https://dot.ca.gov/caltrans-near-me/district-9/district-9-current-projects/olancha-cartago-4-lane-project (https://dot.ca.gov/caltrans-near-me/district-9/district-9-current-projects/olancha-cartago-4-lane-project)
I noticed that they broke ground for this last month. This project will make US-395 four lanes from Inyokern to Mono Lake.
I don't see any estimated completion date for the Freeman Gulch project along CA-14, but when that's completed, there will be four or more lanes from Los Angeles to Mono Lake.
I'm so excited about this project. It is long overdue! I've been watching the progress and watching the residents of Olancha and Cartego fight it for many years. I've made posts in the past about this 4 lane project.
It'll be worth it.
Just came back from a weekend trip to the Eastern Sierra. There is pretty decent progress being made. Can clearly see where the bypass around Olancha/Cartago will go. My understanding is 190 will be extended southwest, which means a short portion of it will also be four-lane divided highway.
QuoteI've been watching the progress and watching the residents of Olancha and Cartego fight it for many years. I've made posts in the past about this 4 lane project.
It's understandable. A bypass will likely take away business. But on the other hand, might relieve traffic because a lot of people aren't stopping there to begin with. There are always pros and cons.
QuoteThis project will make US-395 four lanes from Inyokern to Mono Lake.
This will be technically true but you've still got the massive speed drops in Lone Pine, Independence, Big Pine, and Bishop. Unless all of these are planned to get bypasses, you still get traffic issues.
Quote from: Quillz on April 17, 2023, 06:35:48 PM
QuoteThis project will make US-395 four lanes from Inyokern to Mono Lake.
This will be technically true but you've still got the massive speed drops in Lone Pine, Independence, Big Pine, and Bishop. Unless all of these are planned to get bypasses, you still get traffic issues.
Sure, but if you're behind a lumbering Winnebago going 25 in Bishop, you can still pass it at 30.
I recall some talk of a Bishop bypass, although I can't find it online. But it was strangely leaning toward going 3/4 of the way round on the NE side, to provide access to the airport. I find it hard to believe there's enough traffic at that airport to need US-395 to go there.
Anyway, I almost always stop at the Starbucks in Bishop, one of only two on US-395 in California.
Quote from: Quillz on April 17, 2023, 06:35:48 PM
Just came back from a weekend trip to the Eastern Sierra. There is pretty decent progress being made. Can clearly see where the bypass around Olancha/Cartago will go. My understanding is 190 will be extended southwest, which means a short portion of it will also be four-lane divided highway.
QuoteI've been watching the progress and watching the residents of Olancha and Cartego fight it for many years. I've made posts in the past about this 4 lane project.
It's understandable. A bypass will likely take away business. But on the other hand, might relieve traffic because a lot of people aren't stopping there to begin with. There are always pros and cons.
QuoteThis project will make US-395 four lanes from Inyokern to Mono Lake.
This will be technically true but you've still got the massive speed drops in Lone Pine, Independence, Big Pine, and Bishop. Unless all of these are planned to get bypasses, you still get traffic issues.
I don't think it is technically true, technically only to the 14 split it will be. The other issue is that 14 goes down to 2 lanes right after 178, but that project is starting up soon too and there will be a 4 lane highway from Mono Lake to LA finally.
Quote from: thsftw on April 19, 2023, 01:52:40 PM
Quote from: Quillz on April 17, 2023, 06:35:48 PM
QuoteThis project will make US-395 four lanes from Inyokern to Mono Lake.
This will be technically true but you've still got the massive speed drops in Lone Pine, Independence, Big Pine, and Bishop. Unless all of these are planned to get bypasses, you still get traffic issues.
I don't think it is technically true, technically only to the 14 split it will be.
I'm not sure what I should call the split location, if not Inyokern. Leliter? Brown? Bradys? Nobody's heard of those.
Quote from: thsftw on April 19, 2023, 01:52:40 PM
The other issue is that 14 goes down to 2 lanes right after 178, but that project is starting up soon too and there will be a 4 lane highway from Mono Lake to LA finally.
That's the Freeman Gulch project I mentioned in my original post. They seem to be taking their sweet time, even though that's probably the most dangerous part of the trip.
Oops: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-05-22/caltrans-indigenous-burial-site
"It didn't take long for a team of highway archaeologists to mark their first find while searching for buried human remains on an aging stretch of U.S. Highway 395 that cuts along the eastern flank of the Sierra Nevada range.
"That alone was enough to concern local tribal leaders, but they went on to hit more bones missed by earlier archaeological surveys required to start construction of a $69.7-million Caltrans project to convert 12.6 miles of 395 from a two-lane road to a safer four-lane expressway.
"State and federal laws prohibit public disclosure of information related to the locations of Native American cultural places to reduce their vulnerability to various types of theft, including grave robbing. But as of last week, tribal leaders say, more than 30 tangled human skeletons had been unearthed at the site near the Inyo County community of Cartago, many of them adorned with artifacts: glass beads, abalone shells and arrowheads."
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on May 22, 2023, 09:56:23 AM
Oops: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-05-22/caltrans-indigenous-burial-site
"It didn't take long for a team of highway archaeologists to mark their first find while searching for buried human remains on an aging stretch of U.S. Highway 395 that cuts along the eastern flank of the Sierra Nevada range.
"That alone was enough to concern local tribal leaders, but they went on to hit more bones missed by earlier archaeological surveys required to start construction of a $69.7-million Caltrans project to convert 12.6 miles of 395 from a two-lane road to a safer four-lane expressway.
"State and federal laws prohibit public disclosure of information related to the locations of Native American cultural places to reduce their vulnerability to various types of theft, including grave robbing. But as of last week, tribal leaders say, more than 30 tangled human skeletons had been unearthed at the site near the Inyo County community of Cartago, many of them adorned with artifacts: glass beads, abalone shells and arrowheads."
Big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big oops.
This is why you hire archaeologists and why you make sure they actually know what they're doing?
This is gonna alter and delay the entire project. So frustrating! I've been waiting for this section to be four laned for YEARS!
This rankles me. If they found bones of early European settlers, would they reroute the road? Hell no. These bones could be centuries old, or more. Does anyone in the tribes remember who they are?
Quote from: pderocco on May 23, 2023, 12:38:09 AM
This rankles me. If they found bones of early European settlers, would they reroute the road? Hell no. These bones could be centuries old, or more. Does anyone in the tribes remember who they are?
Eesh. Somebody is totally unfamiliar with the historical resources processes...
Quote from: pderocco on May 23, 2023, 12:38:09 AM
This rankles me. If they found bones of early European settlers, would they reroute the road? Hell no. These bones could be centuries old, or more. Does anyone in the tribes remember who they are?
I couldn't read the article (paywalled). However, this is commonly done for construction in Europe. You may remember the finding of Richard III's remains under a British parking lot; the site was examined and the bones reburied in a different place. It also happens in this country. A quick googling shows this (https://www.kxan.com/news/texas/33-graves-discovered-during-houston-metro-construction-near-historic-african-american-cemetery/)and this (https://www.wpri.com/target-12/hundreds-of-bodies-discovered-under-ri-highway-in-search-for-gravesite/)and this (https://www.wnep.com/article/news/local/schuylkill-county/mass-grave-discovered-by-construction-worker/523-ed9aec83-243a-4a7b-850e-4764bf33bdaa).
Quote from: Rothman on May 23, 2023, 06:57:59 AM
Quote from: pderocco on May 23, 2023, 12:38:09 AM
This rankles me. If they found bones of early European settlers, would they reroute the road? Hell no. These bones could be centuries old, or more. Does anyone in the tribes remember who they are?
Eesh. Somebody is totally unfamiliar with the historical resources processes...
Yeah, to spell this out a little more — it's not about what we think should happen with the bones.
They're not our ancestors' bones. And that's why federal law defers to the Tribes for that.
It's a different set of cultural values, and we've agreed to abide by that. We might not be able to understand it - but we do kinda have to accept it. These are important to the local Tribes. You just can't screw this up and expect to finish your project.
So what happens? This project gets canceled because they found some bones? I don't mean to sound insensitive here even though I am being that way, I don't mind working with other cultures and respecting their values but at the same time respect needs to be mutual and they need to understand they are inside of a country that has a transportation system that needs to be expanded sometimes.
So I guess my question is what happens next? A change in the alignment? What happens when they find bones there too? This project gets canceled? Or just delayed while they remove the bones? If it's the latter I'm perfectly fine with that. Then I don't see why this is a big deal other than it being an inconvenience because we've all wanted to see this project finished but in that regard I'll respect other cultures to have the opportunity to collect these things and move them.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 24, 2023, 02:25:49 AM
So what happens? This project gets canceled because they found some bones? I don't mean to sound insensitive here even though I am being that way, I don't mind working with other cultures and respecting their values but at the same time respect needs to be mutual and they need to understand they are inside of a country that has a transportation system that needs to be expanded sometimes.
So I guess my question is what happens next? A change in the alignment? What happens when they find bones there too? This project gets canceled? Or just delayed while they remove the bones? If it's the latter I'm perfectly fine with that. Then I don't see why this is a big deal other than it being an inconvenience because we've all wanted to see this project finished but in that regard I'll respect other cultures to have the opportunity to collect these things and move them.
Up here, a study is done to see what needs to happen. It's not one-size-fits-all and it does not kill the project.
My previous point was that archaelogical finds that are made during construction are definitely not limited to one particular culture and yes, even old white people's remains trigger the review process.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 24, 2023, 02:25:49 AM
So what happens? This project gets canceled because they found some bones? I don't mean to sound insensitive here even though I am being that way, I don't mind working with other cultures and respecting their values but at the same time respect needs to be mutual and they need to understand they are inside of a country that has a transportation system that needs to be expanded sometimes.
So I guess my question is what happens next? A change in the alignment? What happens when they find bones there too? This project gets canceled? Or just delayed while they remove the bones? If it's the latter I'm perfectly fine with that. Then I don't see why this is a big deal other than it being an inconvenience because we've all wanted to see this project finished but in that regard I'll respect other cultures to have the opportunity to collect these things and move them.
They will get archeologists and Native authorities to do the excavation and remove any human remains for reburial elsewhere. No idea how long it will delay the project but it's unlikely to cause any rerouting much less canceling the project.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 24, 2023, 02:25:49 AM
So what happens? This project gets canceled because they found some bones? I don't mean to sound insensitive here even though I am being that way, I don't mind working with other cultures and respecting their values but at the same time respect needs to be mutual and they need to understand they are inside of a country that has a transportation system that needs to be expanded sometimes.
So I guess my question is what happens next? A change in the alignment? What happens when they find bones there too? This project gets canceled? Or just delayed while they remove the bones? If it's the latter I'm perfectly fine with that. Then I don't see why this is a big deal other than it being an inconvenience because we've all wanted to see this project finished but in that regard I'll respect other cultures to have the opportunity to collect these things and move them.
