California

[Max Rockatansky]

Either way I'm not sure why anyone would want to take Echo Summit in anything but good weather instead of Donner Summit.  At minimum with Donner you'll have access to multiple lanes getting over the crest of the Sierras which is by far the most difficult part of the trip more often than not this time of year I've found.  Personally I've found it easier to even swing out crazy wide on CA 70 along the Feather River to US 395 and take that down to US 50 in Carson City in the winter.  It might be longer but there is far less chance of extremely foul weather and more so people, usually that travel time ends up leveling out in the end. 

For southern Oregon/NorCal travel, it can help to check the webcams.  Obviously the direct route is I-5.  Need a bypass?  Weed CA is where US 97's southern terminus is.  Gojng from there to Klamath Falls OR is surprisingly easy terrain.  Once in the Klamath Basin, there are three routes to get back to I-5.  Avoid SR 62 as it goes to Crater Lake.  Lots of snow there!  The two to look at are SR 140 to Medford and SR 66 to Ashland.  Having been on 140, it is not that onerous in terms of the lay of the land.  66 is not a route I have used but the map shows no major mountain passes between Klamath Falls and Ashland. 

Getting from here to there in the winter over here does require some route adjustments at times.  Am I ever glad we have some possibilities to use!

Rick

I have lived at Tahoe for 10 years now.  Here's an evaluation of the alternate routes over the Sierra in severe weather:

CA 88:  Carson Pass itself usually isn't a problem, but the stretch of highway immediately west of the Kirkwood ski resort, known as "Carson Spur", is subject to severe avalanche risk as it traverses a steep north-facing slope.  Carson Spur can be closed for 48 hours at a time during severe storms.

US 50:  The traffic problems as mentioned above because it's a winding two-lane road.  It can be closed completely from Meyers up to Echo Summit for avalanche control but those closures usually don't last more than a few hours.  This is definitely my shortest and preferred route over to Sacramento.

I-80:  Subject to a lot of wind which results in whiteout closures lasting up to 24 hours.  When it's open...because it's a freeway, drivers try to go too fast, crash bang boom, and it's closed for a few hours at a time while the Highway Patrol lets tow trucks up there to clean up the mess.

CA-70:  As Max mentioned above this can be a reasonable alternate if you're willing to put in a few extra hours.  This last week, I noticed that during one of the I-80 closures, CA 70 was closed as well for some time due to several 18-wheeler wrecks.

CA-49:  Not a road intended for any significant amount of traffic.  If all these other roads are closed they'll shut down 49 as well.

Bottom line is, there are times when trans-Sierra traffic just isn't possible for up to 24 hours at a time.

So when there is no snow, what is the best route to go from the Sacramento area to Washoe Valley?  Is it I-80 or US 50?

Rick

I-80 is faster while US 50 is more scenic.  Granted I-80 has close access to Donner Pass, really it depends what you want out travel between the two locales.  Best for me usually means most scenic, that being the case it's hard beating Cave Rock on US 50. 

[gonealookin]

So when there is no snow, what is the best route to go from the Sacramento area to Washoe Valley?  Is it I-80 or US 50?

Rick

If you're going fron Sacramento to the Nevada valleys east of Tahoe...fastest to Carson City and points north of there would be I-80 to Reno, then I-580 south to Carson.  To Minden/Gardnerville I'd use US 50 to Meyers, the Pioneer Trail shortcut to Stateline, briefly back on US 50 and then NV 207 over to Carson Valley.

From Sacramento to the east shore of Tahoe...fastest is I-80 to CA 267 to CA/NV 28 to points north of the junction of US 50 and NV 28.  US 50 to Pioneer Trail to US 50 to points south of that junction.

[JustDrive]

Wasn't sure where to put this, but I've noticed that most BGS on SB 5 and 805 in San Diego have "Chula Vista"  and "San Ysidro"  listed as control cities instead of just "SOUTH."  Must have been a fairly recent thing.

[GaryA]

Just noticed that the upper CA 39 closure (between Crystal Lake and CA 2) status has been updated.  For quite a while it showed a date in 2020, then it was updated to 2025.  Now it shows "Expected to end at 5:01 am Nov 30, 2050".

