CA 193

[Max Rockatansky]

Over the Fourth of July Holiday weekend I drove the entirety of California State Route 193.  Suffice to say CA 193 has a lot to offer in terms of historic locales, scenery, historic highway alignments and some good old fashioned alignment oddities.  CA 193 in terms of alignment is extremely odd since it includes unsigned multiplexes of CA 49 and I-80 (the triple multiplex pf CA 49/I-80/CA 193 is incredibly rare in post 1964-Renumbering California) and a handing north terminus at the City Limits of Lincoln.  CA 193 passes through several Gold Rush Communities on the Georgetown Divide; namely Georgetown.  CA 193 just as CA 49 is tied to the odd history of the Forest Hill Bridge and failure of the Auburn Dam project.  Most interestingly CA 193 runs along a former portion of the North Lincoln Highway and early US 40 in Newcastle.  The 1910 Newcastle Subway (the North Lincoln Highway and early US 40) and 1932 Newcastle Tunnel (realigned US 40) are directly accessible from CA 193 in Newcastle.  Suffice to say there is probably something interesting for everyone on CA 193, more can be found on the blog link below:

https://www.gribblenation.org/2019/07/california-state-route-193.html

[dbz77]

Over the Fourth of July Holiday weekend I drove the entirety of California State Route 193.  Suffice to say CA 193 has a lot to offer in terms of historic locales, scenery, historic highway alignments and some good old fashioned alignment oddities.  CA 193 in terms of alignment is extremely odd since it includes unsigned multiplexes of CA 49 and I-80 (the triple multiplex pf CA 49/I-80/CA 193 is incredibly rare in post 1964-Renumbering California) and a handing north terminus at the City Limits of Lincoln.  CA 193 passes through several Gold Rush Communities on the Georgetown Divide; namely Georgetown.  CA 193 just as CA 49 is tied to the odd history of the Forest Hill Bridge and failure of the Auburn Dam project.  Most interestingly CA 193 runs along a former portion of the North Lincoln Highway and early US 40 in Newcastle.  The 1910 Newcastle Subway (the North Lincoln Highway and early US 40) and 1932 Newcastle Tunnel (realigned US 40) are directly accessible from CA 193 in Newcastle.  Suffice to say there is probably something interesting for everyone on CA 193, more can be found on the blog link below:

https://www.gribblenation.org/2019/07/california-state-route-193.html

CalTrans clearly needs to sign the triple multiplex.

[Max Rockatansky]

Over the Fourth of July Holiday weekend I drove the entirety of California State Route 193.  Suffice to say CA 193 has a lot to offer in terms of historic locales, scenery, historic highway alignments and some good old fashioned alignment oddities.  CA 193 in terms of alignment is extremely odd since it includes unsigned multiplexes of CA 49 and I-80 (the triple multiplex pf CA 49/I-80/CA 193 is incredibly rare in post 1964-Renumbering California) and a handing north terminus at the City Limits of Lincoln.  CA 193 passes through several Gold Rush Communities on the Georgetown Divide; namely Georgetown.  CA 193 just as CA 49 is tied to the odd history of the Forest Hill Bridge and failure of the Auburn Dam project.  Most interestingly CA 193 runs along a former portion of the North Lincoln Highway and early US 40 in Newcastle.  The 1910 Newcastle Subway (the North Lincoln Highway and early US 40) and 1932 Newcastle Tunnel (realigned US 40) are directly accessible from CA 193 in Newcastle.  Suffice to say there is probably something interesting for everyone on CA 193, more can be found on the blog link below:

https://www.gribblenation.org/2019/07/california-state-route-193.html

CalTrans clearly needs to sign the triple multiplex.

Really the segment of 193 west of Auburn should have been it's own route.  I'm fairly confident the multiplex on 49 was signed once but I haven't found photos to prove it yet.  The only other triple  multiplex I encounter regularly is 99/59/140 which isn't signed with reassurance shields either.

