, Arches and Canyonlands...probably should have used the chains in retrospect. Even Great Basin had a ton of snow on that trip...for some reason Capitol Reef was snow free and Zion was way too low in elevation. I've never seen salt at the Grand Canyon either which why I would speculate that they don't bother plowing the north rim drive or much of AZ 67 given the remoteness of the terrain. And yes I'm sure they really don't want people up there that high during the winter when they average 15-20 feet of snow through the season, I'm just saying that it "could" be done probably a little easier than most people assume. There seems to be this perception that Tioga Pass is a lot more of an ominous drive than it really is due to the height.
But then again I encountered a snow storm on CA 140 earlier this year and the road was apparently salted even below 2,000 feet...so that was a thing.
And given that I haven't spent a ton of time near Mono Lake in the winter I would have assumed that it didn't receive much snow due to the obvious desert terrain....go figure.
I lived in Hesperia, close to the north end of Cajon Pass, for a couple of years -- at 3500 foot elevation. 3 winters there, and we got snow each and every one of them -- mostly lasting for only a couple of days, but one year [2011] there were drifts blocking the main road into town for nearly a week before we got a bit of a warming and everything melted (causing some local flash flooding in washes). The desert can indeed be deceiving in winter!
Yesterday I had some extra time and had an opportunity to drive the western portion of CA 36, Fortuna to Red Bluff, about 140 miles, for the first time ever. It took around 3 hours at what seemed like a fast pace, with the first 80 miles taking about 2 hours and then the rest going more quickly. That offers quite a variety of scenery, from deep redwood forest and river canyons on the west side to high ridge views in the central portion to arid foothill scrublands in the eastern 40 miles or so. The portion that's striped as a one-lane road goes for maybe 4 miles between the Bridgeville and Dinsmore dots on the map, though it's interrupted by a few short double-yellow center stripes. Be aggressive about passing slower vehicles when you have a rare chance (though most drivers were good about yielding at turnouts and I did that a couple times myself) and don't dare take a passenger who's prone to carsickness. Having now checked it off my list, it's unlikely I would ever be on that road again unless for some recreational destination back in that area; CA 299 or CA 20 are much more sensible choices for getting between the North Coast and the Sacramento Valley.
I've driven all of 36 from Red Bluff to Susanville, that part I always thought was a placid nice mountain drive. Funny, 299 is almost nothing but solid yellow lines with almost no turnouts...although there are some passing lanes east of Blue Lake. There was actually a guy in an Accord that I had a hard time keeping up with...I was fairly certain he was going to wreck given how far he was pushing it.
I've actually run into snow on CA 62 heading up to Yucca Valley which is about 3,300 feet above sea level itself. In fact about the only place I haven't run into snow in any American desert is below 1,000 feet...had a pretty decent snow storm or two in Phoenix. I was actually stranded in Willcox, AZ for a couple days due to a blizzard that had I-10 shut down completely in the state of New Mexico. I'd rather be on something like 62 when the weather goes bad though....that must get ugly when people get caught off guard on Cajon with no chains.
Quote from: gonealookin on August 03, 2016, 06:09:23 PM
Yesterday I had some extra time and had an opportunity to drive the western portion of CA 36, Fortuna to Red Bluff, about 140 miles, for the first time ever. It took around 3 hours at what seemed like a fast pace, with the first 80 miles taking about 2 hours and then the rest going more quickly. That offers quite a variety of scenery, from deep redwood forest and river canyons on the west side to high ridge views in the central portion to arid foothill scrublands in the eastern 40 miles or so. The portion that's striped as a one-lane road goes for maybe 4 miles between the Bridgeville and Dinsmore dots on the map, though it's interrupted by a few short double-yellow center stripes. Be aggressive about passing slower vehicles when you have a rare chance (though most drivers were good about yielding at turnouts and I did that a couple times myself) and don't dare take a passenger who's prone to carsickness. Having now checked it off my list, it's unlikely I would ever be on that road again unless for some recreational destination back in that area; CA 299 or CA 20 are much more sensible choices for getting between the North Coast and the Sacramento Valley.
While you're correct about CA-299, that is still one crazy drive between Arcata and Weaverville. I remember doing it during the summer, and I remember steep cliffs on both sides, and being boxed in briefly by big rigs. Beautiful road, but certainly one you've got to be very alert on.
Speaking of good old CA 245...got a change to investigate a mystery that surfaced on a 1948 ACSC map that I found during the whole Mineral King Road thread. Basically the map shows CA 65 ending at CA 180....but at Dunlap Road. So essentially the map shows CA 180 actually continuing along what is now CA 245 north to Kings Canyon National Park:
http://www.historicmapworks.com/Map/US/158724/Tulare+County+1948+Road+Map/
Basically if this map is accurate the terminus for CA 65 would have been on modern CA 245 left and Dunlap Road on right would have been CA 180 westbound:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1255.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fhh630%2FMadMaxRockatansky73%2FIMG_8056_zpscdzwtyzv.jpg&hash=3bcd2281b0f85c4cda6367e3c2357357315c4adf)
The only thing that I could find addressing this terminus on cahighways was that CA 65 ended at CA 180:
"In 1934, Route 65 was signed along the route from Jct. Route 99 at Famoso to General Grant National Park (now Kings Canyon National Park) via Porterville. The original routing for Route 65 ran along present day Route 245 to Route 180. This was all LRN 129, defined in 1933."
Even if CA 65 went all the way north to where modern CA 180 is it technically would still be outside the Kings Canyon Park boundary. So...question is this, that 1948 map accurate? If so that's an even MORE twisted history with route numbers on what is now CA 245 with; 65, 69 and possibly 180 being signed along that route at one point before 1972. For what it's worth I did drive Dunlap Road in it's entirety and it is pretty much what I would expect from any normal California state highway. I don't think that I missed anything on the CA 180 stub...but it looks like it mostly talks of the freeway alignments east of 99.
I'm a bit confused... Didn't CA-65 always end at CA-180 west of Kings Canyon? Every historic map I've got shows that, until CA-65 was eventually replaced by CA-69 and then CA-245.
Quote from: Quillz on August 04, 2016, 08:50:54 PM
I'm a bit confused... Didn't CA-65 always end at CA-180 west of Kings Canyon? Every historic map I've got shows that, until CA-65 was eventually replaced by CA-69 and then CA-245.
Yes but it looks like that terminus was way more south, south west. Basically looks like CA 180 took one hell of a northern swing along what is now CA 245 north from Dunlap Road. I suppose it makes sense since the modern 180 is obviously a modern mountain grade cut while it's obvious Dunlap Road is way, way, way older. Basically that maps shows CA 180 on this alignment in 1948:
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Kings+Canyon+Mobile+Home+Park,+35671+East+Kings+Canyon+Road,+Dunlap,+CA+93621/CA-180,+Miramonte,+CA+93641/@36.7024428,-119.0860087,13z/data=!4m24!4m23!1m15!1m1!1s0x80950ec5c2d01acd:0x6498936324d9bf75!2m2!1d-119.1660181!2d36.7548316!3m4!1m2!1d-119.1255889!2d36.7393948!3s0x80950c32bcb68d2f:0x56e9c69d6264fbd9!3m4!1m2!1d-119.0638444!2d36.6962849!3s0x809512bf459b534f:0x4961c59a71b50a5e!1m5!1m1!1s0x8094559309e7542f:0xa766d70bd54ac869!2m2!1d-119.0065136!2d36.7227271!3e0?hl=en
This is where I took that picture in my previous post today:
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.6832243,-119.0224943,3a,75y,180h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s5pOiosi4zAeaQCt-e59xOA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D5pOiosi4zAeaQCt-e59xOA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D53.561916%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
Basically what I'm seeing on that 1948 map is that CA 180 would have come east from Fresno on Dunlap Road which is on the right. Badger Road/CA 245 would have been carrying CA 65 and apparently ended right there at CA 180?
Do you happen have some of those maps handy for a scan? Anything around Badger from the 1940s onward ought to clear up what happened to the CA 180 alignment.
Incidentally it's pretty crazy to think that CA 180 was once planned to use Onion Valley Road to reach US 395. That would have been one hell of a crazy feat of engineering to get that road over the mountains east of Cedar Grove....at least that's what cahighways had.
The earliest map I've got (which isn't really a map at all) was the original 1934 highway plan, which shows CA-180 using a "to be determined" route across the Sierra to meet then CA-7 in Independence. I didn't know anything had actually been planned, though. Onion Valley Road, you say? Sounds interesting.
Then, as now, the only route that I think ever has any real shot of ever crossing the Sierra is CA-190, and even then, I doubt it will ever happen.
Yeah that's reflective of everything I've seen that it never got anywhere but the planning stages and probably a good thing considering how nasty that terrain really is. Funny to think that there was once such grand plans for 180 in both directions that really never came to be. I just didn't expect a HUGE realignment like that east of Fresno...but then again I had no idea that was a serious finished state route even in the 40s. I suppose it makes sense given how much money the Park Service dumped into the Generals Highway by 1935.
Yeah there is way too much red tape with legislative and environmental stuff that make it impossible now. Back in those pre-EPA act days it was a lot easier to get things done in general...BUT it's not to say you wouldn't have the Park Service or some other body come out of nowhere with Congressional action. Basically it looks like Sequoia National Park from everything I ever read was created to stop the loggers...which I actually hit on the Colony Mill and Mineral King Road threads.
Apparently 180 had made it's jump from the Dunlap Road alignment to the current one to Kings Canyon sometime between 1948 and 1956:
http://www.cosmos-monitor.com/ca/map1956/fresno-bak-sierras.html
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 05, 2016, 08:18:50 AM
Apparently 180 had made it's jump from the Dunlap Road alignment to the current one to Kings Canyon sometime between 1948 and 1956:
http://www.cosmos-monitor.com/ca/map1956/fresno-bak-sierras.html
Any idea what the numbers in the box mean?
For example, US 466 between Bakersfield and Barstow, "58" inside of a box appears near Keane and Boron.
Quote from: myosh_tino on August 05, 2016, 01:44:28 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 05, 2016, 08:18:50 AM
Apparently 180 had made it's jump from the Dunlap Road alignment to the current one to Kings Canyon sometime between 1948 and 1956:
http://www.cosmos-monitor.com/ca/map1956/fresno-bak-sierras.html
Any idea what the numbers in the box mean?
For example, US 466 between Bakersfield and Barstow, "58" inside of a box appears near Keane and Boron.
Pretty sure that's the LRN since its pre-64.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 05, 2016, 01:48:13 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on August 05, 2016, 01:44:28 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 05, 2016, 08:18:50 AM
Apparently 180 had made it's jump from the Dunlap Road alignment to the current one to Kings Canyon sometime between 1948 and 1956:
http://www.cosmos-monitor.com/ca/map1956/fresno-bak-sierras.html
Any idea what the numbers in the box mean?
For example, US 466 between Bakersfield and Barstow, "58" inside of a box appears near Keane and Boron.
Pretty sure that's the LRN since its pre-64.
Looks like you're right.
My initial thought was they were some sort of precursor to the Great Renumbering because the segment of US 466 I referred to in my post did become CA-58 but that didn't hold true with many of the other routes on that map. Thanks!