(Not that I'm expecting it to open then or ever, much as I'd like to see it open again.)

[Max Rockatansky]

Just noticed that the upper CA 39 closure (between Crystal Lake and CA 2) status has been updated.  For quite a while it showed a date in 2020, then it was updated to 2025.  Now it shows "Expected to end at 5:01 am Nov 30, 2050".

(Not that I'm expecting it to open then or ever, much as I'd like to see it open again.)

Kind of begs the question does the HSR get built first or does CA 39 open on Islip Saddle?

[sparker]

Just noticed that the upper CA 39 closure (between Crystal Lake and CA 2) status has been updated.  For quite a while it showed a date in 2020, then it was updated to 2025.  Now it shows "Expected to end at 5:01 am Nov 30, 2050".

(Not that I'm expecting it to open then or ever, much as I'd like to see it open again.)

Kind of begs the question does the HSR get built first or does CA 39 open on Islip Saddle?

So CA 39 is slated to open 31+ years from now -- right at the beginning of the snow season?  Either someone is being disingenuous, or D7 is simply pulling the info right out of their collective ass!   Seriously, the Valley HSR section will be opened -- if only as an Amtrak alternative route -- well before the ill-fated CA 39 ( ) reaches CA 2 again! 

[ClassicHasClass]

Wasn't sure where to put this, but I've noticed that most BGS on SB 5 and 805 in San Diego have "Chula Vista"  and "San Ysidro"  listed as control cities instead of just "SOUTH."  Must have been a fairly recent thing.

Yeah, that's relatively new. You did see it on some older signage (the enamel-on-steel I-805 overheads at the I-8 junction said National City and Chula Vista) but most of the signage actually on I-5 itself didn't, for example. As a sad thing the quirky old "5 SOUTH 5" stuff is disappearing with the replacement (the second 5 was of course US 101).

[NE2]

It's called a placeholder...

[jakeroot]

As a sad thing the quirky old "5 SOUTH 5" stuff is disappearing with the replacement (the second 5 was of course US 101).

Interesting, because I can think of at least two states (Minnesota and Washington) that have used this shield/direction arrangement intentionally, even when there was only one signed route.

[Mark68]

Just noticed that the upper CA 39 closure (between Crystal Lake and CA 2) status has been updated.  For quite a while it showed a date in 2020, then it was updated to 2025.  Now it shows "Expected to end at 5:01 am Nov 30, 2050".

(Not that I'm expecting it to open then or ever, much as I'd like to see it open again.)

Kind of begs the question does the HSR get built first or does CA 39 open on Islip Saddle?

I'm just curious as to why Caltrans has not thought of re-opening this section with snow/slide sheds in the most slide-prone areas? It's not like that hasn't been done in other states...

[Max Rockatansky]

Just noticed that the upper CA 39 closure (between Crystal Lake and CA 2) status has been updated.  For quite a while it showed a date in 2020, then it was updated to 2025.  Now it shows "Expected to end at 5:01 am Nov 30, 2050".

(Not that I'm expecting it to open then or ever, much as I'd like to see it open again.)

Kind of begs the question does the HSR get built first or does CA 39 open on Islip Saddle?

I'm just curious as to why Caltrans has not thought of re-opening this section with snow/slide sheds in the most slide-prone areas? It's not like that hasn't been done in other states...

The problem likely is cost versus benefit.  Considering how long it had been since 39 was open it is clear the expenditure isn't worth investing for Caltrans.  To that end I can't say that I blame them, a rock shed would be a little inordinate in terms of price for the amount of traffic 39 would get.  If it wasn't for potential fire evacuation I suspect 39 would have been abandoned in the same manner the dirt part of 173 has. 

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^
Seeing as how Caltrans has been busy relinquishing the "flatland" portion of CA 39 from the San Gabriel Canyon south through Azusa and Covina, it's hard to imagine them prioritizing a topographically problematic section of mountain highway disconnected from the remainder of the system.  That stretch of functionally "dead end" state highway is principally utilized for mountain recreation by locals; with or without the connection to CA 2 or southward to I-210 and/or I-10, it'll still be utilized by those same locals regardless of status -- but L.A. County and or the Forest Service would probably balk at any attempt to relinquish CA 39 in the canyon itself since that would mean a shift of maintenance expenses to either or both of those parties.   

