AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules to ensure post quality. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: US 299 and CA 299  (Read 4133 times)

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 19653
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 02:59:35 AM
    • Gribblenation
US 299 and CA 299
« on: November 05, 2018, 08:20:13 PM »

Back in 2016 I took CA 299 along the former US 299 alignment from US 101 in Arcata to I-5 in Redding.  Essentially the route was full of curves, gold rush town, and ghost towns.  I wanted to cover the trip on Surewhynotnow in the Summer but the Carr Fire broke out which made it somewhat inappropriate.  I'm fairly certain what was left of Whiskeytown is gone and probably parts of Shasta as well:

https://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2018/11/adventure-us-route-299-california-state.html
« Last Edit: October 18, 2021, 12:02:03 PM by Max Rockatansky »
Logged

nexus73

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2276
  • Age: 67
  • Location: Coos Bay OR
  • Last Login: September 24, 2022, 09:46:08 AM
Re: CA 299
« Reply #1 on: November 06, 2018, 10:13:52 AM »

Just wait until you drive SR 96 Max.  It will surprise anyone who has never driven it for how great a road it is!  299 is so curvy but most of 96 just flows and rolls as wide 2-lane with many modern bridges added in.  The scenery is off the charts as 96 follows the Klamath River for a considerable distance.  For E/W travel between I-5 and the coast in NW California, 96 is by far the finest route.

If you are lucky you will meet Bigfoot too.  There is a festival celebrating the legendary creature of the woods held in Willow Creek during the spring.

Rick
Logged
US 101 is THE backbone of the Pacific coast from Bandon OR to Willets CA.  Industry, tourism and local traffic would be gone or severely crippled without it being in functioning condition in BOTH states.

paulthemapguy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6423
  • nobody asked me

  • Age: 32
  • Location: Illinois
  • Last Login: September 24, 2022, 11:17:10 PM
    • Paul Across America
Re: CA 299
« Reply #2 on: November 06, 2018, 10:31:33 AM »

Hey!  Look at all the things I could have seen in October 2017 if my gf and I weren't cut off from using CA-299 because of fire damage!  We were supposed to go from Crescent City to Redding via US101 and CA-299 but CA-99 was closed...so we had to go all the way up to Grants Pass, OR via US199, then south on I-5.  We love the area and the Redwoods, so we will go back someday.  CA-96 and CA-299 both look exhilarating, thank you
Logged
Avatar is the last interesting highway I clinched.
My website! http://www.paulacrossamerica.com
My USA Shield Gallery https://flic.kr/s/aHsmHwJRZk
TM Clinches https://bit.ly/2UwRs4O

National collection status: 354/424. Only 70 route markers remain!

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 19653
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 02:59:35 AM
    • Gribblenation
Re: CA 299
« Reply #3 on: November 06, 2018, 03:35:26 PM »

Regarding CA 96 Iíve only driven a small segment from I-5 in the past.  I gave CA 3, CA 96, CA 169, CA 197, US 199, and some others on my short list for blog posts next year.  Iíll probably return really as soon as I can convince my wife of the merits of Redwood and Crater Lake National Parks.

Regarding CA 299, I think whatís left of Whiskeytown was wiped out by the Carr Fire along with possibly some of the structures in Shasta.  I thought Helena was in oddly prestine condition but it probably has a lot to do the remote location.   Really the whole Trinity River Canyon is a beautiful drive but itís a long haul that probably is best suited to a swift car. 
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 19653
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 02:59:35 AM
    • Gribblenation
Re: CA 299
« Reply #4 on: August 18, 2021, 12:10:33 AM »

I recently took drive on CA 299 from CA 139 near Canby west to Redding.  This would cover much of the original corridor of US 299 that I would have missed up thread.  Below a photo tour of the corridor can be found along with some photos from Burney Falls:

https://flic.kr/s/aHsmWrywGh
Logged

The Ghostbuster

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3644
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Madison, WI
  • Last Login: September 24, 2022, 10:39:24 PM
Re: CA 299
« Reply #5 on: August 18, 2021, 04:56:50 PM »

Maybe CA 299 should have remained US 299. Was the downgrade to a state highway really necessary?
Logged

jdbx

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 179
  • Location: Pleasant Hill, CA
  • Last Login: September 23, 2022, 03:42:36 PM
Re: CA 299
« Reply #6 on: August 18, 2021, 05:10:59 PM »

Maybe CA 299 should have remained US 299. Was the downgrade to a state highway really necessary?