CA 58 did indeed take over US 466 from Bakersfield to Barstow, and former SSR 178 west from Bakersfield to US 101 at Santa Margarita. That entire route was LRN 58. The renumbering "gurus", such as they were, got lazy on this one! BTW, US 66 from Barstow to the AZ line east of Needles was also part of LRN 58; it was one of the few almost-fully "cross state" pre-'64 legislative routes; another was LRN 64, which followed SSR 74 (today's CA 74) from San Juan Capistrano to SSR 111 (LRN 187) near La Quinta, then "piggybacked" east on 111 (originally cosigned with 74) to US 60/70/99 (LRN 26) at Indio. LRN 26 followed US 99 at the Dillon Road split between Indio and Coachella, while US 60/70 east from there via Chiriaco Summit to the AZ line at Blythe was the continuation of LRN 64. Convoluted route, but it did come within 5 miles of the ocean at its west end at US 101 (now I-5, of course).
Quote from: sparker on August 05, 2016, 04:17:03 PM
another was LRN 64, which followed SSR 74 (today's CA 74) from San Juan Capistrano to SSR 111 (LRN 187) near La Quinta, then "piggybacked" east on 111 (originally cosigned with 74) to US 60/70/99 (LRN 26) at Indio
When did SR 74 get "depiggyed" from 111? I could be totally wrong, but I seem to remember seeing it multiplexed on maps.
It makes sense to do that too, since it would allow the route to appear in Indio and allow drivers to follow it when they would otherwise have to know to first take 111.
Quote from: myosh_tino on August 05, 2016, 02:01:45 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 05, 2016, 01:48:13 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on August 05, 2016, 01:44:28 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 05, 2016, 08:18:50 AM
Apparently 180 had made it's jump from the Dunlap Road alignment to the current one to Kings Canyon sometime between 1948 and 1956:
http://www.cosmos-monitor.com/ca/map1956/fresno-bak-sierras.html
Any idea what the numbers in the box mean?
For example, US 466 between Bakersfield and Barstow, "58" inside of a box appears near Keane and Boron.
Pretty sure that's the LRN since its pre-64.
Looks like you're right.
My initial thought was they were some sort of precursor to the Great Renumbering because the segment of US 466 I referred to in my post did become CA-58 but that didn't hold true with many of the other routes on that map. Thanks!
Yeah kind of strange that there never was a LRN renumbering to a 466 but then again I think that might be what the whole purpose of CA 46 replacing the segment of US 466 that was west of US 99. Still it's pretty cool to see the LRNs posted along side the signed route numbers.
With all that in mind that 1956 actually solved a couple mystery with the pre-expressway alignment of LRN 10/CA 198 through Kings County:
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Avenal+Cutoff+Rd,+Lemoore,+CA+93245/9895+7th+Avenue,+Hanford,+CA+93230/@36.3005843,-119.7637981,13z/data=!4m49!4m48!1m40!1m1!1s0x8094a52566b58659:0x6600b8cb41baa0d3!2m2!1d-119.8937353!2d36.2297902!3m4!1m2!1d-119.8187379!2d36.255006!3s0x8094b8dd1c554767:0xf21397d871435c1!3m4!1m2!1d-119.8005365!2d36.3133947!3s0x8094bf70a8cc0de7:0x8433c96ca473a110!3m4!1m2!1d-119.7150125!2d36.3145512!3s0x8094c146511c79ed:0x5ea479d9c39b2a47!3m4!1m2!1d-119.6841781!2d36.328042!3s0x8094c3e884220cf3:0x898be80aa2af38c3!3m4!1m2!1d-119.658193!2d36.3269358!3s0x8094c384dc2b53ab:0xceef918cf7c7b00e!3m4!1m2!1d-119.6412088!2d36.3273175!3s0x8094c37c7bc35b11:0xb8ada8e184661533!3m4!1m2!1d-119.634578!2d36.3280409!3s0x8094c363a3b6902b:0xe4e7051525f13f51!1m5!1m1!1s0x8094db5d3b83b0bd:0x3d8dd14e3a525b2b!2m2!1d-119.5823395!2d36.3297541!3e0?hl=en
Basically it looks like the pre-expressway 198 starts at exit 73 heading eastbound:
- There appears to be an abandoned stub of Jackson/Old CA 198 just east of the exit 73 ramp.
- According to the 1956 map it looks like Old CA 198 would have multiplexed CA 41 along the current expressway and 19 1/2 Avenue in Lemoore.
- Old CA 198 cut east along Hanford-Armona Road to Armona.
- Old CA 198 appeared to take a left turn on Front Street then north on 14th Avenue.
- CA 198 would have swung east on Lacey Blvd towards Hanford.
- In Hanford CA 198 would have taken what appears to Garner Avenue south to 7th Street east through downtown.
- Leaving downtown CA 198 appears to rejoin the eastern segment of Lacey which dead ends at 7th Avenue to today but would have continued to Tulare County prior to the expressway being built. It seems that the west bound lanes of the expressway in Kings County were CA 198/Lacey Blvd.
Now as for Tulare County my theory is that 198 ran on Mineral King Avenue and was possibly called as such all the way to Mineral King Road out in Three Rivers.
QuoteYeah kind of strange that there never was a LRN renumbering to a 466 but then again I think that might be what the whole purpose of CA 46 replacing the segment of US 466 that was west of US 99. Still it's pretty cool to see the LRNs posted along side the signed route numbers.
Not only this, but the older Caltrans maps also used to show the mileage between cities, junctions, etc. I was looking at the 2005 Caltrans map (the latest I could find) and this information wasn't there anymore. Compare this to, say the 1963 Caltrans map (last before the renumbering), it shows you LRN, mileage between points, etc. Very useful (albeit may more information than the typical motorist would have needed).
Back during Division of Highways days, especially during the Pat Brown administration, a new California state highway map was published every two years; this was a byproduct of the introduction of the California Freeway & Expressway system in 1959. The cartography was done in-house; all LRN's and signed highways: SSR, US, Interstate -- were shown with their status: completed routes with solid lines delineated by type, adopted routes with dashed lines composed of square indicators, and unadopted corridor concepts shown by dotted lines using circular indicators. LRN's were shown as numbers in squares next to the road, while the appropriate symbols for signed routes were indicated as well. All done in strictly black-and-white. The last of these was published in 1965; this addressed the renumbering effort of the previous year. After that, the Division went to less-detailed color maps based on a Gousha database (and using Gousha symbology!); this corresponded with the downgrading of California Highways & Public Works from a technically informative publication to a PR-oriented bi-monthly magazine (similar in style to the Auto Club's "Westways" mag!). Of course, CH & PW ceased publication in the spring of 1967 as part of budget-cutting on the part of the incoming Reagan gubernatorial administration. The color maps continued publication -- although not on any regular schedule -- after that.
The Division, up until 1967, used to distribute these maps at their yearly display at the California State Fair in Sacramento; if they ran out, they would entertain orders for the maps and mail them out later.
Getting back to even more obscure CA state highways, there's always CA 172, tucked up in the mountains south of Lassen Park. Interesting history -- this about 12-mile loop was the original LRN 29, the primary route east of Red Bluff to Susanville and then on to Reno, NV, and, before about 1934, was signed as SSR 36. That section, between Mineral and Morgan Summit, was routed through a narrow valley -- one that just happened to feature numerous lodges and spas built to take advantages of the numerous hot springs in that volcanic area. It zig-zagged back and forth across the valley, serving the various facilities -- but because of the constricted space in the valley, the roadway was never more than 18 feet wide -- and was never striped for 2 lanes. In 1934 the route was bypassed by LRN 86, which was laid out in a large S-curve from Mineral (the present west junction of 36 & 172) to LRN 83 (SSR 89) south of the southern entrance to Lassen Park; while not much of a saving in total mileage, it was a more modern 2-lane facility that not only allowed faster speeds but also cut about 13 miles off the distance between Red Bluff and Lassen Park. SSR 36 was rerouted over LRN 86 when it was completed, leaving the LRN 29 loop unsigned until the '64 renumbering, when it was signed as CA 172.
Back about 30 years ago one of my many cousins in the Sacramento area planned a large family reunion and selected the hot-springs resort in Mineral as the location. My then-wife and I drove up there, using CA 32 up the hill from Chico. Once up the hill, I decided to use CA 172 to get to Mineral (just to clinch it, although I told my wife it would probably be more scenic!). It was still one lane -- actually narrowing to about 13-14 feet in some sections -- and would have been fine except for one thing -- some event was happening in Mill Creek, and there were hundreds of cars and trucks backed up on 172 trying to get into a small dirt access road. It took us nearly an hour to go the 12 miles to Mineral (my wife wasn't terribly happy about that; the phrase "scenic, my ass!" pretty much said it all). Overall, not one of the better road trips in memory. My overall assessment of 172 was that it was a unique (any one-lane state highway fits that description) short route, but one that certainly was of little use as a through facility. I understand decommissioning of 172 has been under discussion for several years now, but the plug hasn't been pulled as of yet (probably due to objections by the several property owners along the highway who want to make sure it gets plowed in winter; it's at about 5700-6000 foot altitude).
Interesting history. I knew there was a reason behind 172, and I'll have to try it when I finally get up there. From the map, it's hard to eyeball which is longer, but I guess it's better to trust the more-established route.
It's interesting that GSV tried to cover the route, but had to stop because they went up there in the winter and hit an unplowed section. You'd think they'd plan it a little better.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.3214479,-121.5313396,3a,75y,278.27h,75.36t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s87FaNQH6d10vJuDb0wq11Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
I like this view from the west terminus the same year. :-D
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.3465714,-121.5946764,3a,75y,90h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjm-JipNOJ78LYqwPpuLMmg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
The last time I drove 172 was in 2014 back when I was coming south through Lassen on 89. I thought that it would be worth the trip given the short distance and detour...didn't think much of it though until now, had no idea that it was part of 36....but it makes sense given how often those mountain roads got realigned. Anyways you can see the old alignment on this 1932 map:
http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239597~5511898:Map-Showing-State-Highway-System--C?sort=Date&qvq=q:caltrans;sort:Date;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=9&trs=86
Of course the modern alignment of 36 pops up in 1934 as state previously:
http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239594~5511896:Road-Map-of-the-State-of-California?sort=Date&qvq=q:caltrans;sort:Date;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=10&trs=86
Of course for some reasons the old maps don't show the SSRs until 1938:
http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239588~5511892:Road-Map-of-the-State-of-California?sort=Date&qvq=q:caltrans;sort:Date;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=14&trs=86
Weird thing is on the 1936 map that entire section near Morgan is showed paved, then in 1938 it is showed just oiled/gravel instead...weird.
And yes since NE2 posted the link to this site I've literally browsed over every map...at least up until the late 1970s.
Moving on -- or at least back down CA 32 into the valley -- an interesting (semi-) little route that not too many non-locals seem to take is CA 45, along the Sacramento River between I-5 and CA 99. The delta highways south of Sacramento notwithstanding, CA 45 is the closest thing the state has to a Deep South-style river-running highway; the towns along its path, from Knights Landing up through Colusa and on to Hamilton City, seem more like towns I've encountered in Louisiana and Mississippi than other CA locales. I've found that if traveled in the heat of the summer, one can almost imagine you're on MS 1 or US 65 near Vicksburg!