[Max Rockatansky]

^^^^^^^^
Seeing as how Caltrans has been busy relinquishing the "flatland" portion of CA 39 from the San Gabriel Canyon south through Azusa and Covina, it's hard to imagine them prioritizing a topographically problematic section of mountain highway disconnected from the remainder of the system.  That stretch of functionally "dead end" state highway is principally utilized for mountain recreation by locals; with or without the connection to CA 2 or southward to I-210 and/or I-10, it'll still be utilized by those same locals regardless of status -- but L.A. County and or the Forest Service would probably balk at any attempt to relinquish CA 39 in the canyon itself since that would mean a shift of maintenance expenses to either or both of those parties.

Didn't 39 briefly open as an evacuation route this past year?  Really the Forest Service assuming maintenance probably serve the corridor better at this point.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^
Seeing as how Caltrans has been busy relinquishing the "flatland" portion of CA 39 from the San Gabriel Canyon south through Azusa and Covina, it's hard to imagine them prioritizing a topographically problematic section of mountain highway disconnected from the remainder of the system.  That stretch of functionally "dead end" state highway is principally utilized for mountain recreation by locals; with or without the connection to CA 2 or southward to I-210 and/or I-10, it'll still be utilized by those same locals regardless of status -- but L.A. County and or the Forest Service would probably balk at any attempt to relinquish CA 39 in the canyon itself since that would mean a shift of maintenance expenses to either or both of those parties.

Didn't 39 briefly open as an evacuation route this past year?  Really the Forest Service assuming maintenance probably serve the corridor better at this point.

With the outsized rainstorms most of CA has received over the past couple of years, keeping San Gabriel Canyon Road open and clear, regardless of who is responsible for maintenance, is definitely a major regional concern.  AFAIK, Caltrans hasn't slacked off maintenance of their CA 39 section to date, so it's unclear that the Forest Service would do the job more effectively.  Since CA 39 and the upper San Gabriel River, which drains everything east of Mt. Wilson and south of the San Gabriel Mountain ridgeline all the way to Mt. Baldy (aka San Antonio), share the narrow gap north of Azusa, whoever maintains the roadway will likely have to perform regular debris clearance; if that's being done regularly and competently by Caltrans -- and there's no calls for relinquishment from any quarter -- there's no pressing reason to cede the canyon road to another party. 

[Evillangbuildsmc]

What about the control city for 91, 605 and 710?

[Max Rockatansky]

I was flipping through some of the map links on CAhighways, specifically the 1934 California Highway and Public Works guide from 1934 showing the initial run of signed State Routes:

http://archive.org/stream/californiahighwa193436calirich#page/n275/mode/2up

Some observations I had that caught my eye:

-  US 50 is shown all the way west to Hayward over what was US 48.

-  CA 168 is shown as a planned route crossing the Sierras.

-  Like wise CA 180 is shown as a planned highway crossing the Sierras. 

With 168 and 180 that's the first time I've ever seen a State publications a clear or even proposed alignment crossing the Sierra Nevada Range. 

[ClassicHasClass]

I was flipping through some of the map links on CAhighways, specifically the 1934 California Highway and Public Works guide from 1934 showing the initial run of signed State Routes:

http://archive.org/stream/californiahighwa193436calirich#page/n275/mode/2up

Some observations I had that caught my eye:

-  US 50 is shown all the way west to Hayward over what was US 48.

-  CA 168 is shown as a planned route crossing the Sierras.

-  Like wise CA 180 is shown as a planned highway crossing the Sierras. 

With 168 and 180 that's the first time I've ever seen a State publications a clear or even proposed alignment crossing the Sierra Nevada Range.

There's CA 120 and CA 108 on that map too, though?

