Why did CA 65 never get connected?

[thsftw]

The two sections have quite a lot of distance between them, but not a ton of land that would be difficult to acquire (not a ton of towns either). As I recall it was originally meant as the eastern bypass of the central valley, but it seems like the only thing that would have really got in the way would be the Sacramento suburbs of Granite Bay and Folsom. It also seems like it would easily serve towns like Dinuba, Reedley, Sanger, Clovis (and an eastern bypass of Fresno in general), La Grange, Knights Ferry, and Rancho Murieta (and Folsom in a way). When was the connection officially relinquished?

[cahwyguy]

The two sections have quite a lot of distance between them, but not a ton of land that would be difficult to acquire (not a ton of towns either). As I recall it was originally meant as the eastern bypass of the central valley, but it seems like the only thing that would have really got in the way would be the Sacramento suburbs of Granite Bay and Folsom. It also seems like it would easily serve towns like Dinuba, Reedley, Sanger, Clovis (and an eastern bypass of Fresno in general), La Grange, Knights Ferry, and Rancho Murieta (and Folsom in a way). When was the connection officially relinquished?

First, get your terms right. Something can't be relinquished if it has never been constructed or adopted. There are no existing roadways that correspond to the unconstructed segment and are in the state highway system, so there is nothing to relinquish.

The segment is simply that: Unconstructed. A desired line on paper. It hasn't been constructed because there wasn't a sufficient need to justify the cost (and there would be quite an environmental costs -- right of way might be easy in some areas, but the costs of environmental mitigation would be high, especially considering the development it would drive).

As I note in https://www.cahighways.org/ROUTE065.html :

The routing is not determined for the portion from Route 198 to Route 80. The portion from Route 198 to Route 80 was shown as proposed both in 1963 and 1986. It was LRN 249, defined in 1959. It appears to have been Mayhew Road and Gunn Road in the vicinity of Sacramento. Sunrise Blvd was also at one time planned to be part of Route 65. This was not part of the original definition of signed Route 65.

This 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 Route 65 corridor would be appropriate to address traffic needs. This segment would have struck out northwest from the Route 65/Route 198 junction as previously planned, crossing Route 180 just east of Minkler and the San Joaquin River immediately downstream from Friant Dam. But the Fresno-initiated plans included intersecting Route 41 a few miles north of Route 145, and then turning west on another proposed alignment -- an eastern extension of Route 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. Housing in that area has yet to recover from the recession, so it appears that the corridor is pretty much shelved.
(Source: Sparker at AAroads, 7/3/2016)

There is no traversable local routing from Route 198 in Tulare County to the Madera-Merced county line touching Route 168. There are no construction plans.

The 2013 Traversable Highways report indicates this is unconstructed:

From Route 198 to Route 168 in Fresno County: No local roads adequately fit the description of a traversable highway between Route 198 and Route 168. No recommendation.
From Route 168 to the Merced/Madera County Line: No traversable highway. No recommendation.
From the Madera County line to the Sacramento County line: No action by any of these counties to plan or construct this facility. No funds identified in respective RTP's
From San Joaquin County Line to Route 104 (6 mi), with no traversable highway;
From Route 104 to Placer County Line (25 mi), with the general routing not determined and no recommendation;
From Sacramento County Line to Route 80 (3.9 mi), with no local roads fitting the description of a traversable highway.

Some more detail from my pages:

According to the Fresno Bee, 2001-02-04:

In a major indicator of the tremendous growth projected for California, the state Department of Transportation has begun considering a third north-south highway corridor through the San Joaquin Valley -- a route across the citrus groves and scenic pasture land near the Sierra foothills.

Saying it must plan today for tomorrow's traffic in a state expected to reach a population of 49 million by 2025, Caltrans is studying the possibility of a 54-mile highway from Exeter in Tulare County to Route 152 in Madera County.

The route would stretch existing Route 65, which runs from Bakersfield to Exeter, far to the north across five Sierra rivers and five state highways. It would pass near towns such as Sanger, Orange Cove, Clovis and Friant.

[...]

Caltrans' goal, however, would be to provide relief for the huge increases in traffic projected in years ahead on Highway 99. If the new Highway 65 comes to pass, the state will eventually buy thousands of acres of right-of-way for a route that could, in decades ahead, become a long-haul California freeway.

[...]

Presently, Caltrans is studying only the link from Tulare County to Madera County. Yet the long-range goal is to close a 220-mile gap from Exeter to Rocklin, along I-80 northeast of Sacramento.

Caltrans planners say Highway 65 could begin as a two-lane route or a four-lane expressway, then expand to a foothill freeway. The vision, officials say, is similar to the long-distance I-5 corridor along the Valley's west side with interchanges every few miles.

Rte 65 Foothill FreewayAccording to the Fresno Bee in early 2007, there were talks about resurrecting this freeway route. A state-funded master plan for the San Joaquin Valley includes a proposed north-south highway along the Sierra foothills. The so-called Foothill Freeway (the Route 65 extension linking Exeter to Chowchilla, which has existed only on paper since 1959) is being discussed by Fresno and Madera county planners as a way to ease congestion on Route 99, and to connect future growth hot spots such as southern Madera County's Rio Mesa area and Fresno County's Millerton New Town. Caltrans last produced a study six years ago but set it aside in the face of environmental opposition and mixed reactions from local government leaders. The proposal is "still officially inactive" but could be brought back if a consensus emerges from the current San Joaquin Valley Blueprint effort, in which planners and other leaders are trying to define a vision for the Valley at midcentury. Fresno city planners are proposing that Route 65 be part of a beltway incorporating some form of mass transit as well as highways; this loop would encircle Madera and the Fresno-Clovis metropolitan area, and would include land use policies to encourage high-density development on major transit corridors within the loop while preserving farmland elsewhere.