It becomes a conversation with the Tribes. If CalTrans does this right, they've got enough credibility with the Tribes that the Tribes will work with CalTrans to meet the shared needs of the project, the people of California and the cultural resources of the Tribes.
If CalTrans doesn't have enough credibility built up? This could be a long process that requires a lot of conversations about a lot of other things that the Tribes have had issues with because CalTrans hasn't listened.
It's just important to remember here, these are just fundamentally different value systems. We're all thinking about these from straight capitalist / democratic "How can we pay you / The majority supports this" value systems. And the Tribes look at it, well, each from their own value systems as sovereign nations. At the end of the day, these always go better if CalTrans (or any government) have long, well-established relationships of trust with the Tribes so the Tribes aren't just constantly thinking "how are they trying to screw us now?" or its less insidious cousin, "How could this go wrong?"
^^^ good points. And thanks for the responses. It will be interesting to see what comes of it.
Quote from: skluth on May 23, 2023, 11:31:39 AM
I couldn't read the article (paywalled). However, this is commonly done for construction in Europe. You may remember the finding of Richard III's remains under a British parking lot; the site was examined and the bones reburied in a different place. It also happens in this country. A quick googling shows this (https://www.kxan.com/news/texas/33-graves-discovered-during-houston-metro-construction-near-historic-african-american-cemetery/)and this (https://www.wpri.com/target-12/hundreds-of-bodies-discovered-under-ri-highway-in-search-for-gravesite/)and this (https://www.wnep.com/article/news/local/schuylkill-county/mass-grave-discovered-by-construction-worker/523-ed9aec83-243a-4a7b-850e-4764bf33bdaa).
Richard III was a king, an historical figure. And the cemeteries were recent enough that some remains in them could be identified. I don't have anything against that. But there has to be a time limit on it. The further into the past you go, the more places on the map you can't build freely, because of some completely anonymous bones that can only be assumed to be distance ancestors of some particular group of people who lives here today. And it's a crap-shoot because you don't know where those places are until you start digging.
Quote from: pderocco on May 26, 2023, 02:10:57 AM
Quote from: skluth on May 23, 2023, 11:31:39 AM
I couldn't read the article (paywalled). However, this is commonly done for construction in Europe. You may remember the finding of Richard III's remains under a British parking lot; the site was examined and the bones reburied in a different place. It also happens in this country. A quick googling shows this (https://www.kxan.com/news/texas/33-graves-discovered-during-houston-metro-construction-near-historic-african-american-cemetery/)and this (https://www.wpri.com/target-12/hundreds-of-bodies-discovered-under-ri-highway-in-search-for-gravesite/)and this (https://www.wnep.com/article/news/local/schuylkill-county/mass-grave-discovered-by-construction-worker/523-ed9aec83-243a-4a7b-850e-4764bf33bdaa).
Richard III was a king, an historical figure. And the cemeteries were recent enough that some remains in them could be identified. I don't have anything against that. But there has to be a time limit on it. The further into the past you go, the more places on the map you can't build freely, because of some completely anonymous bones that can only be assumed to be distance ancestors of some particular group of people who lives here today. And it's a crap-shoot because you don't know where those places are until you start digging.
That's why DOTs employ archaeologists or consultants...
Quote from: pderocco on May 26, 2023, 02:10:57 AM
Quote from: skluth on May 23, 2023, 11:31:39 AM
I couldn't read the article (paywalled). However, this is commonly done for construction in Europe. You may remember the finding of Richard III's remains under a British parking lot; the site was examined and the bones reburied in a different place. It also happens in this country. A quick googling shows this (https://www.kxan.com/news/texas/33-graves-discovered-during-houston-metro-construction-near-historic-african-american-cemetery/)and this (https://www.wpri.com/target-12/hundreds-of-bodies-discovered-under-ri-highway-in-search-for-gravesite/)and this (https://www.wnep.com/article/news/local/schuylkill-county/mass-grave-discovered-by-construction-worker/523-ed9aec83-243a-4a7b-850e-4764bf33bdaa).
Richard III was a king, an historical figure. And the cemeteries were recent enough that some remains in them could be identified. I don't have anything against that. But there has to be a time limit on it. The further into the past you go, the more places on the map you can't build freely, because of some completely anonymous bones that can only be assumed to be distance ancestors of some particular group of people who lives here today. And it's a crap-shoot because you don't know where those places are until you start digging.
They didn't know it was Richard III at first. It was just somebody dug up from under a parking lot. My point is this happens fairly frequently, in all sorts of environments, in every country. The other three examples I cited were all in the United States. It happens more with minorities because a) Native Americans were here for thousands of years before us and b) minority cemeteries and settlements were less documented than European settlements through our country's history.
In any case, it rarely ends up with a project being redrawn or cancelled; this isn't wetlands or an ecologically sensitive area with a rare butterfly. The usual course is for the site to be studied which is usually not as long as most studies because there is something to be built. The highway will still be built. I guess we could do it like China where one party rule means that anything that can't be exploited for tourist or political reasons isn't important, but I think we're better than that.
I really don't see a major delay at all. They'll identify the remains, rebury them elsewhere, and construction will continue. Not the first time or the last time something like this has happened. Everyone wins, frankly, because usually that implies an old burial site and it can usually help tribes or any other group learn more about their past.
I drove past this last Saturday, and traffic at the north end of the project has been moved over to a new roadbed for a couple miles while they replace the old roadbed with something higher. And I just noticed that Google Earth (but not Google Maps) has new imagery that shows the progress as of 9/16. Quite a bit of the southern part has been paved. And contrary to the above posts, it doesn't look like the route has been moved at all, compared to the published planning map from the Caltrans site.
According to the California Transportation Commission, the northbound lanes in the area of the ancient burial site has been realigned. The delay is quoted to be 175 working days. So the project won't be complete until October 31, 2024 at the earliest. Here's the link: https://catc.ca.gov/-/media/ctc-media/documents/ctc-meetings/2023/2023-06/99-2-5e9-a11y
Quote from: richardwm15 on February 28, 2024, 10:53:48 AM
According to the California Transportation Commission, the northbound lanes in the area of the ancient burial site has been realigned. The delay is quoted to be 175 working days. So the project won't be complete until October 31, 2024 at the earliest. Here's the link: https://catc.ca.gov/-/media/ctc-media/documents/ctc-meetings/2023/2023-06/99-2-5e9-a11y
Could be worse, I wonder what kind of a shift its going to create in the alignment though (since it'll be an expressway they might have to do quite a bit of route change).
The document doesn't describe where the rerouting is. However, I wonder if it can be explained by this sentence from a CalTrans statement I found in an Inyo Register article: "These laws and regulations require all agencies to maintain the confidentiality of cultural resources on any project, and Caltrans is restricted from providing specific project information which may lead to the disclosure of protected resources." If that's the reason, it won't prove effective, as we know where the road was going to go, and we'll eventually see where it does go, and the discrepancy will be limited to the area they're trying to keep secret.
Stop trying to apply logic to Caltrans. It won't work. :ded:
Quote from: pderocco on March 01, 2024, 02:59:08 AM
The document doesn't describe where the rerouting is. However, I wonder if it can be explained by this sentence from a CalTrans statement I found in an Inyo Register article: "These laws and regulations require all agencies to maintain the confidentiality of cultural resources on any project, and Caltrans is restricted from providing specific project information which may lead to the disclosure of protected resources." If that's the reason, it won't prove effective, as we know where the road was going to go, and we'll eventually see where it does go, and the discrepancy will be limited to the area they're trying to keep secret.
This sounds completely reasonable? The law says government can't divulge where the cultural resources are, so they're not divulging it. Whether someone else uses process of elimination to figure out where the resources are is irrelevant.
And for heaven's sakes, don't go searching for the resources. Hopefully Caltrans and the tribes have worked out agreements on how to protect them since they have de facto been revealed.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on March 02, 2024, 11:21:44 AM
Quote from: pderocco on March 01, 2024, 02:59:08 AM
The document doesn't describe where the rerouting is. However, I wonder if it can be explained by this sentence from a CalTrans statement I found in an Inyo Register article: "These laws and regulations require all agencies to maintain the confidentiality of cultural resources on any project, and Caltrans is restricted from providing specific project information which may lead to the disclosure of protected resources." If that's the reason, it won't prove effective, as we know where the road was going to go, and we'll eventually see where it does go, and the discrepancy will be limited to the area they're trying to keep secret.
This sounds completely reasonable? The law says government can't divulge where the cultural resources are, so they're not divulging it. Whether someone else uses process of elimination to figure out where the resources are is irrelevant.
And for heaven's sakes, don't go searching for the resources. Hopefully Caltrans and the tribes have worked out agreements on how to protect them since they have de facto been revealed.
I agree. So a segment has to be realigned due to existing laws. It happens, life goes on.
I think it's safe to 99.9% of the motoring public will not care or even think about this. "Oh, 395 looks different from before." Is about the most they'll go.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on March 02, 2024, 11:21:44 AM
Quote from: pderocco on March 01, 2024, 02:59:08 AM
The document doesn't describe where the rerouting is. However, I wonder if it can be explained by this sentence from a CalTrans statement I found in an Inyo Register article: "These laws and regulations require all agencies to maintain the confidentiality of cultural resources on any project, and Caltrans is restricted from providing specific project information which may lead to the disclosure of protected resources." If that's the reason, it won't prove effective, as we know where the road was going to go, and we'll eventually see where it does go, and the discrepancy will be limited to the area they're trying to keep secret.
This sounds completely reasonable? The law says government can't divulge where the cultural resources are, so they're not divulging it. Whether someone else uses process of elimination to figure out where the resources are is irrelevant.
And for heaven's sakes, don't go searching for the resources. Hopefully Caltrans and the tribes have worked out agreements on how to protect them since they have de facto been revealed.
Well, they're not "resources" to me. I couldn't care less where they are.
Paving work is going again on this project, with completion now (allegedly) 18 or so months away.
https://dot.ca.gov/caltrans-near-me/district-9/district-9-projects-list/olancha-cartago-4-lane-project (https://dot.ca.gov/caltrans-near-me/district-9/district-9-projects-list/olancha-cartago-4-lane-project)
QuoteMay 23, 2024 - Paving has resumed on the southern end of the Olancha-Cartago 4-Lane Project after a winter suspension. Construction crews will aim to lay up to 120,000 tons of asphalt this year after they laid approximately 85,000 tons last year. The traffic switches currently in place at the north and south ends of the project area will remain in place throughout the summer and drivers can expect more traffic switches in the future. The project is estimated to complete construction in the fall of 2025.
Was just there today. There is indeed a little bit of a back-up in Olancha where the switch happens. But then things clear out quickly.
I think it's been mentioned before, but once this project is complete, CA-190 will get a slight extension as it will take over a short segment of what is now US-395. Given the mile markers begin at 9 (I guess to reflect the never-built Sierra crossing), we'll see mile markers R8 and under.
