Signed County Route J37 and the Lone Pine to Porterville High Sierra Road

[Max Rockatansky]

I've been looking forward to this one ever since I did the blog entry on CA 190 and the unbuilt gap in the Sierras.  This morning I drove the last Signed County Route that is "actually" signed still in Tulare County; J37 from CA 190 east to Balch Park.  As those with the CA 190 blog/post are probably familiar the routing of J37 on Balch Park Road was proposed in the 1920s to be part of a Trans-Sierra Highway to Lone Pine. 

Ultimately the plans to build a Trans-Sierra Highway were shifted south when the routing of CA 190 was adopted to the south in the Middle Fork Tule River Canyon.  Nonetheless its still interesting to take a roadway that was once considered something far more grand in scale than it ultimately became.  I don't think that I've ever encountered a paved roadway that had so many 180 degree hairpins, it truly does resemble a 4WD mountain road:

https://flic.kr/s/aHsmiQC36Y

To that end the previous Surewhynotnow entry on CA 190 can be found here as it contains information related to J37 on Balch Park Road:

http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2018/08/california-state-route-190-trans-sierra.html

The Los Angeles Times article showing the routing of the 1920s Trans-Sierra Highway proposal can be found below.  There is a detailed map showing the route of the Trans-Sierra Highway following modern J37/Balch Park Road east of Milo at Yokohl Valley Drive. It looks like the Trans-Sierra Highway would have split away from Balch Park Road northeast into the North Fork Tule River Canyon as it is shown entering the southern tip of Sequoia National Park. 

http://www.owensvalleyhistory.com/trans_sierra_road/page60.html

[Max Rockatansky]

While looking a little deeper at the 1926 Los Angeles Times article I found this blurb:

"The new Lone Pine-Porterville road will enter the Sequoia National Park only at the southeast corner of the old park boundaries, entering near the rangers' station at Quinn's Horse-camp, and coming out again at the north fork of the Middle Fork River and entering Balch Park. this unit of the road will run to Milo, where the present road goes westward to Exeter and Visalia. The other road, from Balch Park to Porterville, is already in use. the third unit of the western connections will bear off the main road to be built at Deadman's Canyon the Kern River, about at the halfway point, and will follow the north fork to meet the present road at Fairview."

It seems that the Porterville-Lone Pine Trans-Sierra Highway was indeed intended to be routed through Balch Park via the North Fork of the Middle Fork Tule River.

[Max Rockatansky]

Finished up my blog post on Signed County Route J37/Balch Park Road to Balch Park.  J37 was intended to be part of the Lone Pine to Porterville High Sierra Road which began construction in 1927 but ultimately never came close to being completed.  It is hard to believe that the concept of the Lone Pine to Porterville High Sierra got so far with actual roadways being built on both sides of the Sierras.  I'm not sure what logic Mulky Pass really had for a highway (other than it got close to Mount Whitney) given it is 11,300 feet above sea level but sure was ambitious.  Granted the western segment of the Lone Pine to Porterville High Sierra Road wasn't used as part of the intended route of CA 190 but the Division of Highways seemed to believe in the concept of Mulky Pass as evidenced by the planned routing not changing until the 1960s.

http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2018/09/signed-county-route-j37-last-signed.html

[cahwyguy]

I just drew up the map on this yesterday (not uploaded yet). Google maps shows the route as Wagner Dr/Balch Park to Bear Creek, then winding along Wagner Dr/Bear Creek back to Balch Park near the park. I think your discussion notes otherwise. Which is correct? It isn't shown on my 1991 Thos Brothers. Also: Are the mountainway numbers marked as well?

Specifically: start at 36298 CA-190, Springville, CA 93265, which is where Wagner Dr/Balch Park leaves Route 190. At 38908 Balch Park Rd, Springville, CA 93265 , Google maps shows J37 leaving Balch Park to go off on 220, Bear Creek Rd, winding around until it meets Balch Park again. The database definition of the route, however, continues up Wagner / Balch Park to 41243 Balch Park Rd, Springville, CA 93265, at which point Balch Park splits and continues around to the park, to end at Balch Park Rd, California 93265. So which is correct: The database definition, or Google maps.

In doing my maps, I've found slight variations from the J routes, but usually those are extensions that are believable as latter day changes. There was a big change at the start of J32, but that is likely due to reconfiguration near Betty Drive and Club Rd and such. This one is a significant deviation. Who is right? Which map do I use, or both?

Daniel

[Max Rockatansky]

I just drew up the map on this yesterday (not uploaded yet). Google maps shows the route as Wagner Dr/Balch Park to Bear Creek, then winding along Wagner Dr/Bear Creek back to Balch Park near the park. I think your discussion notes otherwise. Which is correct? It isn't shown on my 1991 Thos Brothers. Also: Are the mountainway numbers marked as well?