[TheStranger]

Over the Fourth of July Holiday weekend I drove the entirety of California State Route 193.  Suffice to say CA 193 has a lot to offer in terms of historic locales, scenery, historic highway alignments and some good old fashioned alignment oddities.  CA 193 in terms of alignment is extremely odd since it includes unsigned multiplexes of CA 49 and I-80 (the triple multiplex pf CA 49/I-80/CA 193 is incredibly rare in post 1964-Renumbering California) and a handing north terminus at the City Limits of Lincoln.  CA 193 passes through several Gold Rush Communities on the Georgetown Divide; namely Georgetown.  CA 193 just as CA 49 is tied to the odd history of the Forest Hill Bridge and failure of the Auburn Dam project.  Most interestingly CA 193 runs along a former portion of the North Lincoln Highway and early US 40 in Newcastle.  The 1910 Newcastle Subway (the North Lincoln Highway and early US 40) and 1932 Newcastle Tunnel (realigned US 40) are directly accessible from CA 193 in Newcastle.  Suffice to say there is probably something interesting for everyone on CA 193, more can be found on the blog link below:

https://www.gribblenation.org/2019/07/california-state-route-193.html

CalTrans clearly needs to sign the triple multiplex.

Really the segment of 193 west of Auburn should have been it's own route.  I'm fairly confident the multiplex on 49 was signed once but I haven't found photos to prove it yet.  The only other triple  multiplex I encounter regularly is 99/59/140 which isn't signed with reassurance shields either.

Though signage isnt the best now, the old Business 80/US 50/Route 99 triple concurrency in Sacramento was signed for some time.



SAMSUNG-SM-G930A

[Max Rockatansky]

Over the Fourth of July Holiday weekend I drove the entirety of California State Route 193.  Suffice to say CA 193 has a lot to offer in terms of historic locales, scenery, historic highway alignments and some good old fashioned alignment oddities.  CA 193 in terms of alignment is extremely odd since it includes unsigned multiplexes of CA 49 and I-80 (the triple multiplex pf CA 49/I-80/CA 193 is incredibly rare in post 1964-Renumbering California) and a handing north terminus at the City Limits of Lincoln.  CA 193 passes through several Gold Rush Communities on the Georgetown Divide; namely Georgetown.  CA 193 just as CA 49 is tied to the odd history of the Forest Hill Bridge and failure of the Auburn Dam project.  Most interestingly CA 193 runs along a former portion of the North Lincoln Highway and early US 40 in Newcastle.  The 1910 Newcastle Subway (the North Lincoln Highway and early US 40) and 1932 Newcastle Tunnel (realigned US 40) are directly accessible from CA 193 in Newcastle.  Suffice to say there is probably something interesting for everyone on CA 193, more can be found on the blog link below:

https://www.gribblenation.org/2019/07/california-state-route-193.html

CalTrans clearly needs to sign the triple multiplex.

Really the segment of 193 west of Auburn should have been it's own route.  I'm fairly confident the multiplex on 49 was signed once but I haven't found photos to prove it yet.  The only other triple  multiplex I encounter regularly is 99/59/140 which isn't signed with reassurance shields either.

Though signage isnt the best now, the old Business 80/US 50/Route 99 triple concurrency in Sacramento was signed for some time.



SAMSUNG-SM-G930A

Interestingly there is still I-80BL shields on the former route of CA 160 in downtown.  Spotted this one on southbound 15th Street:

https://flic.kr/p/2gCWnCJ

What gets me about the the multiplex of 49/80/193 is that the signage for 193 is critical for through route continuity.  If you set out to take 193 between Georgetown and Lincoln you would lose the highway in Cool and likely wouldn't find it without aid of a map or device.  With 99 on US 50 at minimum there is junction signage to direct traffic that has some continuity. 

[corco]

Is there actually a concurrency or is it two separate segments with the same route number? I'd argue the latter since it's both unsigned and written into statute as two distinct segments

[Max Rockatansky]

Is there actually a concurrency or is it two separate segments with the same route number? I'd argue the latter since it's both unsigned and written into statute as two distinct segments

That's the thing a good number of routes with a concurrency on another State Maintained Highway exist segmented like 193.  For example 168 doesn't technically exist on 395 Legislatively:

https://www.cahighways.org/161-168.html#168

Same thing with 120 on the corridor of US 395:

https://www.cahighways.org/113-120.html#120

Or another example where 33 legislatively disappears on I-5:

https://www.cahighways.org/033-040.html

In the case of 120 and 33 those routes are signed concurrently with reassurance shields on US 395 and I-5 respectively.  Wouldn't it make sense just to slap a couple 193 shields up on CA 49 and I-80 just for route continuity/navigation purposes?   It seems silly to have a huge signage gap at about 10 miles when all the roadways in between the legislative segments of 193 are state maintained. 