As it turns out, most of the exterior scenes for the 1967 film "In The Heat Of The Night" were actually filmed in and around Colusa (although the famous chase on the bridge was filmed on the US 49 crossing of the Mississippi River at Helena, AR). I first went through Colusa a couple of years later; there was an amazing taco stand on 45 just north of downtown, right at the point where the road (NB) turned a block or two east so as to sit atop the Sacramento River levee. Not there anymore (that was 47 years ago; the last time I got food there was 1982!), but memorable nevertheless. Certainly fits the description of "sleepy little town". South of Colusa, CA 45 mostly stays off the levee, zig-zagging along property lines south to its southern Knights Landing terminus at CA 113. If you hang around Knights Landing for any time, be prepared to discuss hunting & fishing -- it's one of the main bird-hunting centers in the Sacramento Valley; the area between the Sacramento and Feather rivers is full of duck, goose, and pheasant blinds. My cousin-in-law, an avid pheasant hunter (and part of a multi-generational string of Caltrans employees; his dad worked for the Division of Highways right after WW II, and his son is a PE in the bridge department at Sacramento HQ) would be out in the area pretty much every weekend during hunting season (pheasant is OK eating, as long as you don't mind picking out bird shot from your breast or wing!). To us "city folks", CA 45 is a "whole 'nuther world"!
Hey, just wanted to say that today I clinched the entire CA-245 for the first time! Spent the day in Sequoia Nat'l Park, entered from the south and took the Generals' Highway all the way to the north end, so I figured I'd take 245 back down (I'm staying in Porterville).
Pretty scenic route, but very twisty, especially near the northern terminus. But the views are worth it. Also seems to be a pretty popular biking route, as I was thrice passed by a biking gang. The southern half of the route is pretty boring, though. But I found yet another traffic circle that Caltrans built, in Woodland, at the 216/245 junction.
And while this isn't directly related, something odd occured to me. When leaving Kings Canyon, I noticed the toll booths are directly on CA-180. In other words, you have to pay a toll to continue eastward on CA-180 to reach Kings Canyon (this is likely done because the Generals' Highway is within the nat'l park boundaries). Anyway, my point is... Shouldn't CA-180 technically be ending at the toll booth? I thought Caltrans didn't maintain roads within national parks? What's interesting is CA-198 officially ends at the Sequoia Nat'l Park's southern entrance (although a lot of maps, like Google, show the Generals' Highway being a part of 198). So why is 180 fully signed within the park boundaries? It would technically be a toll road, like Tioga Pass.
Quote from: Quillz on September 10, 2016, 08:51:34 PM
And while this isn't directly related, something odd occured to me. When leaving Kings Canyon, I noticed the toll booths are directly on CA-180. In other words, you have to pay a toll to continue eastward on CA-180 to reach Kings Canyon (this is likely done because the Generals' Highway is within the nat'l park boundaries). Anyway, my point is... Shouldn't CA-180 technically be ending at the toll booth? I thought Caltrans didn't maintain roads within national parks? What's interesting is CA-198 officially ends at the Sequoia Nat'l Park's southern entrance (although a lot of maps, like Google, show the Generals' Highway being a part of 198). So why is 180 fully signed within the park boundaries? It would technically be a toll road, like Tioga Pass.
Ponderism I touched on in my thread as well. What I noticed on the park maps was that they omit CA 180 within the Grant Grove section of Kings Canyon National Park. So with that in mind....I'm not sure? Like you said the road is fully signed in Grant Grove and CA 198 is the one with "TO" indicator markers. Actually if you want check out my Road Report Thread...I took a crap ton of pictures with CA 180 and the TO CA 198 signage.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 10, 2016, 09:24:13 PM
Quote from: Quillz on September 10, 2016, 08:51:34 PM
And while this isn't directly related, something odd occured to me. When leaving Kings Canyon, I noticed the toll booths are directly on CA-180. In other words, you have to pay a toll to continue eastward on CA-180 to reach Kings Canyon (this is likely done because the Generals' Highway is within the nat'l park boundaries). Anyway, my point is... Shouldn't CA-180 technically be ending at the toll booth? I thought Caltrans didn't maintain roads within national parks? What's interesting is CA-198 officially ends at the Sequoia Nat'l Park's southern entrance (although a lot of maps, like Google, show the Generals' Highway being a part of 198). So why is 180 fully signed within the park boundaries? It would technically be a toll road, like Tioga Pass.
Ponderism I touched on in my thread as well. What I noticed on the park maps was that they omit CA 180 within the Grant Grove section of Kings Canyon National Park. So with that in mind....I'm not sure? Like you said the road is fully signed in Grant Grove and CA 198 is the one with "TO" indicator markers. Actually if you want check out my Road Report Thread...I took a crap ton of pictures with CA 180 and the TO CA 198 signage.
According to the Caltrans TASAS from 2001, Route 180 stops at the western park boundary and begins again at the "northern" park boundary. Route 180 was also a State Highway before the expansion of Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Park. At the time of its establishment, it was only "General Grant Grove National Park". Similar to Hwy 190, which is also a State Highway in a National Park (previously a National Monument since 1933).
Quote from: sdmichael on September 10, 2016, 10:06:47 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 10, 2016, 09:24:13 PM
Quote from: Quillz on September 10, 2016, 08:51:34 PM
And while this isn't directly related, something odd occured to me. When leaving Kings Canyon, I noticed the toll booths are directly on CA-180. In other words, you have to pay a toll to continue eastward on CA-180 to reach Kings Canyon (this is likely done because the Generals' Highway is within the nat'l park boundaries). Anyway, my point is... Shouldn't CA-180 technically be ending at the toll booth? I thought Caltrans didn't maintain roads within national parks? What's interesting is CA-198 officially ends at the Sequoia Nat'l Park's southern entrance (although a lot of maps, like Google, show the Generals' Highway being a part of 198). So why is 180 fully signed within the park boundaries? It would technically be a toll road, like Tioga Pass.
Ponderism I touched on in my thread as well. What I noticed on the park maps was that they omit CA 180 within the Grant Grove section of Kings Canyon National Park. So with that in mind....I'm not sure? Like you said the road is fully signed in Grant Grove and CA 198 is the one with "TO" indicator markers. Actually if you want check out my Road Report Thread...I took a crap ton of pictures with CA 180 and the TO CA 198 signage.
According to the Caltrans TASAS from 2001, Route 180 stops at the western park boundary and begins again at the "northern" park boundary. Route 180 was also a State Highway before the expansion of Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Park. At the time of its establishment, it was only "General Grant Grove National Park". Similar to Hwy 190, which is also a State Highway in a National Park (previously a National Monument since 1933).
So....with that logic why not sign CA 41, CA 120, CA 89, and CA 198 through their respective National Parks? Not that I really care who maintains the route...it's just interesting to see that CA 180 and 190 are signed despite the routes technically not existing.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 10, 2016, 10:42:42 PM
Quote from: sdmichael on September 10, 2016, 10:06:47 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 10, 2016, 09:24:13 PM
Quote from: Quillz on September 10, 2016, 08:51:34 PM
And while this isn't directly related, something odd occured to me. When leaving Kings Canyon, I noticed the toll booths are directly on CA-180. In other words, you have to pay a toll to continue eastward on CA-180 to reach Kings Canyon (this is likely done because the Generals' Highway is within the nat'l park boundaries). Anyway, my point is... Shouldn't CA-180 technically be ending at the toll booth? I thought Caltrans didn't maintain roads within national parks? What's interesting is CA-198 officially ends at the Sequoia Nat'l Park's southern entrance (although a lot of maps, like Google, show the Generals' Highway being a part of 198). So why is 180 fully signed within the park boundaries? It would technically be a toll road, like Tioga Pass.
Ponderism I touched on in my thread as well. What I noticed on the park maps was that they omit CA 180 within the Grant Grove section of Kings Canyon National Park. So with that in mind....I'm not sure? Like you said the road is fully signed in Grant Grove and CA 198 is the one with "TO" indicator markers. Actually if you want check out my Road Report Thread...I took a crap ton of pictures with CA 180 and the TO CA 198 signage.
According to the Caltrans TASAS from 2001, Route 180 stops at the western park boundary and begins again at the "northern" park boundary. Route 180 was also a State Highway before the expansion of Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Park. At the time of its establishment, it was only "General Grant Grove National Park". Similar to Hwy 190, which is also a State Highway in a National Park (previously a National Monument since 1933).
So....with that logic why not sign CA 41, CA 120, CA 89, and CA 198 through their respective National Parks? Not that I really care who maintains the route...it's just interesting to see that CA 180 and 190 are signed despite the routes technically not existing.
Going by that original '34 map that I posted before, it appears that both 41 and 140 were intended to be signed within Yosemite Valley, and ultimately merge into one another. It's strange how many mapping services, such as Google Maps, are convinced that 198 runs through Sequoia. Even Caltrans seems a bit confused. Today in Three Rivers, saw an "END" banner for 198. And then a few miles later, there was an "EAST" banner.
On that old circa 1930s bridge correct? What always threw me off with that sign assembly is that it has a "TRUCK ROUTE" sign with it. It makes it almost kinda look like CA 198 continues but the truck route ends... I'm assuming the "end truck route" is accurate since the Generals Highway prohibits vehicles 22 feet or longer.
What it got me thinking about was how much I dislike routes that end at arbitrary points, like county lines. I think routes should always end at a physical, tangible point. For 198, it *should* end at the 180 via the Generals' Highway, as alluded to by Google Maps and the like. Navigational aid should always trump legislative definitions. And I'm not a particular fan of "TO" banners, either.
Something like the 245 is a good example. The physical road continues south of the southern terminus, but at least it ends at the 198, a physical location. If 245 merely ended at some arbitrary point like the 59, it would be very confusing for motorists. (On a related note, CA-203 ends this way, with an "END" banner seemingly at the Madera county line, although almost all maps show it continuing westward to the Devils Postpile.)
Quote from: Quillz on September 10, 2016, 11:13:13 PM
What it got me thinking about was how much I dislike routes that end at arbitrary points, like county lines. I think routes should always end at a physical, tangible point. For 198, it *should* end at the 180 via the Generals' Highway, as alluded to by Google Maps and the like. Navigational aid should always trump legislative definitions. And I'm not a particular fan of "TO" banners, either.
Something like the 245 is a good example. The physical road continues south of the southern terminus, but at least it ends at the 198, a physical location. If 245 merely ended at some arbitrary point like the 59, it would be very confusing for motorists. (On a related note, CA-203 ends this way, with an "END" banner seemingly at the Madera county line, although almost all maps show it continuing westward to the Devils Postpile.)
203 I would be okay if it ended at Minerat Summit...the literal end of the road. Actually I think we discussed Sherman Pass previously and CA 190. This is what I came up with today after re-driving the route over Sherman:
"Now regarding the issue of CA 190 which we all discussed awhile back in another thread...yes this route is maintained to a very similar level of a California State Highway. The only part that would probably need a substantial upgrade is J41/Nine Mile in Tulare County...but even then it's only Ebbets Pass, CA 146, and CA 236 levels of bad maintenance. I'm not saying Caltrans ought to pick up maintenance...but what I am saying is that maybe it's time to abandon Olancha Pass for good to connect the two segments. Just because it wouldn't be a California State Highway doesn't mean that route continuity couldn't be maintained. My idea is as follows:
1. From CA 99 use the current western CA 190 to Camp Nelson.
2. From Camp Nelson resign M90 as M190 and use actual signs.
3. Co-sign M190 along with M50 to Johnsondale.
4. Cut M99 back to Sherman Pass Road and have it re-signed as M190.
5. Have Sherman Pass Road signed as FR 190.
6. Have J41 re-signed as J190 to US 395.
7. Co-sign CA 190 alongside US 395 to eastern CA 190. Legislatively this would be US 395 of course.
Now I know that will never happen but it would be nice to have some route continuity and a completed Route 190"
Way I see it why not try to strive for maximum route continuity regardless of who is actually maintaining the route? Some classic examples that already really exist are Road 145 at the eastern Terminus of CA 145 and of course J59 at the end of CA 59.