A new post from District 9 today (https://dot.ca.gov/caltrans-near-me/district-9/district-9-news/2024_10_3-olan-cart-oct-traffic-switch) indicates that all through US 395 traffic will bypass Olancha on the new alignment by sometime in November.
QuoteThere are changes coming next week to traffic flow on U.S. 395 through Olancha and Cartago. Southbound U.S. 395 traffic will switch onto the new southbound lanes of the Olancha Cartago 4-Lane Expressway Project starting October 7. With this switch, Caltrans will open a new road connecting the new southbound lanes to old U.S. 395 and State Route 190.
...
Northbound traffic will remain on the existing lanes of U.S. 395 through Grant, Olancha, and Cartago. A second traffic switch planned for November will move northbound traffic to the new northbound lanes. Caltrans will release information about that traffic switch once details are finalized.
That leaves the only 2 lane gap on highway 14 coming from LA now right?
Quote from: Voyager on October 08, 2024, 02:13:12 PMThat leaves the only 2 lane gap on highway 14 coming from LA now right?
That is correct. That section is known as Freeman Gulch.
And I want to say plans to 4-lane that one segment are in the works (though someone at District 9 may know better). The current project had been in planning/design for at least a decade before construction began.
That's a three-phase project, and they've already done the first phase, at the northern end.
Having driven CA-14 and US-395 more times than I can count, I think that's a more dangerous stretch than the Olancha-Cartago stretch, because the latter is much flatter. The ups and downs on CA-14 make it really easy for someone to try passing and suddenly be confronted by a car appearing over a little rise. And tired skiers coming home from Mammoth on Sunday night tend to get sloppy.
It also looks like it might be an easier project, because there's no aqueduct to cross, and no little community to squeeze through. It would take some significant leveling, though.
Quote from: cl94 on October 08, 2024, 05:17:24 PMAnd I want to say plans to 4-lane that one segment are in the works (though someone at District 9 may know better). The current project had been in planning/design for at least a decade before construction began.
Yes, plans are in the works. ( I work in District 9) Construction will begin sometime after the Olancha 4 lane project is complete.
Quote from: Inyomono395 on October 10, 2024, 09:46:59 PMQuote from: cl94 on October 08, 2024, 05:17:24 PMAnd I want to say plans to 4-lane that one segment are in the works (though someone at District 9 may know better). The current project had been in planning/design for at least a decade before construction began.
Yes, plans are in the works. ( I work in District 9) Construction will begin sometime after the Olancha 4 lane project is complete.
Are there any other 395 projects (such as freeway conversions) that are in the pipeline? I know some of the intersections can be a bit sketchy between Lee Vining and Mammoth.
Edit: Fixed quoting. —Roadfro
Quote from: Voyager on October 16, 2024, 04:29:52 PMAre there any other 395 projects (such as freeway conversions) that are in the pipeline? I know some of the intersections can be a bit sketchy between Lee Vining and Mammoth.
I doubt it's actually "in the pipeline" but there has been talk about a bypass going 270 degrees around Bishop in order to serve their airport. Hard to imagine that very much US-395 traffic is related to their airport. I didn't even know there was an airport until I heard that discussion.
Maybe our grandkids will see it all upgraded to I-9.
Quote from: gonealookin on October 03, 2024, 07:20:14 PMA new post from District 9 today (https://dot.ca.gov/caltrans-near-me/district-9/district-9-news/2024_10_3-olan-cart-oct-traffic-switch) indicates that all through US 395 traffic will bypass Olancha on the new alignment by sometime in November.
QuoteThere are changes coming next week to traffic flow on U.S. 395 through Olancha and Cartago. Southbound U.S. 395 traffic will switch onto the new southbound lanes of the Olancha Cartago 4-Lane Expressway Project starting October 7. With this switch, Caltrans will open a new road connecting the new southbound lanes to old U.S. 395 and State Route 190.
...
Northbound traffic will remain on the existing lanes of U.S. 395 through Grant, Olancha, and Cartago. A second traffic switch planned for November will move northbound traffic to the new northbound lanes. Caltrans will release information about that traffic switch once details are finalized.
I see that Google Maps is showing the new alignment as one-way going south, which for the moment is correct, although they're not showing traffic colors on it yet. But they're showing the old alignment as one-way going north, which I'm pretty sure isn't the case, although they're only showing traffic on the right-hand side.
Quote from: pderocco on October 16, 2024, 08:23:28 PMQuote from: Voyager on October 16, 2024, 04:29:52 PMAre there any other 395 projects (such as freeway conversions) that are in the pipeline? I know some of the intersections can be a bit sketchy between Lee Vining and Mammoth.
I doubt it's actually "in the pipeline" but there has been talk about a bypass going 270 degrees around Bishop in order to serve their airport. Hard to imagine that very much US-395 traffic is related to their airport. I didn't even know there was an airport until I heard that discussion.
Maybe our grandkids will see it all upgraded to I-9.
Wow. Having been there, I would find this hard to justify given other CalTrans priorities.
Quote from: pderocco on October 16, 2024, 08:23:28 PMQuote from: Voyager on October 16, 2024, 04:29:52 PMAre there any other 395 projects (such as freeway conversions) that are in the pipeline? I know some of the intersections can be a bit sketchy between Lee Vining and Mammoth.
I doubt it's actually "in the pipeline" but there has been talk about a bypass going 270 degrees around Bishop in order to serve their airport. Hard to imagine that very much US-395 traffic is related to their airport. I didn't even know there was an airport until I heard that discussion.
Maybe our grandkids will see it all upgraded to I-9.
There is nothing in the works to convert 395 into a freeway. The Bishop bypass has been talked about for many years, but has made no progress. I doubt it'll happen anytime soon, if ever.
I had no idea Bishop had an airport (especially that big) either, but there isn't much of a need for a 395 bypass either there.
Quote from: Voyager on October 17, 2024, 04:56:20 PMI had no idea Bishop had an airport (especially that big) either, but there isn't much of a need for a 395 bypass either there.
Seasonal scheduled service (not year-round). Currently nothing until December per the airport's website. If getting to the airport over city streets works for LAX, I'm pretty sure it will work for Bishop.
Re: freeway conversion, it isn't really needed. The problem spots along 395 (and by extension 14) are the remaining 2-lane stretches south of Lone Pine. North of Lee Vining is generally fine (and many trucks cut over to 395 to bypass this), anything 4 lanes is fine.
The Bishop bypass is something that has been discussed forever, but I doubt it will ever happen due to cost and potential business impacts.
BIH commercial service resumed a few years back. Previously, commercial service went to Mammoth, but that airport (sitting at over 7,000 feet) is very prone to weather shutdowns.
Quote from: cl94 on October 17, 2024, 07:16:33 PMRe: freeway conversion, it isn't really needed. The problem spots along 395 (and by extension 14) are the remaining 2-lane stretches south of Lone Pine. North of Lee Vining is generally fine (and many trucks cut over to 395 to bypass this), anything 4 lanes is fine.
Huh? It's 395 we're talking about. Can't bypass 395 by cutting over to 395.
Quote from: lstone19 on October 17, 2024, 07:20:43 PMQuote from: cl94 on October 17, 2024, 07:16:33 PMRe: freeway conversion, it isn't really needed. The problem spots along 395 (and by extension 14) are the remaining 2-lane stretches south of Lone Pine. North of Lee Vining is generally fine (and many trucks cut over to 395 to bypass this), anything 4 lanes is fine.
Huh? It's 395 we're talking about. Can't bypass 395 by cutting over to 395.
Er, I meant 95. 6-360 gets a surprising number of trucks avoiding the grades along 395.
Quote from: pderocco on October 16, 2024, 08:27:44 PMQuote from: gonealookin on October 03, 2024, 07:20:14 PMA new post from District 9 today (https://dot.ca.gov/caltrans-near-me/district-9/district-9-news/2024_10_3-olan-cart-oct-traffic-switch) indicates that all through US 395 traffic will bypass Olancha on the new alignment by sometime in November.
QuoteThere are changes coming next week to traffic flow on U.S. 395 through Olancha and Cartago. Southbound U.S. 395 traffic will switch onto the new southbound lanes of the Olancha Cartago 4-Lane Expressway Project starting October 7. With this switch, Caltrans will open a new road connecting the new southbound lanes to old U.S. 395 and State Route 190.
...
Northbound traffic will remain on the existing lanes of U.S. 395 through Grant, Olancha, and Cartago. A second traffic switch planned for November will move northbound traffic to the new northbound lanes. Caltrans will release information about that traffic switch once details are finalized.
I see that Google Maps is showing the new alignment as one-way going south, which for the moment is correct, although they're not showing traffic colors on it yet. But they're showing the old alignment as one-way going north, which I'm pretty sure isn't the case, although they're only showing traffic on the right-hand side.
I drove through it earlier this week. North of the road leading off the new alignment east to the Crystal Geyser plant, the southbound lanes are striped for two-way traffic (although at the moment only the one southbound lane is being used). That's because the new northbound lanes there still have quite a bit of work to be done before completion. So it looks like starting sometime in November and for the next several months, coming northbound you will be on the new four-lane divided highway up to Crystal Geyser Road, and there will switch over to the new southbound lanes for a few miles.
Quote from: cl94 on October 17, 2024, 10:26:27 PMEr, I meant 95. 6-360 gets a surprising number of trucks avoiding the grades along 395.
Thanks for the correction. Since moving to Reno two years ago, we drive to Santa Barbara once or twice a year. I've noticed not a lot of trucks between Carson City and Bishop and that explains some of it. Even with it being mostly two lanes Gardnerville to Lee Vining, it's still an easier way to go than over Donner and then south.
Quote from: gonealookin on October 18, 2024, 10:45:17 AMI drove through it earlier this week. North of the road leading off the new alignment east to the Crystal Geyser plant, the southbound lanes are striped for two-way traffic (although at the moment only the one southbound lane is being used). That's because the new northbound lanes there still have quite a bit of work to be done before completion. So it looks like starting sometime in November and for the next several months, coming northbound you will be on the new four-lane divided highway up to Crystal Geyser Road, and there will switch over to the new southbound lanes for a few miles.
So there's no closure on the old alignment? Google's still showing it closed southbound, with a few random bits which are open, which makes no sense.
Quote from: pderocco on October 18, 2024, 03:48:05 PMQuote from: gonealookin on October 18, 2024, 10:45:17 AMI drove through it earlier this week. North of the road leading off the new alignment east to the Crystal Geyser plant, the southbound lanes are striped for two-way traffic (although at the moment only the one southbound lane is being used). That's because the new northbound lanes there still have quite a bit of work to be done before completion. So it looks like starting sometime in November and for the next several months, coming northbound you will be on the new four-lane divided highway up to Crystal Geyser Road, and there will switch over to the new southbound lanes for a few miles.