But then again one could argue that the Newcastle-Lincoln segment of 193 no longer has much utility with a hanging end at the Lincoln City limit.  Some of that mileage from CA 65 through Lincoln should have been spun ("IMO" ) into 193 for a complete through route.  Oddly it doesn't end to be the end game of Caltrans to push for relinquishment of 193 between Newcastle and Lincoln nor find a via reroute to CA 65. 

[corco]

I dunno, I guess I don't see it as any different than 160 or 84 where there's definitely not an implied concurrency.

I'd say the difference between this and 120 or 168 is it requires traversing multiple routes to fill the concurrency. And there's no signage

[oscar]

Is there actually a concurrency or is it two separate segments with the same route number? I'd argue the latter since it's both unsigned and written into statute as two distinct segments

There are many "implied concurrencies" in California, where there is one state-maintained route connecting the separate segments defined in the statute. so you don't really need signage to continue from one segment to the other. In those instances, in California (and other states like Tennessee), Travel Mapping is combining the segments into a single route, whether or not we can find confirming signage.

But not for CA 193, since as Max notes it's too easy for travelers to get lost between the two segments without help from the signage that isn't there, with the connection following two routes rather than one. That's treated in TM like same-numbered routes separated by a mountain range, even if it is possible to get from one to the other via forest or county roads.

Complicating things for CA 193 is that there's not just one practical way to travel between its segments. One could take Historic US 40 (Ophir Rd.) as a substitute for most of the I-80 connection to CA 49. Without a signed concurrency, travelers would have to take a wild guess which way to go.

[Max Rockatansky]

Perhaps, the way I see if the 1964 Renumbering was so going to be so strict about segments then concurrencies ought to be legislatively defined line 46 and 41 are through Cholame:

https://www.cahighways.org/041-048.html#041

https://www.cahighways.org/041-048.html#046

In a city I get that signage isn't as big a deal as it once was.  But 193 and the highways I listed above are in rural back country.  GPS navigation in the Sierras especially is questionable at best, if I had to try to follow a highway I'd rather have good signage continuity to rely on. 

Regarding CA 160 the interesting part is that the signage getting you from the southern terminus of the North Sacramento Freeway to I-5 is actually very good.  It is very clear the end goal of getting CA 160 out off the surface streets was relieve traffic and getting cars to the freeways.  To that end it works well because the City of Sacramento did a good job at directing traffic to the freeways.  Following the former path of 160 in Sacramento is otherwise is not intuitive and requires knowledge of where it was. 

[dbz77]

Is there actually a concurrency or is it two separate segments with the same route number? I'd argue the latter since it's both unsigned and written into statute as two distinct segments

There are many "implied concurrencies" in California, where there is one state-maintained route connecting the separate segments defined in the statute. so you don't really need signage to continue from one segment to the other. In those instances, in California (and other states like Tennessee), Travel Mapping is combining the segments into a single route, whether or not we can find confirming signage.

But not for CA 193, since as Max notes it's too easy for travelers to get lost between the two segments without help from the signage that isn't there, with the connection following two routes rather than one. That's treated in TM like same-numbered routes separated by a mountain range, even if it is possible to get from one to the other via forest or county roads.

Complicating things for CA 193 is that there's not just one practical way to travel between its segments. One could take Historic US 40 (Ophir Rd.) as a substitute for most of the I-80 connection to CA 49. Without a signed concurrency, travelers would have to take a wild guess which way to go.

I wonder what the reason is the statutes have such complex definitions, instead of simply defining the endpoints and the locations along the way.

Here is the current definition of 193.

1. From Route 65 near Lincoln to Route 80 near Newcastle.

2. From Route 49 near Cool to Route 49 near Placerville via Georgetown.

Instead, it could be simplified by writing:

From the Lincoln city limits to Route 49 in Placerville, via Newcastle, Auburn, Cool, and Georgetown.