[Max Rockatansky]

I was flipping through some of the map links on CAhighways, specifically the 1934 California Highway and Public Works guide from 1934 showing the initial run of signed State Routes:

http://archive.org/stream/californiahighwa193436calirich#page/n275/mode/2up

Some observations I had that caught my eye:

-  US 50 is shown all the way west to Hayward over what was US 48.

-  CA 168 is shown as a planned route crossing the Sierras.

-  Like wise CA 180 is shown as a planned highway crossing the Sierras. 

With 168 and 180 that's the first time I've ever seen a State publications a clear or even proposed alignment crossing the Sierra Nevada Range.

There's CA 120 and CA 108 on that map too, though?

Yes, interesting both those roads were well built up by the time the Signed State Highways came around.  The National Park Service essentially connected the Big Oak Flat Road to the Tioga Mine Road via Tioga Pass.  Sonora Pass had been a Route of travel back to the Gold Rush era and the present route of CA 108 doesn't deviate from the old wagon road. 

The biggest issue CA 168, CA 180, CA 190 and even CA 203 faced is that they were brand new corridors over the highest parts of the Sierras.  The route of CA 180 is laughable at best since it would have dumped out onto Onion Valley Road.  CA 190 has origins in the whole Lone Pine-Porterville Highway which was partially built as Balch Camp Road/J37.  CA 168 had been built on the backbone of the Big Creek Project but getting over that final hump of the Sierras from the end of Kaiser Pass Road essentially was impossible.  CA 203 was at least realistic following the San Joaquin River Canyon but by the time it was proposed there was too much environmental red tape. 

It's somewhat amusing that the newest trans-Sierra Highway is Sherman Pass Road which was built by the Forest Service. 

[pderocco]

The route of CA 180 is laughable at best since it would have dumped out onto Onion Valley Road.

This fragment of a 1941 Automobile Club of SoCal map (the second map here: http://www.historicalroadmaps.com/CaliforniaPage/DeathValleyPage/) shows Onion Valley Road as route 180. I wonder if it was actually signed as such.

[Max Rockatansky]

The route of CA 180 is laughable at best since it would have dumped out onto Onion Valley Road.

This fragment of a 1941 Automobile Club of SoCal map (the second map here: http://www.historicalroadmaps.com/CaliforniaPage/DeathValleyPage/) shows Onion Valley Road as route 180. I wonder if it was actually signed as such.

Its possible given the State didn't sign the early era State Routes but rather the CSAA and ACSC.  What is known for certain is that the state never maintained Onion Valley Road as part of LRN 41.  Essentially the planned crossing of the Sierras via Kings Canyon was killed off by the creation of Kings Canyon National Park out of former General Grant National Park in 1940.

[bing101]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8-_b6r-gVQ


101not5 does a segment on CA-241, 91 and 71

[SoCal Kid]

I have a question: how come there is no direct access from northbound I-5 to I-405 south. I-405 is one of the busiest freeways in Los Angeles, so...

[jakeroot]

I have a question: how come there is no direct access from northbound I-5 to I-405 south. I-405 is one of the busiest freeways in Los Angeles, so...

Wouldn't the 118 serve that purpose?

[sparker]

I have a question: how come there is no direct access from northbound I-5 to I-405 south. I-405 is one of the busiest freeways in Los Angeles, so...

Wouldn't the 118 serve that purpose?

Bingo!  Besides, the hilly topology around the 5/405 "split" mitigates against a direct connection of that sort.  Incidentally, at the southern I-5/405 divergence in east Irvine, CA 133 functionally mimics CA 118 as a de facto connection between the two facilities -- although with less overall capacity. 

[SoCal Kid]

I have a question: how come there is no direct access from northbound I-5 to I-405 south. I-405 is one of the busiest freeways in Los Angeles, so...

Wouldn't the 118 serve that purpose?

Bingo!  Besides, the hilly topology around the 5/405 "split" mitigates against a direct connection of that sort.  Incidentally, at the southern I-5/405 divergence in east Irvine, CA 133 functionally mimics CA 118 as a de facto connection between the two facilities -- although with less overall capacity.

As I was typing, i felt like the answer has hovering above me. Thanks lol