So there's no closure on the old alignment? Google's still showing it closed southbound, with a few random bits which are open, which makes no sense.
From what I could see of the old alignment, for now it's still carrying all the northbound traffic, with the southbound lane being coned off and closed north of the "towns" such as they are. There was an electronic message board reading "Olancha/Cartago/SR 190 Turn here" from the new southbound lanes, I think at Crystal Geyser Road, with no direct access from the southbound new alignment to the old alignment prior to that. The old alignment does have to be carrying at least some southbound traffic to serve the various private properties and also to get from Crystal Geyser Road south to SR 190.
Quote from: gonealookin on October 18, 2024, 04:40:26 PMQuote from: pderocco on October 18, 2024, 03:48:05 PMQuote from: gonealookin on October 18, 2024, 10:45:17 AMI drove through it earlier this week. North of the road leading off the new alignment east to the Crystal Geyser plant, the southbound lanes are striped for two-way traffic (although at the moment only the one southbound lane is being used). That's because the new northbound lanes there still have quite a bit of work to be done before completion. So it looks like starting sometime in November and for the next several months, coming northbound you will be on the new four-lane divided highway up to Crystal Geyser Road, and there will switch over to the new southbound lanes for a few miles.
So there's no closure on the old alignment? Google's still showing it closed southbound, with a few random bits which are open, which makes no sense.
From what I could see of the old alignment, for now it's still carrying all the northbound traffic, with the southbound lane being coned off and closed north of the "towns" such as they are. There was an electronic message board reading "Olancha/Cartago/SR 190 Turn here" from the new southbound lanes, I think at Crystal Geyser Road, with no direct access from the southbound new alignment to the old alignment prior to that. The old alignment does have to be carrying at least some southbound traffic to serve the various private properties and also to get from Crystal Geyser Road south to SR 190.
Yes, it would. I can't understand why they would be closing off parts of the old alignment, because they're not getting rid of it, and I can't imagine any significant modifications they'd make to it. It's going to be just an ordinary local road, north of CA-190. But I wonder if it will be signed as a business route.
Also, through Cartago, does anyone know if there are now three roadbeds, two for the new highway, and one for the old alignment as a frontage road? Or is the old alignment splitting off just south of Cartago?
Quote from: pderocco on October 18, 2024, 07:16:53 PMAlso, through Cartago, does anyone know if there are now three roadbeds, two for the new highway, and one for the old alignment as a frontage road? Or is the old alignment splitting off just south of Cartago?
There are three roadbeds to a point well to the north of Cartago. Parts of the new northbound lanes north of Crystal Geyser Road haven't been paved yet, thus the need for the southbound lanes to temporarily carry two way traffic once northbound US 395 traffic is fully shifted to the new alignment in November.
There is a new T intersection at the south end of the project, connecting the old alignment to the new alignment. This will become the new begin point of extended SR 190, and there are shields in place now to that effect though they are covered up.
North of Cartago there don't appear to be any private properties that would be served by the old alignment. So I'd expect a similar T intersection will be constructed there, and the remaining portion of the old alignment north of that North T would be torn up.
Any updates?
On October 29, I traveled through the project area in both directions (including the new southbound roadway), before cutting over on CA 190 to cross Death Valley when it wasn't so hot. I also traveled Crystal Geyser Rd. in Cartago, in both directions between the old US 395 and the new US 395 southbound roadway.
Northbound US395 traffic still was on the old alignment. The new alignment's northbound roadway was not yet open to traffic.
CA 190 still ends at the old US 395 alignment. Signs direct westbound CA 190 traffic to a temporary detour, using US 395 NB and Crystal Geyser, to connect to US 395's new SB alignment. In Olancha, there was an unopened new road between US 395's old and new alignments. A partially-covered CA 190 junction sign assembly, on the new SB roadway, indicates the new connector road will become the permanent connector between the old and new US 395 alignments.
I think I've clinched the new US 395 on the Olanche-Cartago area, but not yet the CA 190 permanent extension to the new US 395.
Caltrans announced this week that northbound traffic will shift to the new alignment on Tuesday the 19th.
https://dot.ca.gov/caltrans-near-me/district-9/district-9-news/2024_11_12-nb-traffic-switch-olancha-cartago
Quote from: cl94 on November 14, 2024, 10:48:22 PMCaltrans announced this week that northbound traffic will shift to the new alignment on Tuesday the 19th.
https://dot.ca.gov/caltrans-near-me/district-9/district-9-news/2024_11_12-nb-traffic-switch-olancha-cartago
Maybe I'll drive up there on Saturday the 23rd. Gotta maintain my clinch.
It looks like there's still a whole new NB roadbed that needs to be built north of Crystal Geyser Rd.
Hear ye, hear ye, be it duly noted for history that on November 20, 2024, northbound US 395 traffic was switched off the old alignment through Olancha and Cartago on to the bypass.
https://twitter.com/Caltrans9/status/1859359566183661960
So what we have is:
4-lane US 395 expressway as far north as Crystal Geyser Road.
At Crystal Geyser Road, northbound traffic switches to the southbound lanes of the new alignment, which carry 2-way traffic in 2 lanes for a few miles.
At some point in 2025, the northbound lanes north of Crystal Geyser Road will be completed, and at that time US 395 will be a four-lane highway all the way from the SR 14/US 395 split near Ridgecrest to a point alongside Mono Lake just north of Lee Vining.
And here's a one-minute northbound drive-through, from the current end of the four-lane stretch going through the switchover to the southbound lanes. Crystal Geyser Road is the intersection at the end of the video. The note states that this pattern will remain in place "until spring 2025".
https://twitter.com/Caltrans9/status/1861554731539406977
The Caltrans D9 website (https://dot.ca.gov/caltrans-near-me/district-9/district-9-projects-list/olancha-cartago-4-lane-project) confirms, and OpenStreetMap shows, the extension of CA 190 from Olancha over part of the old US 395 alignment to the new US 395. This extension opened to traffic on December 19.
Quote from: oscar on December 31, 2024, 11:10:27 PMThe Caltrans D9 website (https://dot.ca.gov/caltrans-near-me/district-9/district-9-projects-list/olancha-cartago-4-lane-project) confirms, and OpenStreetMap shows, the extension of CA 190 from Olancha over part of the old US 395 alignment to the new US 395. This extension opened to traffic on December 19.
This creates an interesting quirk in AAMaps: the Historic US 6 shield is applied to the Olancha bypass and not Old US 395!
Quote from: TheStranger on January 01, 2025, 01:12:57 AMQuote from: oscar on December 31, 2024, 11:10:27 PMThe Caltrans D9 website (https://dot.ca.gov/caltrans-near-me/district-9/district-9-projects-list/olancha-cartago-4-lane-project) confirms, and OpenStreetMap shows, the extension of CA 190 from Olancha over part of the old US 395 alignment to the new US 395. This extension opened to traffic on December 19.
This creates an interesting quirk in AAMaps: the Historic US 6 shield is applied to the Olancha bypass and not Old US 395!
That would be reasonable if the old alignment was removed. A few bits of US-395 aren't on quite the same alignment as when it was cosigned with US-6.
Are they signing the old route as US-395 business loop? They should.
Quote from: pderocco on January 01, 2025, 01:41:49 AMQuote from: TheStranger on January 01, 2025, 01:12:57 AMQuote from: oscar on December 31, 2024, 11:10:27 PMThe Caltrans D9 website (https://dot.ca.gov/caltrans-near-me/district-9/district-9-projects-list/olancha-cartago-4-lane-project) confirms, and OpenStreetMap shows, the extension of CA 190 from Olancha over part of the old US 395 alignment to the new US 395. This extension opened to traffic on December 19.
This creates an interesting quirk in AAMaps: the Historic US 6 shield is applied to the Olancha bypass and not Old US 395!
That would be reasonable if the old alignment was removed. A few bits of US-395 aren't on quite the same alignment as when it was cosigned with US-6.
Are they signing the old route as US-395 business loop? They should.
I haven't seen any official plans for a Business US 395. ISTM CA 190's absorption of part of the old route makes that less likely.
A short section of the old route, south of North Haiwee Rd., is now closed to traffic, perhaps permanently now that the CA 190 extension provides another connection between US 395 and Olancha. That might complicate putting Historic US 6 on the old alignment. Also, I don't recall seeing any Historic US 6 or US 395 signage anywhere in the Olancha-Cartago area. Travel Mapping includes in its draft mapping of historic US routes the well-signed Historic US 6 in northern Los Angeles County, but no other part of Historic US 6 in California.
Quote from: pderocco on January 01, 2025, 01:41:49 AMAre they signing the old route as US-395 business loop? They should.
Signing a "Business Loop" would imply that there are businesses along there to serve travelers. There is almost none of that in Olancha; a gas station, a jerky place in another old gas station, one cafe attached to an RV park and that's about it.
Quote from: oscar on January 01, 2025, 09:43:14 AMA short section of the old route, south of North Haiwee Rd., is now closed to traffic, perhaps permanently now that the CA 190 extension provides another connection between US 395 and Olancha. That might complicate putting Historic US 6 on the old alignment. Also, I don't recall seeing any Historic US 6 or US 395 signage anywhere in the Olancha-Cartago area. Travel Mapping includes in its draft mapping of historic US routes the well-signed Historic US 6 in northern Los Angeles County, but no other part of Historic US 6 in California.
That rerouting isn't surprising, since you don't want any high speed merges. But I'm under the impression that historic route signage is rather informal, since it doesn't imply anything legal like maintenance responsibility. And it also seems like it's a local matter, having nothing to do with AASHTO, or perhaps even the state DOT. Does anyone here know more about that?
Quote from: pderocco on January 01, 2025, 11:30:59 PMBut I'm under the impression that historic route signage is rather informal, since it doesn't imply anything legal like maintenance responsibility. And it also seems like it's a local matter, having nothing to do with AASHTO, or perhaps even the state DOT. Does anyone here know more about that?
My understanding is that historic route signage in California is entirely unofficial. It's usually erected by a nonprofit organization that "sponsors" the route. Los Angeles County has such an organization, which does a pretty good job of maintaining the historic route markers it erects. Ditto Sacramento County, where Historic US 40 (last time I was there) is signed very well in downtown Sacramento, while concurrent relinquished segments of CA 160 are not, even though the city or county is supposed to maintain continuation signage for the relinquished state route, and Caltrans' headquarters are there if it felt like enforcing the continuation signage requirement (my impression is it doesn't).
Historic route signage exists in other California counties as well. But I don't know if Inyo County or any of its communities has a locality or other organization willing to make the effort to erect and maintain historic route signage.
I haven't seen any historic route signage of any sort in Inyo. There are GAR shields between CA 168 and Bishop near Keough Hot Springs, but I think that's about it.