Quote203 I would be okay if it ended at Minerat Summit...the literal end of the road.
Exactly what I'm getting at. I believe all routes should end at some kind of physical point. 180 does this, ending essentially at the end of the road within Kings Canyon.
BTW, you just drove Sherman Pass yesterday? I'm doing that tomorrow... Maybe we're close by.
True....still figure there would be some oddities like CA 270 ending either at Bodie or where the road becomes dirt.
Today actually and I'm up in Bakersfield, not too far of a drive up there for me up to Sherman. The road is great shape, the only wonky part is heading down into the Kern Plateau from Sherman Pass since there are a crap load of rocks in the eastbound lane for about 5 miles.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 10, 2016, 10:42:42 PM
So....with that logic why not sign CA 41, CA 120, CA 89, and CA 198 through their respective National Parks? Not that I really care who maintains the route...it's just interesting to see that CA 180 and 190 are signed despite the routes technically not existing.
There are no reassurance markers on the routes in Yosemite, but there are NPS signs with the route number and shield in various places. The big junction at the west end of the Valley, whatever that's called, has signs with shields for 41, 120 and 140. It's just to direct people out of the park properly. If you put up a sign that said "Fresno", "Manteca" and "Merced" respectfully, then it would just be too confusing.
These are NPS roads, so they can do what they want. For whatever reason, they sometimes choose to not mark them if it's not necessary. 89 through Lassen is a good example: no signs.
With 180 & 198 (I assume that's what you meant by 190), I was poking around on StreetView, and I see one 180 shield inside the park boundaries, just after the 198 junction. Are there others? Instead of a shield for the 198 turnoff at 180, you get what is obviously an NPS sign. That style sign is also at the end of 198 right there.
I don't know how much news it made, but Yosemite acquired an additional 400 acres just this past week on the north side of SR 120 just west of the park, in an area known as the Ackerson Meadow. I tried to find a map of the newly acquired area, but all the media seem to be really keen on using the same stock photo of the meadow that the NPS posted on their press release page and providing relatively little additional information from that release. I add this because it's entirely possible that this extension will swallow up part of SR 120, causing a further relinquishment.
Quote from: coatimundi on September 11, 2016, 12:32:13 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 10, 2016, 10:42:42 PM
So....with that logic why not sign CA 41, CA 120, CA 89, and CA 198 through their respective National Parks? Not that I really care who maintains the route...it's just interesting to see that CA 180 and 190 are signed despite the routes technically not existing.
There are no reassurance markers on the routes in Yosemite, but there are NPS signs with the route number and shield in various places. The big junction at the west end of the Valley, whatever that's called, has signs with shields for 41, 120 and 140. It's just to direct people out of the park properly. If you put up a sign that said "Fresno", "Manteca" and "Merced" respectfully, then it would just be too confusing.
These are NPS roads, so they can do what they want. For whatever reason, they sometimes choose to not mark them if it's not necessary. 89 through Lassen is a good example: no signs.
With 180 & 198 (I assume that's what you meant by 190), I was poking around on StreetView, and I see one 180 shield inside the park boundaries, just after the 198 junction. Are there others? Instead of a shield for the 198 turnoff at 180, you get what is obviously an NPS sign. That style sign is also at the end of 198 right there.
I don't know how much news it made, but Yosemite acquired an additional 400 acres just this past week on the north side of SR 120 just west of the park, in an area known as the Ackerson Meadow. I tried to find a map of the newly acquired area, but all the media seem to be really keen on using the same stock photo of the meadow that the NPS posted on their press release page and providing relatively little additional information from that release. I add this because it's entirely possible that this extension will swallow up part of SR 120, causing a further relinquishment.
The 198 was just a hypothetical. I included the TO 198s along with the CA 180s in Sequoia/Kings Canyon National Parks and even stuff from Giant Sequoia National Monument over on the other thread:
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 05, 2016, 06:04:28 PM
SO, with that in mind...Sequoia and Kings Canyon Highway signage is leaps and bounds better than what is seen up in Yosemite. First off, no White Spades on brown guide signs:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1255.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fhh630%2FMadMaxRockatansky73%2FIMG_9012_zpsgxhqg09d.jpg&hash=478a4d4fff185aa83217eac9670e617eabb9d274)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1255.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fhh630%2FMadMaxRockatansky73%2FIMG_9013_zpsedfjgoua.jpg&hash=9508e7f22760fcd4e6b97af1676a657bebc6f25e)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1255.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fhh630%2FMadMaxRockatansky73%2FIMG_9015_zpsxka1yjhc.jpg&hash=de72e9d57af2d493ed766dfc7c9020de0c25bd3b)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1255.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fhh630%2FMadMaxRockatansky73%2FIMG_9016_zpsxne2uvyp.jpg&hash=629bccebe3ec0eff95d0497fcf9205d005288fdb)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1255.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fhh630%2FMadMaxRockatansky73%2FIMG_9017_zpsh57m5mcw.jpg&hash=13c511703041999ec7eae17845727569b72fb49d)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1255.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fhh630%2FMadMaxRockatansky73%2FIMG_9064_zpsthyiyptw.jpg&hash=04c410543e7c51fff8cbebb020fcb9a0e4c9a4ae)
So...a little mystery I touched on prior on in the thread. Does CA 180 technically exist in the Grant Grove district of Kings Canyon National Park? The signage around Grant Grove above and here seems to suggest that's a yes, the park map says no, and cahighways was vague on a verdict:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1255.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fhh630%2FMadMaxRockatansky73%2FIMG_9018_zpspcdo59un.jpg&hash=aa7f5e5ab53aa55518138a478b50a8aec8c2f182)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1255.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fhh630%2FMadMaxRockatansky73%2FIMG_9066_zpsuc1lrmer.jpg&hash=6936455dabaae5c8aa7324a358f1892cd85d3111)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1255.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fhh630%2FMadMaxRockatansky73%2FIMG_9065_zpsfcpc7lyl.jpg&hash=4fae19750725c61ecbdecc100ebe7fc2e674be2e)
CA 180 never has any "TO" signage on it's implied route while CA 198 does, in addition to these placards telling you that you are on the Generals Highway:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1255.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fhh630%2FMadMaxRockatansky73%2FIMG_9014_zpsoh29zgld.jpg&hash=8d256f5bde01e38b966c4b80a1951b3a9894366b)
Of course there is actually a couple CA 245 Shields in the Giant Sequoia National Monument:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1255.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fhh630%2FMadMaxRockatansky73%2FIMG_9067_zps9wipn6js.jpg&hash=54ed87fe76ede8c3fb1cd07dd1518a989c48e36a)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1255.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fhh630%2FMadMaxRockatansky73%2FIMG_9068_zpsz5wqofsz.jpg&hash=33c67ae90197a9c09835531942d902f2879d8da5)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1255.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fhh630%2FMadMaxRockatansky73%2FIMG_9069_zps5g72y4hb.jpg&hash=d1c178dcc2d6aade7892b80eb8e6ef515ff741a5)
The only TO 180 sign was coming down out of the Giant Forest on Wolverton Road to the Generals Highway. All the rest are up in the Grant Grove section of Kings Canyon. The 245s in the pictures are even the boundary of the Giant Sequoia National Monument....granted that's managed by the Forest Service.
So I'm not totally clear why you're putting in 245 pics because it never enters into a national park and is always maintained by Caltrans.
On cahighways.org, Section #3 & #4 are the two sections separated by the Grant Grove section of SeKi, the former General Grant National Park: http://www.cahighways.org/177-184.html#180
The remainder, through Grant Grove, is not maintained by Caltrans, and that was mostly my point. I recall the roadway asphalt being very different between the different sections and, if you go on StreetView, you can see that, but you'll also see the postmile at the eastern park boundary, marking the beginning of that fourth section.
My question was more related to where those shields are. The first 180 shield looks like the one I mentioned, just past the 198 junction, but where is the second one, with the arrow?
I meant to mention it in my other post, but both 180 and 198 have sections of state-maintained road that, for the most part, require fees by being isolated by Grant Grove. I know that there's a really rough jeep trail that you can take between the two 180 sections. It drops into that canyon that you see from parts of 180.
With the 245, yes it's not in the National Park but as of 2000 it is within the bounds of Sequoia National Monument:
(https://www.nps.gov/maps/hfc/park-maps/seki/brochure-map/TileGroup0/4-1-5.jpg)
Not that there is any maintenance dispute....I thought it was interesting that even that first reassurance marker of 245 was in a Monument now. The Forest Service actually maintains Giant Sequoia National Monument...which is interesting since part of the Generals Highway is in their territory but it would seem the Park Service maintains the road. Even 180 between the two parts of Kings Canyon is technically now within the Monument. Plus it was part of the same posted I copied over...hence the 245s.
If you are heading west out of Kings Canyon you'll see that "Fresno 55 miles, 180" sign west of the Generals Highway Junction and the 180 arrow at the last restroom before the park entrance station. I mean more data suggests that Grant Grove technically isn't part 180 but even the wording on cahighways begs the question since it just says "Grant Grove." That can be taken as a gap in the road or just a sectioning of highway on the page to separate it from all the history from 99 eastward into the Fresno area.
Colony Mill Road might be passable in a Jeep still all the way into Sequoia Natinoal Park. That was the original lumber road that was built up to the Giant Forest in the Sequoia section. At least the first 18 miles is apparently still driving condition, I did the first 8 since it was paved and raining where it turns to dirt. Technically the final 8 miles are a "trail" now rather than a road but I would imagine that if cars could get up it at one point so could a stock modern Wrangler or a CJ. I'm fairly certain that with Kings Canyon you're talking about Forest Route 14S75:
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.6915745,-118.9477597,3a,75y,180h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sDL7eizdcwRerlKDAtN_mxw!2e0!7i3328!8i1664?hl=en
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.7215024,-118.9094957,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAry7649fMTnfJUoTn64InQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
14S75 dumps right onto the Generals Highway at the intersection of Ten Mile Road. Considering the GSV almost made it up all the way it seems that it might be fairly easy to traverse...maybe with 2WD even? I don't know...now I'm intrigued to find out maybe on my next visit.
QuoteI don't know how much news it made, but Yosemite acquired an additional 400 acres just this past week on the north side of SR 120 just west of the park, in an area known as the Ackerson Meadow. I tried to find a map of the newly acquired area, but all the media seem to be really keen on using the same stock photo of the meadow that the NPS posted on their press release page and providing relatively little additional information from that release. I add this because it's entirely possible that this extension will swallow up part of SR 120, causing a further relinquishment.
My guess is that if CA-120 is already there, the signage won't change, even if the maintenance does. Isn't all of Tioga Pass Road already technically within national park boundaries and signed? I don't see things changing.
Kind of sort of at Big Oak Flat Junction but I couldn't find CA 120 shields like Kings Canyon had. I know that wasn't directed at me but Yosemite signage is something I recently looked at. I'll link over my pictures when I get home from the other thread, lots of weird white spades.
Quote from: Quillz on September 11, 2016, 12:34:06 PM
QuoteI don't know how much news it made, but Yosemite acquired an additional 400 acres just this past week on the north side of SR 120 just west of the park, in an area known as the Ackerson Meadow. I tried to find a map of the newly acquired area, but all the media seem to be really keen on using the same stock photo of the meadow that the NPS posted on their press release page and providing relatively little additional information from that release. I add this because it's entirely possible that this extension will swallow up part of SR 120, causing a further relinquishment.