Specifically: start at 36298 CA-190, Springville, CA 93265, which is where Wagner Dr/Balch Park leaves Route 190. At 38908 Balch Park Rd, Springville, CA 93265 , Google maps shows J37 leaving Balch Park to go off on 220, Bear Creek Rd, winding around until it meets Balch Park again. The database definition of the route, however, continues up Wagner / Balch Park to 41243 Balch Park Rd, Springville, CA 93265, at which point Balch Park splits and continues around to the park, to end at Balch Park Rd, California 93265. So which is correct: The database definition, or Google maps.

In doing my maps, I've found slight variations from the J routes, but usually those are extensions that are believable as latter day changes. There was a big change at the start of J32, but that is likely due to reconfiguration near Betty Drive and Club Rd and such. This one is a significant deviation. Who is right? Which map do I use, or both?

Daniel

J37 is completely on Balch Park Road for the entirety of it's length.  Bear Creek Road is the older and shorter road to Balch Park but was replaced due to the extremely high grades.  If you use Balch Park as your end point and just keep following Balch Park Road from CA 190 you'll have the correct route alignment.

On a side note, Bear Creek Road is a complete beast.  The road is even more narrow than J37 on Balch Park Road, coupled with the high grade it seems laughable that all the map data seems to want to direct traffic onto that road.  I believe that Bear Creek Road has an 18% grade section whereas J37/Balch Park Road is about 5% sustained.

[cahwyguy]

It may be worth reporting to Google that they have it wrong. When I upload J, you'll see the other Google variants, although most seem to correlate with my 1991 Thomas Brothers state atlas, making them more believable.

[Max Rockatansky]

It may be worth reporting to Google that they have it wrong. When I upload J, you'll see the other Google variants, although most seem to correlate with my 1991 Thomas Brothers state atlas, making them more believable.

I'd be curious to see where Google is getting their map data from.  Some of the mountain routes in Central California are way off from what is actually out there in the field.  Granted I'm amazed that there is any reliable data on the Signed County Routes in Tulare County are all given J37 appears to be the only one signed.  I'll probably send something over to Google tomorrow regarding the route of J37.

Also, J37 Balch Park Road is on three different Mountain Roads; MTN 239, MTN 296, and MTN 220.  On my blog post I noted where J37/Balch Park Road changes Mountain Road designations.  The Postmiles are surprisingly well maintained in Tulare County.

[NE2]

Google probably gets their data from TIGER, which got its data from USGS topos. But USGS doesn't label J37.

[cahwyguy]

I'll note that I just finished the Js (whew, that was a lot). Take a look at https://www.cahighways.org/countyj.html . I've made notations where Google tended to differ with things, and did a batch of comparisons with my 1991 Thos. Brothers. Most of the cases appeared to be extensions that were at least plausible (but were made clear they weren't in the database). In addition to the problem with J37, there's an odd two-block segment of J44 that is disconnected from the rest of the route, and they may show J42 as extending a bit deeper than it does (J42 looks like an interesting drive).

[NE2]

For the record, J5 is now signed on a partial bypass of Lockeford: http://www.google.com/maps/@38.1562256,-121.1548214,3a,33.2y,38.25h,79.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGANYRj6Xzq4oFqZP9AWMew!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

[Max Rockatansky]

I'll note that I just finished the Js (whew, that was a lot). Take a look at https://www.cahighways.org/countyj.html . I've made notations where Google tended to differ with things, and did a batch of comparisons with my 1991 Thos. Brothers. Most of the cases appeared to be extensions that were at least plausible (but were made clear they weren't in the database). In addition to the problem with J37, there's an odd two-block segment of J44 that is disconnected from the rest of the route, and they may show J42 as extending a bit deeper than it does (J42 looks like an interesting drive).

Had a look at the J Routes tonight at dinner, everything looks solid to me.  There does seem to be a disconnect with what is in the definition of the Signed County Routes versus what is actually in the route descriptions/signed in the field.  I'd be curious to find out why Tulare County got rid of the signage on all their Signed County Routes aside from J37...especially when they obviously pushed to have so many in the first place.

Regarding J42, its actually fairly tame as it is the access road to Eagle Mountain Casino.  If I ever find myself that way again I'll probably do a photo album but in the short term J35 and J29 have more interest to me considering they were segments of CA 65.

For the record, J5 is now signed on a partial bypass of Lockeford: http://www.google.com/maps/@38.1562256,-121.1548214,3a,33.2y,38.25h,79.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGANYRj6Xzq4oFqZP9AWMew!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Actually managed to capture a picture of that shield last year:

5CRJa by Max Rockatansky, on Flickr

Google probably gets their data from TIGER, which got its data from USGS topos. But USGS doesn't label J37.

I wonder if that has something to do with J37 not being defined until 1975?  It definitely doesn't show up on any of the topographical maps that historicaerials is posting.