To clarify:
AAroads's AAmaps shows the new US 395 with a "Historic US 6" shield next to it; this is not me commenting on in-the-field signage at all, only what AAmaps is showing.
https://www.aaroads.com/aamaps/
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54240570862_2814f315e0_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2qD471f)historic us 6 olancha (https://flic.kr/p/2qD471f) by Chris Sampang (https://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/), on Flickr
Quote from: oscar on January 01, 2025, 09:43:14 AMA short section of the old route, south of North Haiwee Rd., is now closed to traffic, perhaps permanently now that the CA 190 extension provides another connection between US 395 and Olancha. That might complicate putting Historic US 6 on the old alignment. Also, I don't recall seeing any Historic US 6 or US 395 signage anywhere in the Olancha-Cartago area. Travel Mapping includes in its draft mapping of historic US routes the well-signed Historic US 6 in northern Los Angeles County, but no other part of Historic US 6 in California.
I'm working on the podcast episode on US 6, and saw this. I don't think it is permanently closed. My pages note:
QuoteThe portion of the existing highway between the intersection with Route 190 and the southern intersection with the new expressway is proposed to be redesignated as Route 190. A concurrent Commission's action to approve the redesignation of this portion of US 395 as Route 190 is on the January 2018 Commission agenda. This action will reestablish the terminus of Route 190 at US 395. The remaining portion of the superseded highway between the intersection with Route 190 and north of the community of Cartago will be relinquished to Inyo County after project completion. The superseded highway will continue to provide a local route that preserves the existing uses and access along the existing corridor. The project will also construct or reconstruct a couple other county roads, all of which will be relinquished to Inyo County.
My guess is that they closed that segment in order to construct a new connection and offramp for Route 190 N to Olancha, and that they will work on that once the new expressway is open. I haven't seen anything adopting Crystal Geyser Road as state highway, nor have I seen anything indicating the north old US 395 would become Route 190 (and that would make more of a complicated connection to Route 190 SB). I'd expect to see that SB section reopen after the new expressway is completed, and they've redone the connector and signage.
^^ Thanks. My comment above, about "the old route, south of North Haiwee Rd., is now closed to traffic, perhaps permanently" reflects signage in Olancha I saw in late October indicating that traffic on southbound old US 395 could not continue to the new alignment, and would need to instead use Crystal Geyser Rd. to connect to the new alignment. I haven't been there since the new connector south of Olancha, reported in a Caltrans D9 press release, was opened, or how the signage has changed; nor did I check out, while I was there, what happened to the old US 395 pavement south of North Haiwee.
I think it's pretty obvious that the 2/3 of a mile between N Haiwee Rd, where the former 395 necked necked down to two lanes, is going to disappear. There's nothing on it. The freeway-izing of CA-58 has returned some significant pieces of its old alignment to nature.
Quote from: pderocco on January 06, 2025, 04:21:09 AMI think it's pretty obvious that the 2/3 of a mile between N Haiwee Rd, where the former 395 necked necked down to two lanes, is going to disappear. There's nothing on it. The freeway-izing of CA-58 has returned some significant pieces of its old alignment to nature.
Pretty obvious?
I don't think so, especially given that what Caltrans has published, and what the CTC has acted upon, and what was in the Environmental Reports, all have the southern segment from Olancha becoming the extension of Route 190 to the new US 395, and the northern segment being relinquished to the county.
I noted the following in 2018:
QuoteIn January 2018, the CTC approved a request from the California Department of Transportation's (Department) to adopt US 395 in Inyo County from INY 29.9 to INY 41.9 as a controlled access highway, redesignate a segment of superseded US 395 as Route 190 and, upon construction completion of the new controlled access highway, relinquish the remaining portion of the superseded US 395 to Inyo County. The Department proposes to adopt this 12.14 mile section of US 395 to construct a new expressway within the adoption limits, which will improve safety for the traveling public, raise the level of service, and provide a continuous four-lane facility in Inyo County. A final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and the National Environmental Policy Act was approved by the Department on March 7, 2017 and by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) on May 26, 2017. The Department approved a project report on June 27, 2017 recommending construction of the new US 395 expressway on a new alignment and redesignation of a portion of the superseded segment as Route 190. The remaining portion of the superseded highway will be relinquished to Inyo County after project construction completion. Later maps indicated that the relinquished section of US 395 may be signed as BUSINESS US 395.
I read through all the CTC minutes for my site. I haven not seen anything yet rescinding that route adoption.
I will give one caveat tho: The "State Route 190 Connector" just opened, per https://dot.ca.gov/caltrans-near-me/district-9/district-9-news/2024_12_19-sr-190-connector-opens . I haven't seen a map showing where this connector is. Neither Google maps nor AAmaps show it. It is possible this connector will be used to replace that small segment of old US 395. But, again, there hasn't been anything in the CTC agendas about this connector. Potentially there is more information here.
Lastly, I'm not sure what the mention of Route 58 has to do with this. This is US 395 -- a different project (by a different Caltrans district, IIRC).
Quote from: cahwyguy on January 06, 2025, 09:23:05 AMQuote from: pderocco on January 06, 2025, 04:21:09 AMI think it's pretty obvious that the 2/3 of a mile between N Haiwee Rd, where the former 395 necked necked down to two lanes, is going to disappear. There's nothing on it. The freeway-izing of CA-58 has returned some significant pieces of its old alignment to nature.
Pretty obvious?
I don't think so, especially given that what Caltrans has published, and what the CTC has acted upon, and what was in the Environmental Reports, all have the southern segment from Olancha becoming the extension of Route 190 to the new US 395, and the northern segment being relinquished to the county.
I will give one caveat tho: The "State Route 190 Connector" just opened, per https://dot.ca.gov/caltrans-near-me/district-9/district-9-news/2024_12_19-sr-190-connector-opens . I haven't seen a map showing where this connector is. Neither Google maps nor AAmaps show it. It is possible this connector will be used to replace that small segment of old US 395. But, again, there hasn't been anything in the CTC agendas about this connector. Potentially there is more information here.
I think pderocco is talking about abandoning the short section south from Haiwee Rd to where the old and new roads converge. Google Earth has 11/28/2024 imagery and the new 190 connector from near Haiwee Rd on the old 395 to the new 395 is very obvious.
Quote from: lstone19 on January 06, 2025, 11:02:38 AMQuote from: cahwyguy on January 06, 2025, 09:23:05 AMQuote from: pderocco on January 06, 2025, 04:21:09 AMI think it's pretty obvious that the 2/3 of a mile between N Haiwee Rd, where the former 395 necked necked down to two lanes, is going to disappear. There's nothing on it. The freeway-izing of CA-58 has returned some significant pieces of its old alignment to nature.
Pretty obvious?
I don't think so, especially given that what Caltrans has published, and what the CTC has acted upon, and what was in the Environmental Reports, all have the southern segment from Olancha becoming the extension of Route 190 to the new US 395, and the northern segment being relinquished to the county.
I will give one caveat tho: The "State Route 190 Connector" just opened, per https://dot.ca.gov/caltrans-near-me/district-9/district-9-news/2024_12_19-sr-190-connector-opens . I haven't seen a map showing where this connector is. Neither Google maps nor AAmaps show it. It is possible this connector will be used to replace that small segment of old US 395. But, again, there hasn't been anything in the CTC agendas about this connector. Potentially there is more information here.
I think pderocco is talking about abandoning the short section south from Haiwee Rd to where the old and new roads converge. Google Earth has 11/28/2024 imagery and the new 190 connector from near Haiwee Rd on the old 395 to the new 395 is very obvious.
I'm not seeing anything on Google Maps. I don't normally use Google Earth; looking at https://earth.google.com/ , I see what could be a road under construction . Whether that will replace the segment from Haiwee to old US 395 is unclear. I'm not sure we'll be able to say that until we see the CTC relinquish that segment with a new route adoption. That could be the eventual plan -- but it hasn't gone through the CTC yet. They may be waiting until the project is finished to do all of those changes.
I do expect to see CTC actions to relinquish the section of old US 395 N of Route 190 to the county. They could be waiting to combine it with that resolution, and it is likely the same agenda will contain the formal route adoption of the Route 190 connector. But until that point, the last CTC action had the section of old US 395 S of Haiwee adopted as Route 190.
I hesitate to say things are obvious until we've seen the paperwork. We've all seen temporary roadways constructed.
Quote from: cahwyguy on January 06, 2025, 09:23:05 AMI will give one caveat tho: The "State Route 190 Connector" just opened, per https://dot.ca.gov/caltrans-near-me/district-9/district-9-news/2024_12_19-sr-190-connector-opens . I haven't seen a map showing where this connector is. Neither Google maps nor AAmaps show it. It is possible this connector will be used to replace that small segment of old US 395. But, again, there hasn't been anything in the CTC agendas about this connector. Potentially there is more information here.
OpenStreetMap (the primary online map used by Travel Mapping in the U.S.) shows the location of the new connector at the west end of CA 190 (https://travelmapping.net/hb/showroute.php?units=miles&u=oscar&r=ca.ca190dea). That matches what I saw when I traveled the new US 395 alignment in late October, where a partially-covered CA 190 marker pointed to an unopened new road.
That doesn't mean the short disconnected old US 395 segment south of N. Haiwee Rd. won't eventually be restored as the primary connector between US 395 and old US 395/CA 190.
Yes, I was responding to Oscar's comment in #64, which is about a short stretch of now unusable divided highway.
I tend to use Google Earth for pretty much everything except traffic, which it doesn't show, Street View, which is horribly buggy and has no historical imagery, and those rare occasions where I really only want to see a map. For everything else, GE is much more useful, IMHO.
Quote from: cahwyguy on January 06, 2025, 11:27:11 AMQuote from: lstone19 on January 06, 2025, 11:02:38 AMI think pderocco is talking about abandoning the short section south from Haiwee Rd to where the old and new roads converge. Google Earth has 11/28/2024 imagery and the new 190 connector from near Haiwee Rd on the old 395 to the new 395 is very obvious.
I'm not seeing anything on Google Maps. I don't normally use Google Earth; looking at https://earth.google.com/ , I see what could be a road under construction .
I just compared and the imagery at https://earth.google.com/ is 14 months older (9/2023) than what the Google Earth app has (11/2024) and that "what could be a road under construction" has turned into a real road complete with pavement markings for much of its length (still some work being done). And in the same imagery, demolition of the old 395 south of "what could be a road under construction" is well underway with the old southbound lanes mostly gone and work started on demolishing the old northbound lanes.
You can wait for some state agency to officially say what is happening but for me, the current Google Earth imagery tells me about 95% of what I need to know which is that "what could be a road under construction" is the new 190 and the old 395 is being removed south of it.
Quote from: lstone19 on January 06, 2025, 09:56:38 PMQuote from: cahwyguy on January 06, 2025, 11:27:11 AMQuote from: lstone19 on January 06, 2025, 11:02:38 AMI think pderocco is talking about abandoning the short section south from Haiwee Rd to where the old and new roads converge. Google Earth has 11/28/2024 imagery and the new 190 connector from near Haiwee Rd on the old 395 to the new 395 is very obvious.