299 doesn't cross outside of the state of California, you'll note that the only remaining US routes within the state of California continue to points outside of the state.
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 19653
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 02:59:35 AM
    • Gribblenation
Re: CA 299
« Reply #7 on: August 18, 2021, 06:13:24 PM »

Maybe CA 299 should have remained US 299. Was the downgrade to a state highway really necessary?

299 doesn't cross outside of the state of California, you'll note that the only remaining US routes within the state of California continue to points outside of the state.

I would note though that 299 between Arcata and Alturas is probably the only real true freight corridors that traverses the entire width of the state that far north.  Yes, it didnít quite hit 300 intrastate mile mark between Arcata-Alturas but it certainly connected US Routes to I-5 to merit itís existence in my opinion.  Really it is hard to convey how important that highway is unless youíve experienced it in person, US 199 has a similar vibe.  Then again, my opinions on the value of truncating the US Routes in 1964 are well known.  Note; Iím not counting the segment of CA 299 east to NV 8A since that was never part of US 299.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2021, 07:00:05 PM by Max Rockatansky »
Logged

Alps

  • y u m
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15174
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 39
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 12:36:19 AM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: CA 299
« Reply #8 on: August 18, 2021, 07:21:57 PM »

Maybe CA 299 should have remained US 299. Was the downgrade to a state highway really necessary?
ask US 130 and US 46 their opinions

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8495
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: September 12, 2021, 12:44:33 AM
Re: CA 299
« Reply #9 on: August 18, 2021, 08:24:28 PM »

Maybe CA 299 should have remained US 299. Was the downgrade to a state highway really necessary?
ask US 130 and US 46 their opinions

I've always wondered why US 299 wasn't just renumbered in '64 back to a semblance of what it was in the early days, with the portion west of Redding being an extension of CA 44 and the eastern portion something new (maybe a relocated CA 48).  But then, that renumbering effort seemed to be largely a mixture of randomness and partial "clustering" (like a lot of the 80's being in the Bay Area and the even 50's down in San Diego County).  One of those "go figure" situations!
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 19653
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 02:59:35 AM
    • Gribblenation
Re: CA 299
« Reply #10 on: August 18, 2021, 08:26:44 PM »

Maybe CA 299 should have remained US 299. Was the downgrade to a state highway really necessary?
ask US 130 and US 46 their opinions

I've always wondered why US 299 wasn't just renumbered in '64 back to a semblance of what it was in the early days, with the portion west of Redding being an extension of CA 44 and the eastern portion something new (maybe a relocated CA 48).  But then, that renumbering effort seemed to be largely a mixture of randomness and partial "clustering" (like a lot of the 80's being in the Bay Area and the even 50's down in San Diego County).  One of those "go figure" situations!

Or even bring back CA 440 and put 44 back on itís original corridor inherited by 299.  To that end I always thought it was odd how 399 and 466 got totally shit canned during the Renumbering but 299 was allowed to remain with the same number.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8495
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: September 12, 2021, 12:44:33 AM
Re: CA 299
« Reply #11 on: August 18, 2021, 09:50:20 PM »

Maybe CA 299 should have remained US 299. Was the downgrade to a state highway really necessary?
ask US 130 and US 46 their opinions

I've always wondered why US 299 wasn't just renumbered in '64 back to a semblance of what it was in the early days, with the portion west of Redding being an extension of CA 44 and the eastern portion something new (maybe a relocated CA 48).  But then, that renumbering effort seemed to be largely a mixture of randomness and partial "clustering" (like a lot of the 80's being in the Bay Area and the even 50's down in San Diego County).  One of those "go figure" situations!