[Max Rockatansky]

Is there actually a concurrency or is it two separate segments with the same route number? I'd argue the latter since it's both unsigned and written into statute as two distinct segments

There are many "implied concurrencies" in California, where there is one state-maintained route connecting the separate segments defined in the statute. so you don't really need signage to continue from one segment to the other. In those instances, in California (and other states like Tennessee), Travel Mapping is combining the segments into a single route, whether or not we can find confirming signage.

But not for CA 193, since as Max notes it's too easy for travelers to get lost between the two segments without help from the signage that isn't there, with the connection following two routes rather than one. That's treated in TM like same-numbered routes separated by a mountain range, even if it is possible to get from one to the other via forest or county roads.

Complicating things for CA 193 is that there's not just one practical way to travel between its segments. One could take Historic US 40 (Ophir Rd.) as a substitute for most of the I-80 connection to CA 49. Without a signed concurrency, travelers would have to take a wild guess which way to go.

I wonder what the reason is the statutes have such complex definitions, instead of simply defining the endpoints and the locations along the way.

Here is the current definition of 193.

1. From Route 65 near Lincoln to Route 80 near Newcastle.

2. From Route 49 near Cool to Route 49 near Placerville via Georgetown.

Instead, it could be simplified by writing:

From the Lincoln city limits to Route 49 in Placerville, via Newcastle, Auburn, Cool, and Georgetown.

They've always been kind of like that even before the Signed Highway era.  The definitions appear to be purposefully vague enough to allow wiggle room for alignment shifts as roads improve.  Get too specific about an alignment and all the sudden any minor change needs to be heard in a legislative session. 

[cahwyguy]

I'm starting the next round of highway updates, and have bumped into this. I always read through Max's blog posts to see if I need to correct my pages from his research (with credit, of course)

On the page, Max writes that this LRN 17 and LRN 65 (corresponding to US 40 and Route 49), and that "Of note; the 1964 State Highway Map implies CA 193 multiplexed US 40 between Auburn and Lincoln as originally defined.  US 40/I-80 are shown co-signed on the 1965 State Highway Map which implies a US 40/I-80/CA 193 multiplex between Auburn and Newcastle."

The map implies no such thing. There is a dotted line showing the 193 is only for the segment W of I-80, and for the segment E of Route 49, it is clearly labels. Further the legislative definition never included the I-80 or Route 49 portions. So claiming that Route 193 was LRN 17 or LRN 65 is wrong, because the definition of the route never included those segments. One can claim that for a brief portion of time (1972-1988), Route 193 was routed over LRN 65, but no longer is.

Daniel

[Max Rockatansky]

I'm starting the next round of highway updates, and have bumped into this. I always read through Max's blog posts to see if I need to correct my pages from his research (with credit, of course)

On the page, Max writes that this LRN 17 and LRN 65 (corresponding to US 40 and Route 49), and that "Of note; the 1964 State Highway Map implies CA 193 multiplexed US 40 between Auburn and Lincoln as originally defined.  US 40/I-80 are shown co-signed on the 1965 State Highway Map which implies a US 40/I-80/CA 193 multiplex between Auburn and Newcastle."

The map implies no such thing. There is a dotted line showing the 193 is only for the segment W of I-80, and for the segment E of Route 49, it is clearly labels. Further the legislative definition never included the I-80 or Route 49 portions. So claiming that Route 193 was LRN 17 or LRN 65 is wrong, because the definition of the route never included those segments. One can claim that for a brief portion of time (1972-1988), Route 193 was routed over LRN 65, but no longer is.

Daniel

Something that I can't find a definite answer on but I kind of suspect it's a "no"  is it CA 193 was ever signed on I-80 at all.  I never could find any evidence that CA 193 co-signed I-80 and best evidence I have for CA 49 is a very non-official mural that I saw in Georgetown. 

[Max Rockatansky]

For reference the mural in Georgetown I spoke of can be found on the Fire Station. It shows CA 49/CA 193 co-signed from Cool north to Auburn.  This is the only map or fringe photographic evidence I've ever seen showing CA 49/193 co-signed between Cool and Auburn:

https://flic.kr/p/2gsJ4W4

So that said, I've never seen a Division of Highways or Caltrans which shows 193 multiplexing north of Cool (which I'll go back and clarify when I get an opportunity).  Hopefully someone has some older photos of this corridor.  I suspect 193 was once signed to Auburn on 49 but it would be nice to prove/disprove it conclusively. 