I'm not seeing anything on Google Maps. I don't normally use Google Earth; looking at https://earth.google.com/ , I see what could be a road under construction .
I just compared and the imagery at https://earth.google.com/ is 14 months older (9/2023) than what the Google Earth app has (11/2024) and that "what could be a road under construction" has turned into a real road complete with pavement markings for much of its length (still some work being done). And in the same imagery, demolition of the old 395 south of "what could be a road under construction" is well underway with the old southbound lanes mostly gone and work started on demolishing the old northbound lanes.
You can wait for some state agency to officially say what is happening but for me, the current Google Earth imagery tells me about 95% of what I need to know which is that "what could be a road under construction" is the new 190 and the old 395 is being removed south of it.
For my website, https://www.cahighways.org , I try to avoid conjecture. When I do the next round of updates, I'll note what is under construction, but I'm not sure we'll see anything official until there are relinquishment or vacation resolutions. I'll agree it sounds likely, but for all we know they are taking up the old road and plan to build a new access road as they indicated in the original Environmental Impact Report. As of right now, the new connector is not in the Postmile Tool ( https://postmile.dot.ca.gov/PMQT/PostmileQueryTool.html? ); however, the postmile tool does show the new bypass (although it doesn't have new R postmiles yet, so this is likely due to using Google Maps underneath). Neither the Route 190 connector nor the new bypass are in the State Highway Network Postmile Tenths database, which was last updated 12/24/2024 ( https://gisdata-caltrans.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/c22341fec9c74c6b9488ee4da23dd967_0/explore?location=36.262940%2C-117.994901%2C14.34 ). It is also not yet in the State Highway Lines database ( https://gisdata-caltrans.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/77f2d7ba94e040a78bfbe36feb6279da_0/explore?location=36.390542%2C-117.822437%2C10.66 ). So although it is possible it will be Route 190, Caltrans has not yet moved the designation over to the route.
PS: I've dropped a note to the District 9 Public Information Officer in charge of this project to get some more official clarification.
Quote from: cahwyguy on January 06, 2025, 10:15:17 PMFor my website, https://www.cahighways.org , I try to avoid conjecture.
You're one of the proud few that does. It's incredible how much Roadgeek "history" is really just unconfirmed speculation by dinking around on Google Maps or whatnot and how little is supported by documentation or other research. Glad you and a few others on here do the dirty work or hold back from making conclusions unsupported by flimsy evidence.
Quote from: Rothman on January 06, 2025, 10:47:29 PMQuote from: cahwyguy on January 06, 2025, 10:15:17 PMFor my website, https://www.cahighways.org , I try to avoid conjecture.
You're one of the proud few that does. It's incredible how much Roadgeek "history" is really just unconfirmed speculation by dinking around on Google Maps or whatnot and how little is supported by documentation or other research. Glad you and a few others on here do the dirty work or hold back from making conclusions unsupported by flimsy evidence.
I occasionally will put conjecture, but I always try to make the status clear (e.g., "It appears that..." or "Google maps show..."). I learned from the early days on my site, back in the 1990s, when I didn't do that.
Here is the word on what is happening, direct from the District 9 PIO:
Since the Olancha-Cartago 4-Lane Project is still in construction, the postmile databases won't be updated until the project is officially completed. So, the stretch of old U.S. 395 from State Route 190 in Olancha to the new connector on the southern end of the project won't be redesignated as State Route 190/Business Route 395 until the project is fully completed and the contract closed out. This also applies to the addresses of residents in the area.
You are correct. The stretch of U.S. 395 from the southern connector to the southern end of the project is being permanently removed.
Quote from: cahwyguy on January 08, 2025, 02:15:42 PMHere is the word on what is happening, direct from the District 9 PIO:
Since the Olancha-Cartago 4-Lane Project is still in construction, the postmile databases won't be updated until the project is officially completed. So, the stretch of old U.S. 395 from State Route 190 in Olancha to the new connector on the southern end of the project won't be redesignated as State Route 190/Business Route 395 until the project is fully completed and the contract closed out. This also applies to the addresses of residents in the area.
So that means that the new portion of CA-190 will also be designated as BR-395. That wouldn't make sense unless the rest of the former US-395 also became BR-395, especially if they call it a loop.
Further north, is it likely that there will be realignments around Independence and Big Pine (Bishop was already mentioned), so the four-lane US 395 roadway can continue uninterrupted? Also, US 395's exits should be numbered since they have been numbering exits statewide for the last couple of decades.
QuoteSo that means that the new portion of CA-190 will also be designated as BR-395. That wouldn't make sense unless the rest of the former US-395 also became BR-395, especially if they call it a loop.
I inferred that from how he wrote it, but the portion N of Route 190 will be a county road. I'm betting the BR signage was part of how they got Olancha businesses not to protest the bypass.
QuoteFurther north, is it likely that there will be realignments around Independence and Big Pine (Bishop was already mentioned), so the four-lane US 395 roadway can continue uninterrupted? Also, US 395's exits should be numbered since they have been numbering exits statewide for the last couple of decades.
Bishop has had a plan for a long time, going back to 2007: https://www.inyocounty.us/sites/default/files/2022-12/07_1009_BAACS_final.pdf . However, I haven't seen anything more come across the CTC minutes, so I think it is a low priority.
I haven't seen anything come across the CTC for planning or funding with respect to Big Pine, but perhaps it was buried.
As for Independence, back in 2007 I noted: In November 2007, it was reported that in Independence (roughly INY 73.35), Caltrans is attempting to widen US 395. However, trees are in the way, according to an article in the LA Times. Specifically, Caltrans engineers say 100 trees are standing in the way of plans to widen a stretch of the route in Independence from two to four lanes and line it with about 400 feet of sidewalks. The project, they say, would improve safety and the flow of vehicles on the rural fringe of the community. The issue has its roots in Caltrans' decade-old proposal to widen US 395 to four lanes between Ridgecrest and Mammoth Mountain. The mile-long stretch, edged with dirt shoulders, is among the last to be expanded.
I don't recall seeing anything since then on this project. However, various articles on the Olancha bypass noted it was the last non-expressway section on US 395 until somewhere N of Mono Lake, so perhaps they expressway-ized some portions while I wasn't looking.
Quote from: cahwyguy on January 08, 2025, 06:57:34 PMI don't recall seeing anything since then on this project. However, various articles on the Olancha bypass noted it was the last non-expressway section on US 395 until somewhere N of Mono Lake, so perhaps they expressway-ized some portions while I wasn't looking.
Once the Olancha-Cartago bypass is comeplete, 395 will be four lanes from the 14 junction (I haven't been on 395 south of there) to north of Lee Vining and then after a couple of short two lane stretches, over Conway Summit before going to two lanes up to the NV border.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 08, 2025, 04:38:38 PMAlso, US 395's exits should be numbered since they have been numbering exits statewide for the last couple of decades.
US 395 has few freeway segments with interchanges (the only ones that get Caltrans-assigned exit numbers) south of the Nevada border. AFAIK, there's one with CA 203 east of Mammoth Lakes. OpenStreetMap thinks it has an exit number, but Caltrans' Cal-NExUS exit lists don't show it (nor any other numbered exit south of the state line), nor does Google Maps Street View. Ditto the CA 14 junction NW of Ridgecrest.
It's not obvious that the possible bypasses of Big Pine, Bishop, and Independence would be built as freeways.
Quote from: lstone19 on January 08, 2025, 07:58:05 PMQuote from: cahwyguy on January 08, 2025, 06:57:34 PMI don't recall seeing anything since then on this project. However, various articles on the Olancha bypass noted it was the last non-expressway section on US 395 until somewhere N of Mono Lake, so perhaps they expressway-ized some portions while I wasn't looking.
Once the Olancha-Cartago bypass is comeplete, 395 will be four lanes from the 14 junction (I haven't been on 395 south of there) to north of Lee Vining and then after a couple of short two lane stretches, over Conway Summit before going to two lanes up to the NV border.
South of 14, there's almost a hundred miles of US-395, and very little of it is four lanes. That seems really strange to me. Most of it looks easy to widen. South of 58 it has quite a bit of truck traffic, too.
Quote from: pderocco on January 09, 2025, 03:57:33 AMQuote from: lstone19 on January 08, 2025, 07:58:05 PMQuote from: cahwyguy on January 08, 2025, 06:57:34 PMI don't recall seeing anything since then on this project. However, various articles on the Olancha bypass noted it was the last non-expressway section on US 395 until somewhere N of Mono Lake, so perhaps they expressway-ized some portions while I wasn't looking.
Once the Olancha-Cartago bypass is comeplete, 395 will be four lanes from the 14 junction (I haven't been on 395 south of there) to north of Lee Vining and then after a couple of short two lane stretches, over Conway Summit before going to two lanes up to the NV border.
South of 14, there's almost a hundred miles of US-395, and very little of it is four lanes. That seems really strange to me. Most of it looks easy to widen. South of 58 it has quite a bit of truck traffic, too.
Actually, if you read my page on US 395 https://www.cahighways.org/ROUTE395.html , you'll see there has been a series of widening projects between I-15 and the Jct. with Route 14.
Quote from: cahwyguy on January 09, 2025, 08:08:33 AMQuote from: pderocco on January 09, 2025, 03:57:33 AMQuote from: lstone19 on January 08, 2025, 07:58:05 PMQuote from: cahwyguy on January 08, 2025, 06:57:34 PMI don't recall seeing anything since then on this project. However, various articles on the Olancha bypass noted it was the last non-expressway section on US 395 until somewhere N of Mono Lake, so perhaps they expressway-ized some portions while I wasn't looking.
Once the Olancha-Cartago bypass is comeplete, 395 will be four lanes from the 14 junction (I haven't been on 395 south of there) to north of Lee Vining and then after a couple of short two lane stretches, over Conway Summit before going to two lanes up to the NV border.
South of 14, there's almost a hundred miles of US-395, and very little of it is four lanes. That seems really strange to me. Most of it looks easy to widen. South of 58 it has quite a bit of truck traffic, too.
Actually, if you read my page on US 395 https://www.cahighways.org/ROUTE395.html , you'll see there has been a series of widening projects between I-15 and the Jct. with Route 14.
I drive that segment quite a lot and the only things that seems to be getting widened are the shoulders and median. There's still that damn no-pass zone between Adelanto and CA 58 with a couple intermittent passing lanes. Get stuck behind a truck and you're sucking exhaust for awhile.
Since the early B&W imagery in GE, there's only been six or seven miles of fourlaning, all in the southernmost part. Obviously, that's where it was most needed, but given the extensive fourlaning in the Owens Valley, which is finally wrapping up, that seems out of whack.