Or even bring back CA 440 and put 44 back on itís original corridor inherited by 299.  To that end I always thought it was odd how 399 and 466 got totally shit canned during the Renumbering but 299 was allowed to remain with the same number.

To me, the renumbering was a missed opportunity to refine the original SSR numbering scheme into a more precise format.   Since even numbers divisible by 4 started in Stockton and marched north, redesignating Alternate US 40 as its pre-1953 SSR 24 number would seem a no-brainer; progressing farther north, the 44 and possibly 48 concept for 299 would seem rational, seeing as how 44 had been extended east to Susanville only two years previously.  One of these days, if free time becomes available, I may devise an alternate '64 plan as I would have done it (I was all of 14 when it happened!) and post the results. 

Actually, the demise of US 399 and US 466 is not surprising, considering (a) the diminished importance of the former route as a conduit from the Valley to the Ventura/Santa Barbara coastal zone (never a vital commercial route; that would take US 99 south to CA 126 and then west or even 166 over to Santa Maria to address the northern part of Santa Barbara county), and (b) the consecutive multi-state multiplexes of the latter with US 93 and US 91; when the latter became I-15, the die was completely cast.  But the choice of the former LRN, 58, as the number was to me the height of mental laziness on the part of DOH; I would have opted for one of the lower numbers made available by Interstate usurpation or route rationalization.  If it were my decision, SSR 178 would have been retained west of Bakersfield to the coast as CA 178, while the number 46 would have been applied to 466 from Barstow to Bakersfield, with the inverse "64" applied to Cambria-Famoso; i.e., maintaining the original 466 integers in a modified format.  The "network" (or lack thereof) devised in 1964 just wasn't anywhere near intuitive for navigational purposes.  Something tells me that the original concept to eliminate multi-route multiplexes sitting atop Interstate corridors transformed into a general renumbering sometime in 1963, and DOH was up against a self-imposed deadline to complete the task and be ready to field-post the changes by New Years' 1964, so the haphazard result reflected a rushed process.   
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 19653
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 02:59:35 AM
    • Gribblenation
Re: US 299 and CA 299
« Reply #12 on: October 18, 2021, 12:03:56 PM »

I went through the California Highway Bulletins, CHPWs and AASHO database pertaining to US 299 for a blog update.  Suffice to say there is a lot of good stuff which really highlights why US 299 was important.  The Winnemucca to the Sea reference is probably the biggest fine as illustrated in the CA 299 State Line thread:

https://www.gribblenation.org/2018/11/adventure-us-route-299-california-state.html?m=1
Logged

Bickendan

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2857
  • Last Login: September 24, 2022, 11:12:44 PM
Re: US 299 and CA 299
« Reply #13 on: October 18, 2021, 06:17:56 PM »

So the idea that Winnemucca to Sea following 140 and 199 to Crescent City is inaccurate then?

Edit: Saw the relevant response in the other thread.
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 19653
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 02:59:35 AM
    • Gribblenation
Re: US 299 and CA 299
« Reply #14 on: October 18, 2021, 06:26:35 PM »

So the idea that Winnemucca to Sea following 140 and 199 to Crescent City is inaccurate then?

Edit: Saw the relevant response in the other thread.

Interestingly the actual US 140 proposal during the 1960s is in the AASHTO database.  The reason for rejection in my opinion (mainly low traffic count) is kind of lame considering NV 140/OR 140 was a brand new corridor.  There appears to never have been an actual AASHO proposal for a NV 8A-US 299 variant of the Winnemucca to the Sea Highway.  Considering how it was plugged in a CHPW and the effort that went into LRN 28 east of Alturas it lends me to believe that the California DOH was invested in the concept.
Logged

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.