My guess is that if CA-120 is already there, the signage won't change, even if the maintenance does. Isn't all of Tioga Pass Road already technically within national park boundaries and signed? I don't see things changing.
No, I think you're right about the shields: there's no reason to remove them, so why bother. But the postmiles are a different matter, and I would think Caltrans would be eager to eradicate them if there is indeed a change, because the park service will certainly take over maintenance.
I think it's a little much dwelling on 180's maintenance as if it's some sort of mystery that requires research. The Grant Grove section of Kings Canyon National Park predates both that national park and the California state highway system. The road up there even predates that original, General Grant, national park creation. It was a privately built road, but it may have followed a slightly different routing, and it certainly was less improved.
I haven't looked at it much, but I would guess that the highway system simply adopted that road into its system to provide access to Kings Canyon, but as the road through Grant Grove was already maintained by the park service at that point, it would have been left to them. What I don't know is who built that road on to Kings Canyon, but I would guess that it was mostly the state. There likely was a road going to that same destination, considering the dates of Kings Canyon National Park's creation and the desire to access that area, but it may have been on a different routing, and it would have been maintained by the county.
^^^
More than likely the road was largely built when the Hume Lake Dam was constructed circa 1908-1909. Originally 180 would have used Dunlap to reach what is now CA 245 and then it took the northward swing to it's modern alignment. That's just speculation on my part but water impounding played a huge part of CA 168 nearby as well since those roads were already there.
Incidentally I found a Youtube video of your Jeep Trail into Kings Canyon; FR 14S75 at the bottom of this link:
http://www.pjammcycling.com/19.--whittaker-forest--ca.html
Yosemite is a much different beast than Sequoia/Kings Canyon with highway signage:
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 21, 2016, 07:56:41 PM
Big Oak Flat Road is where the weird California Spade signs start to appear. I was cutting south on Big Oak Flat Road into Yosemite Valley to hit Wawona Road which leads to CA 41....so there was a CRAP TON of this....the Park Service must have gotten a package deal on white vinyl or something:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1255.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fhh630%2FMadMaxRockatansky73%2FIMG_8653_zpsjkijds7u.jpg&hash=27b1097e9c8e515a27f8879593702a62e52a949e)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1255.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fhh630%2FMadMaxRockatansky73%2FIMG_8654_zpskjjycfdu.jpg&hash=4b74f1e61c90ef5984f32b3575a0d8b53a00394d)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1255.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fhh630%2FMadMaxRockatansky73%2FIMG_8655_zpsvkg1fkjr.jpg&hash=85e74b6d5ea9867569695a30e02a4d5e6c5c21a7)
I'm fairly certain the orange sign with green CA 140 spade was supplied by Caltrans. Anyways the sign refers to the Ferguson Rock Slide...but I'll talk more about that later. Anyways, Big Oak Flat Road was apparently completed as a wagon route all the way back in 1874. Basically the implied route of CA 120 runs from Big Oak Flat Road to where it intersects Tioga Road which it turns east....there is no implied anything for Big Oak Flat Road descending into Yosemite Valley but still cool that the miners in Big Oak Flat wanted access to the Valley so badly even back in the olden days:
[
Down in Yosemite Valley the weird white spades continue throughout. I didn't get a picture but there is some nameless green spades for CA 140/120 and a MUTCD compliant US 395 sign heading east on El Portal Road to Big Oak Flat Road. I stopped at the tunnel view for a minute after turning onto Wawona Road:
Anyways before I hit on Wawona Road and CA 41...I'll refer to my old topic I posted about El Portal Road, CA 140, and the Yosemite Valley Railroad:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18387.msg2159388#msg2159388
With that in mind the Yosemite Valley Railway terminated in El Portal and you would have had to taken a wagon from the left in the first pic. The second pic is about the best view I could find of the Merced River Gorge where CA 140 runs at the bottom:
Okay, the Wawona Road has it's beginnings as an 1882 stage route built by the founders of the Wawona Hotel. Technically part of the route existed back when the Hotel was built all the way back in 1876 but 1882 is when the stage route was extended to Yosemite Valley. Apparently the stage route took a crap load of switch backs to reach the valley floor and probably was all sorts of miserable in a car before the Wawona Tunnel opened in 1933. Basically this would be the most trafficked route from Yosemite due to it being a straight shot to Fresno via CA 41....and for some reason there is GREEN spades on a guide sign by Glacier Point Road...still look wrong to me:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1255.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fhh630%2FMadMaxRockatansky73%2FIMG_8683_zpsihkntygr.jpg&hash=d7f45d26534b7358401b0fb921d31946e7b92cb6)
So I drove through Sherman Pass today. Yup, as far as I'm concerned, CA-190 is effectively a complete route. The middle segment, though it ends up a bit south of where Caltrans has its proposed alignment, is perfectly fine for traveling in the summer. It's actually a very easy road once you reach Ponderosa just east of Quaking Aspen, as the road stops climbing and straightens out a bit. Adoption here would actually be pretty useful, since most of the forest route signs aren't particular helpful for navigation. The one substandard area I found was around Kennedy Meadows: very old pavement and it's completely lacking any lane striping. But beyond that, Western Divide Highway -> Sherman Pass Road -> Kennedy Meadow Road -> Nine Mile Canyon Road makes a fine "unofficial" CA-190.
Sherman Pass was beautiful today. 100 F on the valley floor, but it was 60 F, windy and cloudy at the top. Couldn't see Mt. Whitney, though.
Regarding the signposted end of CA 198, on our trip in 2009, we saw two "ends", both with postmiles in frame:
* for trucks (https://www.flickr.com/photos/therealkurumi/5119280451/in/photolist-8NnDzD-8NnDST-8NnDJ4/) TUL 41.23
* for non-trucks (https://www.flickr.com/photos/therealkurumi/5119280963/in/photolist-8NnDzD-8NnDST-8NnDJ4/) TUL 44.63
Turns out, according to Caltrans, CA-168 was intended to cross the Sierra:
QuoteSR 168 was originally planned as a trans-Sierra Nevada route, beginning in Fresno and
heading east through the Bishop area to the Nevada state line via modern US 6. This transmountain
route was never constructed for two important reasons. Steep and rocky terrain is
present throughout this area and the unconstructed portion lies within 2 officially designated
wilderness areas (created as a result of the 1964 Wilderness Act).
http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist9/planning/docs/tcr_sr168.pdf
But still, the original '34 plan shows not even a dotted/proposed line, so no idea how any proposal would look. It's my understanding that there are literally no roads at all west of the Lake Sabrina area. Even crazy proposals like 180-to-Independence could potentially make use of some existing roads.
Quote from: Quillz on September 12, 2016, 02:41:48 AM
But still, the original '34 plan shows not even a dotted/proposed line, so no idea how any proposal would look. It's my understanding that there are literally no roads at all west of the Lake Sabrina area. Even crazy proposals like 180-to-Independence could potentially make use of some existing roads.
A few months ago, I looked at the terrain between the two sections more, and found a potential routing that mostly followed an existing hiking trail (the John Muir Trail), and crossed at what's known as Italy Pass (12,000'+). The way the terrain looked in just looking at topos and Google Terrain, I don't see it as being at all feasible. Even if the money to push it through could have been secured, and environmentalists didn't fight it, it would have been buried in snow most of the year and in rockslides and washouts the rest of the year. I think there was a level of arrogance at the time these roads were planned, where planners that anything was possible with "modern" engineering. Experience has taught us lessons though about fighting nature, and when that fight becomes futile. 168 would have been futile.
Quote from: coatimundi on September 12, 2016, 02:59:29 AM
Quote from: Quillz on September 12, 2016, 02:41:48 AM
But still, the original '34 plan shows not even a dotted/proposed line, so no idea how any proposal would look. It's my understanding that there are literally no roads at all west of the Lake Sabrina area. Even crazy proposals like 180-to-Independence could potentially make use of some existing roads.
A few months ago, I looked at the terrain between the two sections more, and found a potential routing that mostly followed an existing hiking trail (the John Muir Trail), and crossed at what's known as Italy Pass (12,000'+). The way the terrain looked in just looking at topos and Google Terrain, I don't see it as being at all feasible. Even if the money to push it through could have been secured, and environmentalists didn't fight it, it would have been buried in snow most of the year and in rockslides and washouts the rest of the year. I think there was a level of arrogance at the time these roads were planned, where planners that anything was possible with "modern" engineering. Experience has taught us lessons though about fighting nature, and when that fight becomes futile. 168 would have been futile.
What really stings is a trans-Sierra 168 would actually be incredibly useful. Going to say, Mammoth, would be a much shorter trip if you could just take 5 -> 99 -> 180 -> 168 -> 395 -> 203. You'd avoid the (still) fairly slow 14 slog through the desert. The problem is there are essentially no viable Sierra crossing between 178 and 120. The forest routes that can make an unofficial 190 crossing have sometimes been closed between November-May, so it's useless for any kind of winter sports.
It is clear, though, that many of the original corridors of the '34 routes were based on the idea that there was infinite time, infinite money and anything was possible. It is a bit comical looking at what was planned and seeing what was reality. Just about every single SoCal route was planned to be a freeway (my personal favorite being the Decker Freeway that would have been a full-blown freeway from Malibu to Westlake Village).
Quote from: Quillz on September 12, 2016, 01:54:37 AM
So I drove through Sherman Pass today. Yup, as far as I'm concerned, CA-190 is effectively a complete route. The middle segment, though it ends up a bit south of where Caltrans has its proposed alignment, is perfectly fine for traveling in the summer. It's actually a very easy road once you reach Ponderosa just east of Quaking Aspen, as the road stops climbing and straightens out a bit. Adoption here would actually be pretty useful, since most of the forest route signs aren't particular helpful for navigation. The one substandard area I found was around Kennedy Meadows: very old pavement and it's completely lacking any lane striping. But beyond that, Western Divide Highway -> Sherman Pass Road -> Kennedy Meadow Road -> Nine Mile Canyon Road makes a fine "unofficial" CA-190.
Sherman Pass was beautiful today. 100 F on the valley floor, but it was 60 F, windy and cloudy at the top. Couldn't see Mt. Whitney, though.
Too bad, you could see it the day prior at 9 AM at least:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1255.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fhh630%2FMadMaxRockatansky73%2F20_zpstls5vvy7.jpg&hash=e5106e5f039653803f9146e1988d037d3d14005e)
I'm really at a loss to understand how the Sherman Pass route isn't more less known. Like you said the only wonky part is technically where J41/Nine Mile Canyon Road begins at the end of Sequoia National Forest but once you cross into Inyo County you pick up a center stripe and the asphalt is much better in quality. Apparently Nine Mile Canyon is basically a sustained 8% and dips close to 11% at times but that's nothing that couldn't be adopted into the highway system. You're right about the signage though...it's basically non-existent and you really need to have a good understanding of a map to keep yourself on track. :-D I figure a combination of County Route, Forest Route, and TO California 190s could be used easily for navigational purposes. The Olancha Pass plan is dead as a door knob anyways...so why not?
And I don't think Sherman Pass Road belongs on "dangerousroads.org." I could potentially see Nine Mine Canyon Road maybe though given that's probably a decent idea to use 2nd gear and the drop offs are huge.