There's also the bit where the new 58 freeway crossed, but on 395 they traded one traffic light for three. Someday, they're going to have to build another Kramer Junction Bypass for 395. The two lanes between there and 14 are reasonable, since that's pretty empty, but south of there, it gets busy. I wonder if it's just a different political culture between SBD county and Inyo, or between CalTrans 8 and 9.
A few photos taken 1/20/2025:
As I said upthread, I think it's misleading to the traveler to sign the former alignment of US 395 through Olancha as a Business Route, because there's barely any business along there. Nevertheless, on the northbound expressway the Business Route signage appears twice. Seriously, they ought to put a blue "JERKY" sign on that top one, because there is one gas station, one cafe attached to the motel/RV park, and the jerky place across from the Mobil station.
(https://i.imgur.com/oXZWfhH.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/GBCXY7h.jpg)
Quote from: cahwyguy on January 08, 2025, 02:15:42 PMHere is the word on what is happening, direct from the District 9 PIO:
...
The stretch of U.S. 395 from the southern connector to the southern end of the project is being permanently removed.
It's a goner already. Torn up and being used as a construction staging area.
(https://i.imgur.com/BXidSvG.jpg)
At the north end of the project, you can drive the old alignment of 395 as far as Lake Street in Cartago. At that point you make a left and turn on to a short temporary road (barely more than 100 yards or so), a westerly extension of Lake Street, that meets the southbound lanes of the expressway, which presently are carrying two-way traffic.
(https://i.imgur.com/sfu7kWq.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/dJEB4Q6.jpg)
So that intersection will be realigned when the new northbound lanes are completed and the expressway is fully opened.
Quote from: gonealookin on January 20, 2025, 11:43:28 PMAs I said upthread, I think it's misleading to the traveler to sign the former alignment of US 395 through Olancha as a Business Route, because there's barely any business along there. Nevertheless, on the northbound expressway the Business Route signage appears twice. Seriously, they ought to put a blue "JERKY" sign on that top one, because there is one gas station, one cafe attached to the motel/RV park, and the jerky place across from the Mobil station.
The business route apparently goes also to Cartago, which has a small motel:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/GNHqPwBicKXS4HZN8
Did you see any business route signage on US 395 southbound (new alignment) in Cartago? My hunch is that the business route's north end is/will be at the intersection with Lake Street in Cartago.
Quote from: oscar on January 21, 2025, 01:09:37 AMThe business route apparently goes also to Cartago, which has a small motel:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/GNHqPwBicKXS4HZN8
Did you see any business route signage on US 395 southbound (new alignment) in Cartago? My hunch is that the business route's north end is/will be at the intersection with Lake Street in Cartago.
I didn't turn around and look at 395 southbound for signage. That Lake Street location does appear to be approximately where the old alignment will terminate on the north end. Past the "Road Closed" sign you can see that the old pavement continues, and part of that might be kept as a short frontage road to serve a private property or two, but a short distance north of there the old pavement has been removed, as the new northbound lanes will run basically on the old alignment, probably with some slight regrading and curve smoothing to accommodate a 75 mph modern expressway rather than the former 55 mph two-lane road.
OK, so one cafe/motel/RV park, one other very small motel, one Mobil/C-store and one jerky store (in addition to the Crystal Geyser plant, but that's a truck destination only, not retail). Once the full impact of the bypass settles in for a while I'd doubt they all survive, especially the gas station/C-store which is quite some distance off the new alignment. It's my opinion that the blue Gas/Food/Lodging informational signs are sufficient here and a "Business Route" designation leads the traveler to expect more services available.
Those US-395 shields look strangely non-standard.
Could be county-erected. I don't see California decals on them.
Business routes, in general, are not defined at the state level and are for convenience only. So, yeah, they are locally designated and signed, often at the behest of communities to retain the "old road" traffic when a bypass is installed. And, yes, there need not be significant businesses there -- they are an attempt, sometimes futile, to keep a community alive when it is bypassed.
Quote from: cahwyguy on January 22, 2025, 12:37:46 AMBusiness routes, in general, are not defined at the state level and are for convenience only. So, yeah, they are locally designated and signed, often at the behest of communities to retain the "old road" traffic when a bypass is installed. And, yes, there need not be significant businesses there -- they are an attempt, sometimes futile, to keep a community alive when it is bypassed.
So does that mean that the business loop signs for CA-54 in El Cajon (mentioned in another thread) are as valid as these? Or are only certain kinds of business routes, like Interstate business loops, designated by CalTrans or the state? I notice that in TravelMapping, there are Interstate, US, and state highway business routes in California, but that 54 isn't among them. And so far they're not listing a US-395 business route either.
Quote from: pderocco on January 22, 2025, 01:52:50 PMQuote from: cahwyguy on January 22, 2025, 12:37:46 AMBusiness routes, in general, are not defined at the state level and are for convenience only. So, yeah, they are locally designated and signed, often at the behest of communities to retain the "old road" traffic when a bypass is installed. And, yes, there need not be significant businesses there -- they are an attempt, sometimes futile, to keep a community alive when it is bypassed.
So does that mean that the business loop signs for CA-54 in El Cajon (mentioned in another thread) are as valid as these? Or are only certain kinds of business routes, like Interstate business loops, designated by CalTrans or the state? I notice that in TravelMapping, there are Interstate, US, and state highway business routes in California, but that 54 isn't among them. And so far they're not listing a US-395 business route either.
US 395 Business in Ridgecrest is in Travel Mapping. I expect the new US 395 Business in Olancha/Cartago will be too, once it's completed (as mentioned above, the north end is still being worked on).
WRT "Business 54", even though Caltrans usually doesn't maintain business routes, its approval might be needed for a locality to create one from mileage relinquished from the state highway system, and/or to maintain signage pointing travelers to a business route from the parent route. Several legal route descriptions in the Streets and Highway Code (not including the section for route 54) call for localities with relinquished mileage to "apply to the department for approval of a business route designation in accordance with Chapter 20, Topic 21, of the Highway Design Manual (https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/design/documents/chp0020-a11y.pdf)". I don't know if the city of El Cajon obtained such an approval (the truncation of state route 54 in El Cajon came after Caltrans' most recent official list of state business routes in 1991). But the wonky business route signage in El Cajon (green Interstate, rather than state, route markers), as well as the absence of any signage on I-8 directing travelers to the supposed business route, hint that the Business 54 designation was a do-it-yourself project by the city.
Quote from: oscar on January 22, 2025, 04:02:08 PMQuote from: pderocco on January 22, 2025, 01:52:50 PMQuote from: cahwyguy on January 22, 2025, 12:37:46 AMBusiness routes, in general, are not defined at the state level and are for convenience only. So, yeah, they are locally designated and signed, often at the behest of communities to retain the "old road" traffic when a bypass is installed. And, yes, there need not be significant businesses there -- they are an attempt, sometimes futile, to keep a community alive when it is bypassed.
So does that mean that the business loop signs for CA-54 in El Cajon (mentioned in another thread) are as valid as these? Or are only certain kinds of business routes, like Interstate business loops, designated by CalTrans or the state? I notice that in TravelMapping, there are Interstate, US, and state highway business routes in California, but that 54 isn't among them. And so far they're not listing a US-395 business route either.
US 395 Business in Ridgecrest is in Travel Mapping. I expect the new US 395 Business in Olancha/Cartago will be too, once it's completed (as mentioned above, the north end is still being worked on).
WRT "Business 54", even though Caltrans usually doesn't maintain business routes, its approval might be needed for a locality to create one from mileage relinquished from the state highway system, and/or to maintain signage pointing travelers to a business route from the parent route. Several legal route descriptions in the Streets and Highway Code (not including the section for route 54) call for localities with relinquished mileage to "apply to the department for approval of a business route designation in accordance with Chapter 20, Topic 21, of the Highway Design Manual". I don't know if the city of El Cajon obtained such an approval (the truncation of state route 54 in El Cajon came after Caltrans' most recent official list of state business routes in 1991). But the wonky business route signage in El Cajon (green Interstate, rather than state, route markers), as well as the absence of any signage on I-8 directing travelers to the supposed business route, hint that the Business 54 designation was a do-it-yourself project by the city.
Here is a link to the other thread generally about erroneous signage. The discussion about CA-54 seems to start here:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=87.msg2963551#msg2963551
CA-54 in El Cajon isn't really a business route, which in CA terminology seems to indicate an alternate routing, usually historical. It is more properly a relinquished route. CA-54 has been shortened, as opposed to moving to a new parallel alignment.
Despite all of this, even though this section of road is not maintained by Caltrans, there is still a value in navigational purposes (I believe) for letting people know that you can take this Jamacha Road/Blvd as a decent bypass in this area. While a surface street, it doesn't have too many traffic signals and does provide a good connection to roadways to the south while bypassing central San Diego. And yes, the roadway was once part of CA-54, even though it no longer is.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=87.msg2963846#msg2963846
kphoger made the following sign in jest, but in all seriousness this is probably what local authorities should do. Historic routes can range from the grand and majestic US 66 to just the more practical CA-54 with the acknowledgement that this used to be a state highway and despite relinquishment to local control, is still a valid route to get you where you need to go if you eventually want to reach the South Bay Freeway section of CA-54.
Another decent possibility is blue pentagon 54 (similar to blue pentagon 66 in San Bernardino County). It denotes a locally maintained route but maintains the same number. And fortunately, as we know in California there is one number for one road, even if it changes between Interstate, state, US, or local. (Think of CA-210 and I-210 being one roadway, I envision similar for 54.)
Can cities use blue pentagons? I don't know if the county would like that since San Diego county uses it for county routes.
Quote from: mrsman on January 23, 2025, 07:48:31 AMAnother decent possibility is blue pentagon 54 (similar to blue pentagon 66 in San Bernardino County). It denotes a locally maintained route but maintains the same number. And fortunately, as we know in California there is one number for one road, even if it changes between Interstate, state, US, or local. (Think of CA-210 and I-210 being one roadway, I envision similar for 54.)
Or CA-59 to CR-J59. Or CA-132 to CR-J132. There are also some occasional spots where a county route is multiplexed with a state route, especially in the Central Valley. But none of those are county route signs placed on local roads. I'm assuming that all that former CA-54 is maintained by El Cajon, since it starts right at the city limits.
Quote from: oscar on January 22, 2025, 04:02:08 PMSeveral legal route descriptions in the Streets and Highway Code (not including the section for route 54) call for localities with relinquished mileage to "apply to the department for approval of a business route designation in accordance with Chapter 20, Topic 21, of the Highway Design Manual (https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/design/documents/chp0020-a11y.pdf)".
I'm back to working on the highway pages, and found Ch 20 Topic 21, so I thought I would quote it:
Quote(4) Business Routes. A Business Route generally is a local street or road in a city or urban area, designated by the same route number as the through Interstate, U.S., or State highway to which it is connected, with the words "Business Route" attached to the identifying route shields. The Business Route designation provides guidance for the traveling public to leave the main highway at one end of a city or urban area, patronize local businesses, and continue on to rejoin the main route at the opposite end of the city or urban area.