[sparker]

CA 193, at least the section between Lincoln and I-80, has always been a bit of a conundrum; since '64, Caltrans has been a bit schizoid regarding multiplexes; there are no less than 10 signed multiplexes along US 101 -- but relatively few elsewhere in the state.  I-80 has seen only three signed multiplexes (580, 113, and 89), at least until the CA 49 reroute in Auburn -- and 113 was "silent" until just a few years ago.  But CA 193, despite both sections being in the same general area, is one of the oddest routes around -- and one of the few with a back-to-back (implied) multiplex with both CA 49 and I-80.  The two routes, currently having different purposes, were given one number back in '64  -- with the understanding that a connector between the two would be a road running along the top of the never-built Auburn Dam, with CA 49, as illustrated elsewhere, rerouted over the Foresthill and proposed Middle Fork high bridges.   There was no implied connection between the two;  from the original commissioning to '64 the two sections were two separate LRN's (91 for Lincoln-Newcastle and 93 for the big "L" through Georgetown). 

It's entirely possible that 193, even with its "hanging" west end at the Lincoln city line, was considered to be effectively subsumed by the planned CA 102 freeway -- in its second planned iteration away from its original Citrus Heights/Granite Bay alignment.   Most plans for that later 102 format showed it partially paralleling the western CA 193 east of Lincoln before veering NE to bypass Auburn to the north before terminating at I-80 east of there.    If constructed, the CA 102 alignment would have, for all intents & purposes, duplicated the function of the western 193.  Instead, it was Caltrans' penchant for city-street relinquishment that has relegated that 193 portion to obscurity -- once the CA 65 west Lincoln bypass was in place -- and 193 was truncated back to the east Lincoln city limits -- that the connection between the two routes was effectively severed.  In the "good old days" before relinquishment madness, the agency would have reassigned one of the legs -- likely the northern one -- of the original CA 65 alignment through town over to CA 193 and signed it as such, with the interchange between the bypass and the original route serving as 193's western terminus.  But maintaining such continuity seems to be irrelevant to Caltrans these days!  We'll just have to see if the new expressway corridor connecting Lincoln with CA 99 (a local project) is ever absorbed into the state network as CA 102 -- but unless the agency breaks with current policy and adopts some sort of connector to the remaining state-maintained 193 segment, that connecting highway will continue to be effectively "orphaned".  Were it my decision, the western 193 would be simply recommissioned as CA 102 for the time being, obviating the "silent" connection to the Georgetown 193 segment over I-80 and CA 49. 

And all observations have been correct -- there never has been a signed CA 193 multiplex over either CA 49 or I-80.  State highway maps in the '60's through the '70's showed an unadopted (a row of small circles) CA 193 routing between the east end of the western section near Newcastle and the 49/193 junction at Cool, ostensibly over the now-defunct Auburn Dam.   Neither Caltrans nor its predecessor Division of Highways ever intended 193 to multiplex over the 49/80 combination between its segment endpoints; but the end of the Auburn Dam plans also marked the severing of the planned connection between those segments. 

[Max Rockatansky]

I should note that I'll be doing updates to the CA 193 article this week (namely Wednesday and Friday).  These past two weekends have had a huge amount of familial obligations that have me in a huge back log.  It probably isn't helping that I have been trying to update all the Monterey Area articles this past month given how much additional information has come to light.  The Auburn Dam project for some reason completely slipped my mind when I wrote the CA 193 article...seems way too obvious now to have missed it.

[Max Rockatansky]

Went back to the blog and added a portion regarding the Auburn Dam project discussed above.

[M3100]

CA 193, at least the section between Lincoln and I-80, has always been a bit of a conundrum
{snip} 193, even with its "hanging" west end at the Lincoln city line

We drove this segment in August.  I saw the "End" sign at the eastern Lincoln city limit, but don't recall other state highways just ending "in the middle of nowhere" [i.e. not at an intersection with another major road, park boundary, etc.] like this.