Quote from: Quillz on September 12, 2016, 03:07:31 AM
Quote from: coatimundi on September 12, 2016, 02:59:29 AM
Quote from: Quillz on September 12, 2016, 02:41:48 AM
But still, the original '34 plan shows not even a dotted/proposed line, so no idea how any proposal would look. It's my understanding that there are literally no roads at all west of the Lake Sabrina area. Even crazy proposals like 180-to-Independence could potentially make use of some existing roads.
A few months ago, I looked at the terrain between the two sections more, and found a potential routing that mostly followed an existing hiking trail (the John Muir Trail), and crossed at what's known as Italy Pass (12,000'+). The way the terrain looked in just looking at topos and Google Terrain, I don't see it as being at all feasible. Even if the money to push it through could have been secured, and environmentalists didn't fight it, it would have been buried in snow most of the year and in rockslides and washouts the rest of the year. I think there was a level of arrogance at the time these roads were planned, where planners that anything was possible with "modern" engineering. Experience has taught us lessons though about fighting nature, and when that fight becomes futile. 168 would have been futile.
What really stings is a trans-Sierra 168 would actually be incredibly useful. Going to say, Mammoth, would be a much shorter trip if you could just take 5 -> 99 -> 180 -> 168 -> 395 -> 203. You'd avoid the (still) fairly slow 14 slog through the desert. The problem is there are essentially no viable Sierra crossing between 178 and 120. The forest routes that can make an unofficial 190 crossing have sometimes been closed between November-May, so it's useless for any kind of winter sports.
It is clear, though, that many of the original corridors of the '34 routes were based on the idea that there was infinite time, infinite money and anything was possible. It is a bit comical looking at what was planned and seeing what was reality. Just about every single SoCal route was planned to be a freeway (my personal favorite being the Decker Freeway that would have been a full-blown freeway from Malibu to Westlake Village).
Well consider the era, the EPA was forever away into the future and you didn't have as many protected lanes. So basically if you had the money, time, and engineering you really could build whatever you wanted into the Sierras. Granted....we're talking two-lane roads and not Interstates. (insert your own FritzOwl joke :rolleyes:)
Basically any plan for 168 to cross the Sierra would have had to include a part if not all of Kaiser Pass Road. Having driven up there recently I didn't see any particular reason why that couldn't be expanded to a 2 lane road fairly easily past the 5 mile mark, but it wouldn't be cheap with all the explosives that would be needed. Italy Pass looks possible from what I've viewed this morning but we'd be talking one of the baddest roads in the country....but reputation and by height.
I know 180 at least had one dotted line route on the eastern part of the Sierra (one of you had an actual map with the dotted line) in proxy to Onion Valley Road. I honestly don't even know where to begin with that one since the terrain falls so much to get to the bottom of Kings Canyon and Cedar Grove. But 203?...was that ever planned as Trans-Sierra? Funny...that one might actually would have worked if it would have followed the San Joaquin River all the way to Friant...could have ended at the "dotted line 65." :-D
203 is post-64 and has never been intended to extend farther west, as far as I know.
Quote from: Quillz on September 12, 2016, 03:07:31 AM
What really stings is a trans-Sierra 168 would actually be incredibly useful. Going to say, Mammoth, would be a much shorter trip if you could just take 5 -> 99 -> 180 -> 168 -> 395 -> 203. You'd avoid the (still) fairly slow 14 slog through the desert. The problem is there are essentially no viable Sierra crossing between 178 and 120. The forest routes that can make an unofficial 190 crossing have sometimes been closed between November-May, so it's useless for any kind of winter sports.
I live almost directly west of 168's northern end. It would cut at least 3 hours off a trip to Vegas and almost that much for Death Valley, and would provide a very good way for us to get to Arizona, where we go at least once per year to visit family. I would love to see it happen. Really the way highways can be and are built today makes it a lot more possible for a mostly all-weather route to be built, supplanting all the other less desirable passes to the north, directing some of the truck traffic off of both 58 & 80, and opening up the Owens Valley for economic growth and closer connection to the rest of the state. Longer tunnels would both create extensive wildlife and hiking trail crossings and mitigate the steep grades along the routing, while modern rock shelters would reduce the impact of both slides and of snow drifts. 168 leading up to Huntington Lake is also in very good condition, with good lane widths and a lack of tight curves. Construction of a Shaver Lake bypass would likely be necessary, and the unbuilt freeway section would also have to be completed, but the road leading up to the end is otherwise in better shape than, I think, any other Sierra highway.
But it just won't happen. The ironic thing is that we've gotten so much better at building these sort of highways, but it's gotten so much harder at the same time, particularly in California.
Not to mention the fact that any sort of construction like that would require an EIR, and one can imagine the impact of that construction and the mitigations required.
It's funny, most of the completed Trans-Sierra routes had some sort of basis in the Gold Rush or in mining general. Even Tioga Pass Road was built mainly for serving the needs of the local mines, there wasn't much of a gap to complete a Trans-Sierra route with Lee Vining Canyon being the lone major obstruction. Ebbets was supposedly plotted out for a potential railroad even...EBBETS PASS. :-D I would love to find out the history of when Sherman Pass Road was found, built, and completed to the standards it is today....the rest are obvious why they are there.
So really...with all the red tape basically anything new crossing the Sierras is going to be pretty much an impossibility. I'm actually surprised that I didn't think of the whole 203/San Joaquin River path. The height of that "hypothetical" roadway would never exceed Minerat Summit just under 9,300 feet....granted it would be difficult to engineer a road following the river canyon. It seems a lot more feasible for an all weather road given it's proximity to Mammoth and the ski rest. Not to mention it would make for a really cool way of getting to Vegas...just sayin. Just once in my lifetime I would love to see another "great American feat of engineering." It just seems like something we've really lost touch with since the Interstates were completed and the EPA Act got passed.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 12, 2016, 10:36:21 PM
Just once in my lifetime I would love to see another "great American feat of engineering." It just seems like something we've really lost touch with since the Interstates were completed and the EPA Act got passed.
I didn't realize you were that young to have not been alive during construction of The Big Dig.
I would think the EIR would have to just be waived on a Sierra crossing. I mean, it would be so huge and so expensive that it would be worth it to just admit, "Yeah, it's potentially going to really f**k things up." It's one of those things where, if the demand is there, then it'll eventually get done. It's just as hard, if not harder, to build highways in Europe, yet they've had some crazy ones over the last few years. Plus some really impressive bridges and tunnels. There's just not enough demand right now for the public push needed to disregard the environmental concerns.
One thing to remember is it wasn't that long ago that forests were quite literally cut down with no regards to the environmental impact. It wasn't that long ago factories could belch out as many fumes as they want. While this is in the past, it's still recent enough that society today is very concerned about building any new major roads.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 12, 2016, 10:36:21 PM
It's funny, most of the completed Trans-Sierra routes had some sort of basis in the Gold Rush or in mining general. Even Tioga Pass Road was built mainly for serving the needs of the local mines, there wasn't much of a gap to complete a Trans-Sierra route with Lee Vining Canyon being the lone major obstruction. Ebbets was supposedly plotted out for a potential railroad even...EBBETS PASS. :-D I would love to find out the history of when Sherman Pass Road was found, built, and completed to the standards it is today....the rest are obvious why they are there.
So really...with all the red tape basically anything new crossing the Sierras is going to be pretty much an impossibility. I'm actually surprised that I didn't think of the whole 203/San Joaquin River path. The height of that "hypothetical" roadway would never exceed Minerat Summit just under 9,300 feet....granted it would be difficult to engineer a road following the river canyon. It seems a lot more feasible for an all weather road given it's proximity to Mammoth and the ski rest. Not to mention it would make for a really cool way of getting to Vegas...just sayin. Just once in my lifetime I would love to see another "great American feat of engineering." It just seems like something we've really lost touch with since the Interstates were completed and the EPA Act got passed.
I looked at roughly where 203 would run if it were to follow the San Joaquin River, and I'm not sure how useful it would be. Seems you could very roughly have it connect with 168 (at which point you've got a north-south route, renumber the whole thing 203!) That would give you Mammoth access from, say, Fresno, but still not very useful if coming from the north. As long as we're talking about things that would never happen, what if 203 could connect into Yosemite Valley, offering access to 41 and 140? I could see that being a useful (and beautiful) road, as both are big tourist draws.
Quote from: Quillz on September 12, 2016, 11:56:37 PM
One thing to remember is it wasn't that long ago that forests were quite literally cut down with no regards to the environmental impact. It wasn't that long ago factories could belch out as many fumes as they want. While this is in the past, it's still recent enough that society today is very concerned about building any new major roads.
Quote from: coatimundi on September 12, 2016, 11:54:22 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 12, 2016, 10:36:21 PM
Just once in my lifetime I would love to see another "great American feat of engineering." It just seems like something we've really lost touch with since the Interstates were completed and the EPA Act got passed.
I didn't realize you were that young to have not been alive during construction of The Big Dig.
I would think the EIR would have to just be waived on a Sierra crossing. I mean, it would be so huge and so expensive that it would be worth it to just admit, "Yeah, it's potentially going to really f**k things up." It's one of those things where, if the demand is there, then it'll eventually get done. It's just as hard, if not harder, to build highways in Europe, yet they've had some crazy ones over the last few years. Plus some really impressive bridges and tunnels. There's just not enough demand right now for the public push needed to disregard the environmental concerns.
40 going on 41....and maybe it's just me but it's just another Interstate...one that was mired in a cluster %$% for most of my lifetime. I remember living in Connecticut back in the 90s and hearing repeatedly how that whole project was getting further behind or something wasn't right. I'm talking something that had the same level of impact in regards to modern times like the Hoover Dam when it was finished, the US Route, or hell even the Interstates. I just don't see something with that kind of impact being built again any time soon, those were projects that literally changed day to day life. To me something like this whole High Speed Rail wriggamoral really just doesn't have that kind of oomph to be captivating on that sort of level. I mean let's face it, the infrastructure in this country really reached it's zenith in the mid-20th century right before the EPA Act. As much shit as people give roadways and infrastructure in general in this country it's still pretty much the best in the world. Basically the only place that is building massive projects would be in the Middle East or in China...often with some pretty damn wreckless abandon to impact.
But then again people to be flipping out about things like cell phones, the internet, computers....those all among the crazed boons in American Society in the last 20 years. I still don't even know how to download a phone app after all these years and I don't suspect that I'll be learning soon. :rolleyes:
Speaking of the Middle East....why the hell did Sky Scrapers fall out of vogue even before pre-9/11? It probably has to do with the Westward and Sunbelt Migration in the US. Most of those cities don't need large buildings being built around ironically the Interstates since they are much larger than the older eastern counterparts.
Hey I'd love to see another Trans-Sierra Route at some point. It might stand a chance one day on National Forest land provided they somehow avoid Sequoia Groves...which ought be some what easy to do in the Huntington Lake/CA 168 area.
Quote from: Quillz on September 13, 2016, 12:01:53 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 12, 2016, 10:36:21 PM
It's funny, most of the completed Trans-Sierra routes had some sort of basis in the Gold Rush or in mining general. Even Tioga Pass Road was built mainly for serving the needs of the local mines, there wasn't much of a gap to complete a Trans-Sierra route with Lee Vining Canyon being the lone major obstruction. Ebbets was supposedly plotted out for a potential railroad even...EBBETS PASS. :-D I would love to find out the history of when Sherman Pass Road was found, built, and completed to the standards it is today....the rest are obvious why they are there.