The Transportation System Information Program is responsible for approval of Business Route designations. Applications for Business Route designation and signing must be made by written request from the local government agency to the Chief of the Transportation System Information Program. U.S. and Interstate Business Routes require approval by the AASHTO Executive Committee.
Note that last sentence. This might mean that the designation of BR US 395 would be in some AASHTO minutes. Route 54 wouldn't, as it is state highway, but there would likely be a record in the Route 54 files in Sacramento.
I'm planning on visiting the Eastern Sierra next weekend, so it will be my first time driving on the now opened Olancha bypass.
Quote from: cahwyguy on January 08, 2025, 02:15:42 PMHere is the word on what is happening, direct from the District 9 PIO:
Since the Olancha-Cartago 4-Lane Project is still in construction, the postmile databases won't be updated until the project is officially completed. So, the stretch of old U.S. 395 from State Route 190 in Olancha to the new connector on the southern end of the project won't be redesignated as State Route 190/Business Route 395 until the project is fully completed and the contract closed out. This also applies to the addresses of residents in the area.
You are correct. The stretch of U.S. 395 from the southern connector to the southern end of the project is being permanently removed.
Wait... I'm confused. Are they physically going to remove the roadway, OR will that former part of 395 simply be given a 190 shield, like I was assuming? (Or business loop 395, whatever).
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 08, 2025, 04:38:38 PMFurther north, is it likely that there will be realignments around Independence and Big Pine (Bishop was already mentioned), so the four-lane US 395 roadway can continue uninterrupted? Also, US 395's exits should be numbered since they have been numbering exits statewide for the last couple of decades.
A bypass around Bishop seems very unlikely. It's by far the largest and most important community in the Owens Valley area (despite not being the county seat), and it's usually where you stay for Mammoth if you don't want to stay in the area itself. It's also a good gateway for Mono Lake, Death Valley, etc. There is a ton of business on the 395 and a bypass would likely hurt a lot.
It's a little different with Olancha, Independence, even Lone Pine. These are very small communities that a motorist is far less likely to stop in. (Lone Pine is mainly known for Whitney Portal access). I don't think I've ever once stopped in Independence. But almost anyone taking an Eastern Sierra trip will stop in Bishop. It's the only real major community south of Carson City, again if you aren't going to Mammoth Lakes.
There might be a bypass on paper, but the odds of it being built are practically zero. It's very similar to the talk of a Eureka bypass, which also won't happen because there is too much to lose economically for it to happen. (Eureka is basically the "Bishop" for the Redwood Curtain, it's by far the largest and most important community of that region).
Quote from: gonealookin on January 20, 2025, 11:43:28 PMAs I said upthread, I think it's misleading to the traveler to sign the former alignment of US 395 through Olancha as a Business Route, because there's barely any business along there. Nevertheless, on the northbound expressway the Business Route signage appears twice. Seriously, they ought to put a blue "JERKY" sign on that top one, because there is one gas station, one cafe attached to the motel/RV park, and the jerky place across from the Mobil station
I think it might be some kind of compromise. Olancha gets bypassed, but in exchange it becomes the "business route." Although personally, I'm not a fan of business routes, I think just signing it as part of 190 (already a fairly well known route because of Death Valley) is fine. Whether business will grow or decline as a result of the realignment, hard to say.
Quote from: Quillz on May 04, 2025, 08:34:53 PMQuote from: cahwyguy on January 08, 2025, 02:15:42 PMThe stretch of U.S. 395 from the southern connector to the southern end of the project is being permanently removed.
Wait... I'm confused. Are they physically going to remove the roadway, OR will that former part of 395 simply be given a 190 shield, like I was assuming? (Or business loop 395, whatever).
It's only about 3000 feet of the old US 395 alignment that has been removed. There's a short new connector from the new bypass to the old alignment, routed so the connector meets the bypass in a T configuration. The old alignment continues northward as before to "downtown" Olancha. Let's see if my second grade-level skills in MS Paint can illustrate it adequately.
(https://i.imgur.com/bssXJPt.jpeg)
Ah, I see. It's a lot simpler than I was thinking. I guess the logic is the new road will be easier to turn onto if you're heading southbound.
Is the northern counterpart being modified at all?
Yes. See my photos in reply #91 showing the way it looked in January. I'm pretty sure there will be a similar T configuration, but whether it's right there at Lake Street in Cartago or somewhere else wasn't clear at the time, as that area was still very much under construction and the Lake Street connector appeared temporary.
Quote from: gonealookin on May 04, 2025, 09:19:50 PMYes. See my photos in reply #91 showing the way it looked in January. I'm pretty sure there will be a similar T configuration, but whether it's right there at Lake Street in Cartago or somewhere else wasn't clear at the time, as that area was still very much under construction and the Lake Street connector appeared temporary.
When I explored it, it looked like Lake was going to be the northernmost connection, the end of the 395 Business Loop, and the old road beyond there would end in a cul-de-sac.
As us their wont, the entire old road north of Cartago is being rebuilt, I guess to raise it above the surrounding grade and level it a bit, instead of just using the old roadbed as-is. They did the same thing further north over the past couple decades when they fourlaned other parts of 395.
Quote from: Quillz on May 04, 2025, 08:40:07 PMQuote from: The Ghostbuster on January 08, 2025, 04:38:38 PMFurther north, is it likely that there will be realignments around Independence and Big Pine (Bishop was already mentioned), so the four-lane US 395 roadway can continue uninterrupted? Also, US 395's exits should be numbered since they have been numbering exits statewide for the last couple of decades.
A bypass around Bishop seems very unlikely. It's by far the largest and most important community in the Owens Valley area (despite not being the county seat), and it's usually where you stay for Mammoth if you don't want to stay in the area itself. It's also a good gateway for Mono Lake, Death Valley, etc. There is a ton of business on the 395 and a bypass would likely hurt a lot.
It's a little different with Olancha, Independence, even Lone Pine. These are very small communities that a motorist is far less likely to stop in. (Lone Pine is mainly known for Whitney Portal access). I don't think I've ever once stopped in Independence. But almost anyone taking an Eastern Sierra trip will stop in Bishop. It's the only real major community south of Carson City, again if you aren't going to Mammoth Lakes.
There might be a bypass on paper, but the odds of it being built are practically zero. It's very similar to the talk of a Eureka bypass, which also won't happen because there is too much to lose economically for it to happen. (Eureka is basically the "Bishop" for the Redwood Curtain, it's by far the largest and most important community of that region).
Bishop is also the control city on signage even far to the south (for example Kramer Junction (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.9961265,-117.535602,3a,75y,268.85h,91.52t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sWLmdh1Ff8jbT95cNwAIrNg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D-1.523928883160167%26panoid%3DWLmdh1Ff8jbT95cNwAIrNg%26yaw%3D268.8489856271701!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDUwMy4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D)) so adding a bypass wouldn't really fit the narrative.
I hope a Google Car drives along the new bypass soon. The only reason I tolerate Google Maps is the Street View mode the app provides.
I'll be driving this bypass on the way home from my weekend Mono Lake/Death Valley trip. I was going to do it northbound, but instead I want to do CA-178 -> Panamint Valley Rd, which I've never done before. Then from there CA-190 -> CA-136 to Lone Pine.
Quote from: Quillz on May 07, 2025, 04:10:36 PMI'll be driving this bypass on the way home from my weekend Mono Lake/Death Valley trip. I was going to do it northbound, but instead I want to do CA-178 -> Panamint Valley Rd, which I've never done before. Then from there CA-190 -> CA-136 to Lone Pine.
I just did this loop in the reverse direction (14, 395, 136, 190, Panamint/Trona, 178, back to 14). Didn't have the ability to take photos, but the bypass looks pretty darn close to what you can currently see on Google Maps satellite imagery.
The pavement quality on Panamint Valley Rd. is very poor, so watch out there.
Quote from: Thing 342 on May 18, 2025, 12:20:11 AMQuote from: Quillz on May 07, 2025, 04:10:36 PMI'll be driving this bypass on the way home from my weekend Mono Lake/Death Valley trip. I was going to do it northbound, but instead I want to do CA-178 -> Panamint Valley Rd, which I've never done before. Then from there CA-190 -> CA-136 to Lone Pine.
I just did this loop in the reverse direction (14, 395, 136, 190, Panamint/Trona, 178, back to 14). Didn't have the ability to take photos, but the bypass looks pretty darn close to what you can currently see on Google Maps satellite imagery.
The pavement quality on Panamint Valley Rd. is very poor, so watch out there.
It was a little bumpy, but nothing too bad. Didn't have any issues driving on it (and this was like 1 AM, since I did my drive directly leaving from work).
One thing I want to do to modify it is also incorporate the Red Rock-Randsburg Hwy. This feels like a natural extension of the Panamint Valley Hwy, since it makes a long diagonal between CA-190 and CA-14. If I had more time either coming or going home, I would have done this.
Hooray, this project looks like it's getting close to completion:
https://x.com/Caltrans9/status/1932851218692686000
Too bad you can't see off to the right what was done at the end of the old road. Cul-de-sac? How far up?
I should do a day trip up there some weekend, since this is getting into the season where a drive over Sherman Pass would also find some nice wildflowers.
Quote from: pderocco on June 11, 2025, 10:52:54 PMToo bad you can't see off to the right what was done at the end of the old road. Cul-de-sac? How far up?
I went by there yesterday. The northern end of the old US 395 alignment is in fact a cul-de-sac, maybe 250 yards north of Whitney Street on the northern edge of Cartago.
(https://i.imgur.com/4K3rBDg.jpeg)
That western extension of Lake Street, connecting to the bypass, is definitely the permanent northern end of the business route. Signage of that intersection on southbound US 395 is one of the main remaining jobs to check off to complete the project.
Quote from: gonealookin on June 29, 2025, 01:19:30 AMQuote from: pderocco on June 11, 2025, 10:52:54 PMToo bad you can't see off to the right what was done at the end of the old road. Cul-de-sac? How far up?
I went by there yesterday. The northern end of the old US 395 alignment is in fact a cul-de-sac, maybe 250 yards north of Whitney Street on the northern edge of Cartago.
(https://i.imgur.com/4K3rBDg.jpeg)
That western extension of Lake Street, connecting to the bypass, is definitely the permanent northern end of the business route. Signage of that intersection on southbound US 395 is one of the main remaining jobs to check off to complete the project.
Good. Report it to Google. They're showing the old and new roads merging.
Did you see any explicit US-395-BL signs?
Is Business 395 signage necessary? I could live with old US 395 signage.
The only Business 395 signs are on the south end. There isn't any signage on southbound 395 at the north end, except for the yellow one marking the intersection with Lake Street. You'd certainly expect some signage pointing to Cartago and Olancha there, and I think it just isn't up yet.