[Max Rockatansky]

CA 193, at least the section between Lincoln and I-80, has always been a bit of a conundrum
{snip} 193, even with its "hanging" west end at the Lincoln city line

We drove this segment in August.  I saw the "End" sign at the eastern Lincoln city limit, but don't recall other state highways just ending "in the middle of nowhere" [i.e. not at an intersection with another major road, park boundary, etc.] like this.

191 and 3 more or less end in a similar fashion.

[sparker]

CA 193, at least the section between Lincoln and I-80, has always been a bit of a conundrum
{snip} 193, even with its "hanging" west end at the Lincoln city line

We drove this segment in August.  I saw the "End" sign at the eastern Lincoln city limit, but don't recall other state highways just ending "in the middle of nowhere" [i.e. not at an intersection with another major road, park boundary, etc.] like this.

The only other one I can think of that ends abruptly at a city line is CA 3 in Montague -- but the signage there terminates when the route leaves the city limits rather than when it enters, like CA 193.  A similar situation existed in Lompoc, where CA 246 terminated at the west city limits after it was cut back from the previous ocean front terminus in the town of Surf.  But, AFAIK, CA 246 now ends at the CA 1 intersection near the east side of town.

[Max Rockatansky]

CA 193, at least the section between Lincoln and I-80, has always been a bit of a conundrum
{snip} 193, even with its "hanging" west end at the Lincoln city line

We drove this segment in August.  I saw the "End" sign at the eastern Lincoln city limit, but don't recall other state highways just ending "in the middle of nowhere" [i.e. not at an intersection with another major road, park boundary, etc.] like this.

The only other one I can think of that ends abruptly at a city line is CA 3 in Montague -- but the signage there terminates when the route leaves the city limits rather than when it enters, like CA 193.  A similar situation existed in Lompoc, where CA 246 terminated at the west city limits after it was cut back from the previous ocean front terminus in the town of Surf.  But, AFAIK, CA 246 now ends at the CA 1 intersection near the east side of town.

246 ends at the edge of town but is still signed all the way to the coast. 

[oscar]

CA 193, at least the section between Lincoln and I-80, has always been a bit of a conundrum
{snip} 193, even with its "hanging" west end at the Lincoln city line

We drove this segment in August.  I saw the "End" sign at the eastern Lincoln city limit, but don't recall other state highways just ending "in the middle of nowhere" [i.e. not at an intersection with another major road, park boundary, etc.] like this.

The only other one I can think of that ends abruptly at a city line is CA 3 in Montague -- but the signage there terminates when the route leaves the city limits rather than when it enters, like CA 193.  A similar situation existed in Lompoc, where CA 246 terminated at the west city limits after it was cut back from the previous ocean front terminus in the town of Surf.  But, AFAIK, CA 246 now ends at the CA 1 intersection near the east side of town.

246 ends at the edge of town but is still signed all the way to the coast. 

There is an End 246 sign at Lompoc's western city limit. I took a photo when I was out there in late June/early July. That's where Caltrans' Postmile Query Tool indicates route 246 ends.

[kurumi]

CA 193, at least the section between Lincoln and I-80, has always been a bit of a conundrum
{snip} 193, even with its "hanging" west end at the Lincoln city line

We drove this segment in August.  I saw the "End" sign at the eastern Lincoln city limit, but don't recall other state highways just ending "in the middle of nowhere" [i.e. not at an intersection with another major road, park boundary, etc.] like this.

The only other one I can think of that ends abruptly at a city line is CA 3 in Montague -- but the signage there terminates when the route leaves the city limits rather than when it enters, like CA 193.  A similar situation existed in Lompoc, where CA 246 terminated at the west city limits after it was cut back from the previous ocean front terminus in the town of Surf.  But, AFAIK, CA 246 now ends at the CA 1 intersection near the east side of town.

246 ends at the edge of town but is still signed all the way to the coast. 

There is an End 246 sign at Lompoc's western city limit. I took a photo when I was out there in late June/early July.

End of CA 246, Lompoc by therealkurumi, on Flickr

[Max Rockatansky]

Regarding 246 I don't know why I don't just read the things I write sometimes:

https://www.gribblenation.org/2019/08/california-state-route-150-family-of.html

East on Ocean entering Lompoc:

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.6391062,-120.4802741,3a,37.5y,89.95h,84.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEktatcjPTjaVZgsQcCyu2w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en