So really...with all the red tape basically anything new crossing the Sierras is going to be pretty much an impossibility. I'm actually surprised that I didn't think of the whole 203/San Joaquin River path. The height of that "hypothetical" roadway would never exceed Minerat Summit just under 9,300 feet....granted it would be difficult to engineer a road following the river canyon. It seems a lot more feasible for an all weather road given it's proximity to Mammoth and the ski rest. Not to mention it would make for a really cool way of getting to Vegas...just sayin. Just once in my lifetime I would love to see another "great American feat of engineering." It just seems like something we've really lost touch with since the Interstates were completed and the EPA Act got passed.
I looked at roughly where 203 would run if it were to follow the San Joaquin River, and I'm not sure how useful it would be. Seems you could very roughly have it connect with 168 (at which point you've got a north-south route, renumber the whole thing 203!) That would give you Mammoth access from, say, Fresno, but still not very useful if coming from the north. As long as we're talking about things that would never happen, what if 203 could connect into Yosemite Valley, offering access to 41 and 140? I could see that being a useful (and beautiful) road, as both are big tourist draws.
I don't know...got a lot of buddies around Fresno who complain about far they have to go out of the way to ski in Mammoth. I guess they really don't like going up to China Peak anymore.
Well that's the case what about connecting it to Glacier Point Road somehow? That would kind of be the ultimate...cross Yosemite and the Sierras with the best overlook of the entire Valley floor in the park?
Don't most people in NorCal and central California tend to go to Tahoe moreso than Mammoth due to the lack of Sierra crossings? I know down here in LA, you go to Big Bear or you go to Mammoth, the latter often being thought of predominately as a SoCal attraction (even though that's obviously not true).
I would say at this point, any new trans-Sierra crossing would have to do something like connect tourist spot A to B. Given Mammoth is roughly in a straight east line from Yosemite Valley, it could work "on paper," if nothing else, to have a 203 extension reach to Glacier Point Road.
I suppose....but somehow a lot of people are going to Mammoth. Granted it wasn't ski season but when I dropped in to see the Postpile there was a crap ton of people there in Mammoth. I have no idea where they were coming from but they had California plates and even hotels in Bishop were way pricier than would have been normally expected. I mean...it can't be that hard with that really nice stretch of US 395 as an expressway out that way.
Well if that's even happened it would sure one-up the hell out of Tioga Pass. That sounds like an absolute blast to go from Glacier Point to Minerat Summit in a single day's worth of driving directly.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 13, 2016, 12:31:57 AM
I suppose....but somehow a lot of people are going to Mammoth. Granted it wasn't ski season but when I dropped in to see the Postpile there was a crap ton of people there in Mammoth. I have no idea where they were coming from but they had California plates and even hotels in Bishop were way pricier than would have been normally expected. I mean...it can't be that hard with that really nice stretch of US 395 as an expressway out that way.
Well if that's even happened it would sure one-up the hell out of Tioga Pass. That sounds like an absolute blast to go from Glacier Point to Minerat Summit in a single day's worth of driving directly.
In the summer months, you've got BMX biking, fishing, and the Postpile can actually be visited since the road is open.
Yeah had to knock that one of my list, presently I'm at 48 National Monuments total with 2 to go in California. I don't think that I'll be going back anytime soon that that absurd bus ride to the Postpile. I'm looking at something more along the lines of Whitney Portal, White Mountain Road, and Onion Valley Road next year out that way on the eastern flank of the Sierra.
Oh, I did White Mountain Road while out on field study. IIRC, it's a nearly 15-mile dirt road, nothing too difficult, but it's dusty and slow. But the views are amazing. Apparently, despite its modest height, White Mountain has some of the best sight lines around. I was actually studying the ancient bristlecones, one side of the mountain is full of dead trees, it's very eerie.
Granted I know this isn't the whole White Mountain route but I'm starting love the detailed road info this site has:
http://www.pjammcycling.com/9.--white-mountain--ca.html
Yeah there are a couple things that I need to check off the bucket list for this state since I'm thinking the next transfer up north is coming in in 2-3 years. So far this year I've hit a lot of the secondary roads or just places that I've wanted to hit in the eastern Sierra. I'm looking at Black Rock Road probably sometime in November on the western flank of the Sierra but I need to get my road bike fixed up to try it.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 13, 2016, 12:18:33 AM
I'm talking something that had the same level of impact in regards to modern times like the Hoover Dam when it was finished, the US Route, or hell even the Interstates. I just don't see something with that kind of impact being built again any time soon, those were projects that literally changed day to day life.
I think you're looking for something characteristic of an industralizing country in a post-industrialist socio-economic environment. When I was in China in the 90's, they were about where the US was in the 40's, so it's about right that they're just starting to get a little more pushback from that new middle class that they created on all this stuff they're knocking down and tearing up. You want something like Three Gorges or the massive tollway builds China had in the 2000's. But that's just part of that country's natural progression.
The Big Dig vastly changed the landscape of Boston. Most of that tourist development on the waterfront would not have happened had all of that stayed above ground. And it was really just the first big success of the freeway burial movement. Something very similar will probably happen to Seattle once that project is done, and we've got many other freeway burial projects in the plans around the country, so it's really not a federally-driven master plan so much as a slower and more granular trend.
But, if you want something bigger in terms of infrastructure projects, what about the Twin Tunnels? I don't want to profess sides on that but, if you listen to the proponents, that has the potential to virtually end the periodic water scares in much of the state. And, listening to the opponents, it has the potential to wipe out a way of life in the Delta.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 13, 2016, 12:18:33 AM
Speaking of the Middle East....why the hell did Sky Scrapers fall out of vogue even before pre-9/11? It probably has to do with the Westward and Sunbelt Migration in the US.
I mean, if you're talking about the massive, record-breaking things that were part of the unchecked frenzy in Asia in the 2000's, then that's just one of those things where the Western world seems to have gotten over the penile inadequacy that drives that sort of thing. Once you get above a certain number of floors, the logistics of an office building becomes cumbersome, with the necessity for complex elevator systems. Developers are absolutely building up more in the US though. SF doesn't seem to have any new construction under 5 stories. But that's out of necessity. It's just we're not building the block-out-the-sun sort of stuff.
The real estate bust was the main thing in the rest of the world though, as that affected office vacancy rates in Asia as well. Building something like that requires that office space be at a pretty high rate, and no one is willing to pay it if they can rent something in the same area for a lot cheaper but in a slightly less conspicuous building. Plus, that same crash took away the capital that those projects require.
Quote from: coatimundi on September 13, 2016, 03:20:53 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 13, 2016, 12:18:33 AM
I'm talking something that had the same level of impact in regards to modern times like the Hoover Dam when it was finished, the US Route, or hell even the Interstates. I just don't see something with that kind of impact being built again any time soon, those were projects that literally changed day to day life.
I think you're looking for something characteristic of an industralizing country in a post-industrialist socio-economic environment. When I was in China in the 90's, they were about where the US was in the 40's, so it's about right that they're just starting to get a little more pushback from that new middle class that they created on all this stuff they're knocking down and tearing up. You want something like Three Gorges or the massive tollway builds China had in the 2000's. But that's just part of that country's natural progression.
The Big Dig vastly changed the landscape of Boston. Most of that tourist development on the waterfront would not have happened had all of that stayed above ground. And it was really just the first big success of the freeway burial movement. Something very similar will probably happen to Seattle once that project is done, and we've got many other freeway burial projects in the plans around the country, so it's really not a federally-driven master plan so much as a slower and more granular trend.
But, if you want something bigger in terms of infrastructure projects, what about the Twin Tunnels? I don't want to profess sides on that but, if you listen to the proponents, that has the potential to virtually end the periodic water scares in much of the state. And, listening to the opponents, it has the potential to wipe out a way of life in the Delta.
Funny you should say "US in the 40's" as that seems also where they are in terms of pollution. Photos of Los Angeles from the era, at least before backyard incinerators were banned, are quite similar to 2016 Beijing. We learned from those mistakes, something they should have learned from us as well.
Quote from: sdmichael on September 13, 2016, 03:50:25 PM
Funny you should say "US in the 40's" as that seems also where they are in terms of pollution. Photos of Los Angeles from the era, at least before backyard incinerators were banned, are quite similar to 2016 Beijing. We learned from those mistakes, something they should have learned from us as well.
It was really bad when I was there. But, in Shanghai at least, you still had days where the sky was at least partially blue. I went back a couple of years ago for the first time in a while, and that no longer seemed to be the case. I think it partially answers the question of why Chinese want to immigrate here. I would do anything to not have to raise my kids in an environment like that. And I won't be taking them there even to visit anytime soon.
They seemed to really respond during the Olympics and made a concerted effort to try and clean it up, but I don't know that they've actually learned any lessons. China's heavily invested in coal power because that's what they have significant reserves in, so I think it'll be a long time before things significantly improve. But the fairly simple but hard-fought changes in vehicle emissions that California had at the end of the 20th century would likely help out at least Beijing quite a bit.
I don't know if I'm exactly looking for something like an industrial age construction project. Rather what's the next big thing that's going to come around? The technological boom from the mid-1800s to now can't really keep going at the same pace...it never has in human history so far. So basically do things plateau from here or is there something else that's going to come along? It might be thinking this but it seems like people in general are perfectly happy with an modern American level of infrastructure development...I mean why wouldn't they be? Funny to think we're really not all that far removed from tiny little towns and the horse being the fastest mode of transportation.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the Big Dig isn't impressive. I guess when you see something so many times, especially somewhat locally you tend not to be as impressed by it. For me the really impressive development in Interstate building was I-70 west of Denver to I-25. The fact that a full freeway was built in some really absurdly high mountains or completely from scratch in uninhabited plateau is something that would likely never happen again.
But in regards to the pollution. I think a lot of the pollution levels back in the mid-20th century were due to side effects people could have never anticipated with technological advances...namely cars. It's funny to think there was really a time when the electric car and steam had just as big of foothold as the internal combustion engine. Back when cars were first really being developed steam was at it's zenith, so the technology was about as reliable as anything else out there. It would be funny to think where things would be if say steam somehow become the dominant form of propulsion for cars. We'd probably be living in some weird steam style future that would have leveled off somewhere.
But places like China are going to run into the same problems that the U.S. did right before the EPA act. Actually one could argue like you said that they are starting to go through the same kind of reversal even right now. Granted I think it will happen a lot faster in China since the consequences of industrializing on such a scale are already known.
The Twin Tunnels basically is just a way of ignoring the larger problem at hand with a band-aid fix. Basically there really isn't much water sources left to tap in California and even with better pumping process that fact isn't going to change. At some point the state is going to have to confront the fact that with more and more people moving here to California that the agriculture is likely going to be the victim to limited resources. I always get a chuckle out of all those signs in San Joaquin Valley saying "build more water storage now" like there is some great untapped river in the Sierras that hasn't been touched. That's not to say that the project shouldn't be built....it could be "part" of a much larger solution which might have to include desalination. Either way I think the agriculture industry on the scale it is now in California is going to be taking a huge decline in the next 50 years...albeit gradually.
Funny to think about old Tulare Lake. I couldn't fathom almost anyone being okay with draining a lake of that size today to reclaim farm land. It's funny to look back at projects like that and how much gusto there was to do things like that. Kind of reminds me of all the "Drain the Everglades" people that were part of the history of Florida.
Yeah but the block-out-sun-stuff was really cool, especially when it was all in Art Deco. :-D I don't know, I was always fascinated by the prospect of the a Megalopolis and what it would take to build it. Bottom line is skyscrapers outside of super dense cities like NYC or San Francisco just aren't as necessary anymore. It's funny to see how different San Fransisco is at 47 square miles of land is compared to San Jose 180...both are within 200,000 people of each other.