The state's 1959 plan called for Route 65 to extend from its current end north of Exeter in Tulare County to Rocklin in Placer County, northeast of Sacramento. The route was supposed to run north to the east side of Sacramento and on through to I-80 in northeast Roseville. In the Sacramento area, the state brought up much of the right of way in the late 1960s and early 1970s. In November 1974, the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors killed Route 65 (and three other proposed freeways). In 1975, the California Legislature "buried" the plans for 65, but for some reason, resurrected the route in 1986. The 2001 study covered only the area between Exeter and Chowchilla, where the new highway would connect to an eastward extension of Route 152, with no route determination. The 2001 study focused on two wide and largely undeveloped corridors, one on each side of the Friant-Kern Canal near the base of the foothills. Costs at that time were estimated at $671 million or $763 million, depending on the corridor. If the route were revived, a new study would be required to determine an exact route; once approved, the counties and any cities along the route could alter their general plans to preserve needed right of way. However, this requires support of all of the region's local governments.

Note that both the northern and southern ends of Route 65 are currently slated for upgrade. Millions were recently approved from bond funding to build a long-planned and awaited freeway/expressway bypass of Lincoln, CA just north of Roseville (see the next segment of the route for details). To the south, there is a proposal to upgrade Route 65 to a four lane expressway (a.k.a "Terra Bella" Expressway) in Tulare and Kern Counties (see above).

Between 1970 and 1976 Sunrise Blvd. between Route 16 and US 50 was actually designated as Route 65; there were actually mileposts posted as such on the road, although no reassurance shields -- or any trailblazer signage on either of the intersecting highways -- was ever posted. The Sunrise/US 50 interchange was a full cloverleaf at the time; plans were to reconstruct Sunrise Blvd. as the intial 2 lanes of an eventual 4-lane upgradeable expressway. The Sacramento Board of Supervisors voted 3-2 to kill the Route 65, Route 143, and Route 244 freeways. This happened in November 1974. Rights of way were acquired for those freeways, and construction was supposed to begin on portions of Route 143 and Route 244 in 1975. There was a lot of NIMBY-type opposition to the freeways. About 20 years later, the Sacramento Bee published an article where two of the three supervisors who voted to suspend constuction admitted that they made a mistake with their vote. The other supervisor had a brother-in-law developer who bought up a big swath of the Route 143 right of way and built housing. Most of the mileposts on Route 65 were gone by mid-1977, but a few near the US 50 interchange (now a parclo) remained until the mid-80's. Reinstatement of that route was precluded by a redefinition of Route 65 as ending at Route 104 several miles to the south; there was a deliberate gap between Route 104 and the Placer County line. Over the years, both state and local officials have stymied attempts to plan -- much less deploy -- any eastern Sacramento bypass -- and developers certainly haven't helped, placing housing tracts or commercial facilities over most of the available land area. Such a bypass is effectively dead as of now.
(Source: Sparker at AAroads, 8/30/2016; ConcreteBob at AAroads, 8/30/2016)

Placer County has plans to connect Route 65 to Route 99 with a $200 million to $300 million roadway called Placer Parkway. There are plans for industrial areas on each end of the roadway. There are currently three possible routes that are being reviewed. The northern alternative follows West Sunset Boulevard, and a southern route is near Base Line Road. A third central route cuts through agricultural land between Sunset and Base Line. See Route 102 for more details.

[Max Rockatansky]

Amusingly the concept of the unconstructed portion of CA 65 follows the general corridor of the Stockton-Los Angeles Road.  The idea with that road was that it was above the flood plain and Tule Fog by staying in the Sierra Nevada Foothills. 

[froggie]

First, get your terms right. Something can't be relinquished if it has never been constructed or adopted. There are no existing roadways that correspond to the unconstructed segment and are in the state highway system, so there is nothing to relinquish.

For the most part, but earlier this year Tom posted something on Gribblenation that suggests a freeway routing along an existing state highway route was actually approved between CA 198 and Woodlake by 1965.  While his article focused on CA 56, one of the screenshots he used includes a map from the May/June 1965 issue of California Highways & Public Works that shows the highway commission approved a change in the freeway routing around Woodlake Airport.  The left side of the map shows the adopted freeway routing along CA 245 from just north of CA 198 to Ave 314.

This map strongly indicates that it was actually Proposals 4 or 5 that were approved instead of Proposal 2 as you suggest from the 1961 map on your CA 65 page, at least north of CA 198.

[The Ghostbuster]

California seems to have a lot of state highways that have unconstructed gaps in them. Given that a number of them are separated by mountains and National Forests, it would be impossible to try and connect the state highways' two separate segments. The same could possibly be said about connecting the two segments of CA 65.

[Max Rockatansky]

The terrain in the Foothills along the planned corridor of CA 65 is far from problematic.