It just may be that the next national mega-project -- on the inflation-adjusted scale of the original Interstate system -- will be a nationwide series of canals and pipes, reversible, of course, to transport water from where it's plentiful but likely not wanted in the quantity received (such as flooding in the Gulf states) to places that are continually subject to drought conditions. Obviously, this concept would provoke huge levels of controversy (can't see the Ayn Randian right nor the communitarian left supporting such a proposal) centered around states' rights, project costs, national vs. regional/localized needs -- not to mention the basic hubris of such a massive undertaking. Of course, these echo the objections to the deployment of the Interstate network in the '50's (specific objections, invariably concerning dense cities and environmentally sensitive outlying areas were forthcoming by the mid to late '60's). It may well be that the main objection would be that such a concept would be attempting to overcome problems largely due to overdevelopment by engaging in even further development! Nevertheless, if the climatic changes that are being felt today continue unabated (including causal variations in the jet stream), I'd be willing to wager that such a proposal will be on the table within 10-15 years!
I suggest you read the book "Cadillac Desert" which goes into the subject. A large part of the problem is the massive energy cost in transporting the water (an issue you don't have with electricity), that makes the cost of the water prohibitive for the usage. Energy cost is one reason that the original LA aqueduct was a success: Mullholland engineered the thing with no pumps (and note that much of 14/395 was developed as a side benefit of the aqueduct construction)
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 13, 2016, 10:49:53 PM
Yeah but the block-out-sun-stuff was really cool, especially when it was all in Art Deco. :-D I don't know, I was always fascinated by the prospect of the a Megalopolis and what it would take to build it. Bottom line is skyscrapers outside of super dense cities like NYC or San Francisco just aren't as necessary anymore. It's funny to see how different San Fransisco is at 47 square miles of land is compared to San Jose 180...both are within 200,000 people of each other.
To some extent that isn't entirely because SJ is naturally less dense (even though SJ does have more people in a spread out fashion, approaching/surpassing 1 million these days).
San Jose's downtown is located very close to the airport, which has created severe height restrictions for the urban core. (San Diego's downtown has some height limits as well due to its proximity to Lindbergh Field, though those limits are not as strict as San Jose)
San Francisco's airport is pretty much in San Mateo County, 15 miles to the south on 101. (Prior to the 1940s, Treasure Island served as a seaplane port for SF). After what was then Mills Field became today's SFO, skyscraper development downtown still did not begin in earnest until 1959 with the Crown-Zellerbach Building (1 Bush Plaza); until the Hartford Building was erected in 1965, the tallest buildings in SF dated to the 1920s (Pacific Bell Building & Russ Building).
Quote from: sparker on September 14, 2016, 01:45:55 AM
It just may be that the next national mega-project -- on the inflation-adjusted scale of the original Interstate system -- will be a nationwide series of canals and pipes, reversible, of course, to transport water from where it's plentiful but likely not wanted in the quantity received (such as flooding in the Gulf states) to places that are continually subject to drought conditions. Obviously, this concept would provoke huge levels of controversy (can't see the Ayn Randian right nor the communitarian left supporting such a proposal) centered around states' rights, project costs, national vs. regional/localized needs -- not to mention the basic hubris of such a massive undertaking. Of course, these echo the objections to the deployment of the Interstate network in the '50's (specific objections, invariably concerning dense cities and environmentally sensitive outlying areas were forthcoming by the mid to late '60's). It may well be that the main objection would be that such a concept would be attempting to overcome problems largely due to overdevelopment by engaging in even further development! Nevertheless, if the climatic changes that are being felt today continue unabated (including causal variations in the jet stream), I'd be willing to wager that such a proposal will be on the table within 10-15 years!
Quote from: cahwyguy on September 14, 2016, 12:13:43 PM
I suggest you read the book "Cadillac Desert" which goes into the subject. A large part of the problem is the massive energy cost in transporting the water (an issue you don't have with electricity), that makes the cost of the water prohibitive for the usage. Energy cost is one reason that the original LA aqueduct was a success: Mullholland engineered the thing with no pumps (and note that much of 14/395 was developed as a side benefit of the aqueduct construction)
Yeah -- there's a reason why the Palmdale/Lancaster area is called the "high desert"; Mulholland was able to route the aqueduct around the edge of the desert basin, which is about 1500-2000 feet above the level of the San Fernando Valley, to give it a constant downward gradient (quite a surveying & engineering feat of the day -- comparable to Judah's Central Pacific rail route over the Sierras) so that pumping stations could be avoided. And you're right -- deploying a 1500-mile cross-mountain version of this from Texas or the other Plains or Gulf states would be next to impossible -- extensive pumping would be required. But we'll just have to see if, down the line, political pressure would be applied to at least attempt a preliminary water-transfer system if the drought causes some problems bordering on the existential. Southern California isn't going away anytime soon, so their thirst will need to be dealt with in some fashion beyond the facilities utilized today. If not interregional water transfer, then extensive desalinization -- with the accompanying costs of all types -- may be considered as an alternative that requires less long-distant infrastructure -- although some enhanced water transport facilities would likely be part & parcel of such a proposal.
I've had "Cadillac Desert" on my "to-read" list for some time; never got around to it. Probably order a copy in the next week or two; right now work stuff is getting in the way of research time.
It really is a great and enlightening book, showing why the west is in such a water mess. About my only complaint is that it doesn't go into great detail on Hetch Hetchy. But there's a lot of stuff about the San Joaquin Valley and the irrigation issues, and emphasizing why pricing of water is key to understanding irrigation. A key factor out in the west is that water -- including aqueduct water -- is extremely cheap. When you start talking cross-state pumping pipelines and desalinization and other techniques, you rapidly approach oil prices. There's a big difference on pennies for an HCF (cubic foot) vs. dollars for gallons.
We can always start up NAWAPA... if only Floyd Dominy were around, he'd be a big proponent of the project.
Speaking of the L.A. Aquaduct, had a run in with an abandoned portion up Nine Mile Canyon. You can see it in the second picture...didn't realize what it was until I was home:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1255.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fhh630%2FMadMaxRockatansky73%2FIMG_9226_zpsq044blu7.jpg&hash=4ed7a5201e591d1feff60de5a1e137528c956953)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1255.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fhh630%2FMadMaxRockatansky73%2FIMG_9232_zpslwold3ot.jpg&hash=385c6ccf95a75f444b5092615cc3e5624c69c846)
And ironically Hetch Hetchy might be on the menu for Monday since it looks like a dead day for me. Sounds like that book might be up my alley as well.
Yeah basically the lowest elevation you're going to get an aquaduct system out from the Gulf to California would be to follow the path of I-10 at least to Tucson. From there it would need to likely use something like Tehachpi or Walker Pass to get it to the Central Valley. Now....if that ever got pulled off then yes that would be one of the all time great feats of engineering. Nuclear Energy might be a cheaper way to dedicate power to pumping stations in that hypothetical scenario....but that idea isn't exactly a fan favorite in the last 30 years.
In reference to the San Jose/San Francisco comparison I drew earlier...I was hitting more on the concept of Manhattanization. San Francisco is going through Manhattanization since the only place left to build is "up." A lot of cities that were around before the urban sprawl that the Interstates contributed had started to go through something similar. Cities that grew up in the post Interstate-era like Phoenix or Las Vegas really are so spread out that there is very little reason to build "up." Even San Jose, as packed in as that city is still has way more room to grow before things get pushed skyward.
How do you figure "abandoned"? That section is still very much working. I'm not sure if Los Angeles is presently taking water from the Aqueduct, as not that long ago they temporarily ceased deliveries from it. Either way, I've stood on that pipe not long ago and it was quite cold. You can also see into the top of the siphon adjacent to the pipe. It is a portion of the First Los Angeles Aqueduct from 1913.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsocalregion.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F20140831_160804-1024x576.jpg&hash=3876bcc880f2771d5dbc8d31f9c9f0df37624e72)
I couldn't find anything saying water deliveries were being resumed, good to know that it is actually still active. I wouldn't go as far to say the Aquaduct is my forte either, I more or less know it's history on the casual side. Isn't the second aquaduct the one just down hill east of the 1913 pipeline?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 15, 2016, 01:09:43 AM
I couldn't find anything saying water deliveries were being resumed, good to know that it is actually still active. I wouldn't go as far to say the Aquaduct is my forte either, I more or less know it's history on the casual side. Isn't the second aquaduct the one just down hill east of the 1913 pipeline?
Yes, that is the Second Los Angeles Aqueduct, generally a silver or white pipe when visible. The Los Angeles Aqueduct was "doubled" as it was cheaper being a gravity-driven system. The twin-pipe system runs from Haiwee Reservoir to Los Angeles. Some locations, such as the Elizabeth Tunnel under Leona Valley, were not doubled.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 15, 2016, 12:07:41 AM
In reference to the San Jose/San Francisco comparison I drew earlier...I was hitting more on the concept of Manhattanization. San Francisco is going through Manhattanization since the only place left to build is "up."
Funny enough, San Francisco's actual Manhattanization period occurred from about 1965 to 1985, when local complaints about tall buildings blocking views from Nob Hill, etc. led to strict height restrictions for all new construction north of Market Street. (This is why the downtown skyscrapers really only get as far north as where 480 used to exit off to Washington Street, the corridor along which the Transamerica Pyrmid and the Alcoa Building/One Maritime Plaza are located, adjacent to the 1970s-1980s Embarcadero Center complex) The "Manhattanization" term then was used pejoratively by the populace of that era.
Those height restrictions were then relaxed in recent years specifically for the Transbay development south of Market, to encourage new construction in that neighborhood - Salesforce Tower, soon to take over the tallest building in SF title from Transamerica, is located there.
There are still surprisingly quite a few (relatively) low-density sections of SF that haven't really shifted in character yet, i.e. the outside lands (Sunset, Richmond) neighborhoods.
The weird part is that the 60s was when the population of San Francisco was starting to actually decline, although it wasn't as drastic as other cities of the time like the Mid-West and didn't last very long. I kind of suspect the lack of ease of access into and out of the city has really led to a lot of inward growth which led to taller and taller buildings. It's funny since a lot of cities were talking about freeway removal as a means of urban renewal, so far I think of Portland as one of the few that has really followed through on that to full effect.
In reference to the Aquaduct. If it had dawned on me what I was looking at when I was coming down 9 Mile Canyon Road there was certainly a great little landing that would have been fantastic for photos of the pipelines. I just find it amusing that three people on this board actually have a firm understanding where 9 Mile Canyon Road even is....I haven't run into one person in my day-to-day life who has ever heard of it....much less Sherman Pass. :-D
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 15, 2016, 08:49:30 AM
I kind of suspect the lack of ease of access into and out of the city has really led to a lot of inward growth which led to taller and taller buildings.
I think it's more of a demographic shift: the tech boom of the last five years (Twitter, Salesforce, etc. - and Twitter's headquarters is in an older, medium-story building on Market Street) has resulted in a lot of newcomers to the city, rather than growth from pre-2000 residents creating more of a foothold in town. Twitter did get a tax break to move to the Mid-Market neighborhood and I think other companies (Uber) also have taken advantage of the city's attempt at having a tech presence in a once-blighted district in order to try to clean up that neighborhood.
One could argue that an unintended consequence anti-Manhattanization rules enacted in the 80s - while not having a significant effect on demand then due to softer economic periods - is the extreme thirst for more office and residential space in 2016 San Francisco.