Seems Caltrans is having a virtual public meeting regarding the prospect of reopening CA 39 at Islip Saddle. The meeting is virtual and will be held at 6:30 PM on December 15. The meeting registration link is below. If I can find the time I plan to attend myself:
https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_jnrKgQ0aTUy1Kf2tE6BSmA?fbclid=IwAR3TeQgt0uiukxwsXD7kv__NCXdRjL5RBGZNp5fRQ-_BAD7OWMOUPxzmOUo&mibextid=Zxz2cZ
That'll be the day.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 07, 2022, 09:43:09 AM
Seems Caltrans is having a virtual public meeting regarding the prospect of reopening CA 39 at Islip Saddle. The meeting is virtual and will be held at 6:30 PM on December 15. The meeting registration link is below. If I can find the time I plan to attend myself:
https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_jnrKgQ0aTUy1Kf2tE6BSmA?fbclid=IwAR3TeQgt0uiukxwsXD7kv__NCXdRjL5RBGZNp5fRQ-_BAD7OWMOUPxzmOUo&mibextid=Zxz2cZ
God forbid the state should try to reopen highways.
Bumping this up given virtual public meeting is tomorrow night.
Hopefully it happens. It seems like this is a good level of support for it.
D7 posted the presentation on YouTube:
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 03, 2023, 01:33:34 PM
D7 posted the presentation on YouTube:
Alternative 5 - full viaduct is my favorite, though it looks like it will cost the most.
However, given the current California political climate (filled with politicians that dislike building roads), it's very likely they will choose Alternative 1, no build alternative.
I wonder about that. The fires of recent years have strengthened local support towards reopening 39 as an evacuation route. Similarly a lot of local state highway issues around me didn't get fixed in D6 until locals raised a fit after the winter of 2016-17. Maybe things don't stay the same forever in this state, especially if there is a strong enough push?
I like the Full Public Opening option. The Viaduct idea makes me nervous.
I'd like to see them not only open 39 to 2, but to continue it north down to Big Rock Creek Rd in Valyermo. That would make it much more useful. And that looks easier than the current project under consideration, since the slopes are much gentler.
It's too bad there are so many misanthropic zealots with power. The idea that a road project shouldn't be built if even a single member of a protected species would face an increased risk of being hit by a vehicle is unreasonable. No one would argue that a road shouldn't be built because some human would be exposed to such a risk. There's nothing wrong with taking reasonable steps to protect wildlife, but a project like this isn't going to drive bighorn sheep into extinction.
Wasn't CA-39 opened briefly in 2003 to allow fire trucks to reach a fire in the area? I seem to recall hearing something about that, and there was no issue at the time. Hard to believe the connection hasn't been open since 1978. But this is still one of those "I'll believe it when it happens" moments.
Received an email about another public hearing on 4/16. The link to register for the Zoom call can be found below:
https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_m80OEuIlRTqkfQwhSPqImw#/registration
Is it even worth opening at this point?
One of the primary arguments is that it would provide fire egress from Wrightwood. I'd settle for the argument that it would provide better means to access recreational areas.
Especially with all of the problems 2 has had in recent years, this would add a ton of redundancy to the network and potentially help California meet VMT goals. So there are real operational reasons to reopen it.
My understanding is that 39 used to function like Angeles Forest Highway does as a handy alternate through San Gabriel Mountains. I'm understand that a lot of people north of the mountains would use it bypass Cajon Pass and San Bernardino.
If this all comes to pass maybe it is time to start salting the Big Bear groups with suggestions about dirt 173. Wouldn't be the first time I've heard suggestion that Lake Arrowhead needs better evacuation access.
Quote from: Voyager on April 04, 2024, 06:15:46 PMIs it even worth opening at this point?
Yes. Cuts down the drive to and from Wrightwood considerably if you're coming from the south.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 04, 2024, 07:01:21 PMMy understanding is that 39 used to function like Angeles Forest Highway does as a handy alternate through San Gabriel Mountains. I'm understand that a lot of people north of the mountains would use it bypass Cajon Pass and San Bernardino.
If this all comes to pass maybe it is time to start salting the Big Bear groups with suggestions about dirt 173. Wouldn't be the first time I've heard suggestion that Lake Arrowhead needs better evacuation access.
I don't get why they closed it. Plenty of drivable dirt roads. I did it, didn't seem that dangerous.
Quote from: Quillz on April 04, 2024, 09:25:57 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on April 04, 2024, 07:01:21 PMMy understanding is that 39 used to function like Angeles Forest Highway does as a handy alternate through San Gabriel Mountains. I'm understand that a lot of people north of the mountains would use it bypass Cajon Pass and San Bernardino.
If this all comes to pass maybe it is time to start salting the Big Bear groups with suggestions about dirt 173. Wouldn't be the first time I've heard suggestion that Lake Arrowhead needs better evacuation access.
I don't get why they closed it. Plenty of drivable dirt roads. I did it, didn't seem that dangerous.
I drive far worse regularly. If the dirt was an issue a single lane of surfacing would have fixed that.
Maybe it was just laziness.
CA 39 hasn't been open in my lifetime and I doubt it's gonna reopen in my lifetime, to be honest.
Quote from: LilianaUwU on April 04, 2024, 10:51:34 PMCA 39 hasn't been open in my lifetime and I doubt it's gonna reopen in my lifetime, to be honest.
Funding, funding, funding. If they can get the funding, it will happen. But that is not a guarantee.
Quote from: cl94 on April 04, 2024, 06:55:48 PMEspecially with all of the problems 2 has had in recent years, this would add a ton of redundancy to the network and potentially help California meet VMT goals. So there are real operational reasons to reopen it.
Quote from: Quillz on April 04, 2024, 09:25:57 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on April 04, 2024, 07:01:21 PMMy understanding is that 39 used to function like Angeles Forest Highway does as a handy alternate through San Gabriel Mountains. I'm understand that a lot of people north of the mountains would use it bypass Cajon Pass and San Bernardino.
Since both of these roads are south of the line generally running from Gaviota Pass to the Grapevine to Cajon Pass, it is proper to place a "the" before the route number being cited. Thank you for your cooperation! :) :) :) (Happy Friday!)
Here's the thing, I'm not a native Californian. Phrasing "the" before stuff just wasn't part of the lexicon growing up in the Midwest (yes, even Ohio State). Even this far north (Fresno) using "the" before things like highway numbers isn't super common. Truly the phenomenon is mainly rooted in Southern California dialect.
That's just the your excuse.
Interesting to note recently when I was at the Caltrans library I had to explain the terms I was using in conversation. I kept referring to "Route 203" as "California State Route 203" out of habit. When I was growing up in Michigan the common highway-speak was to be specific about US Routes, Interstates and Trunklines. Admittedly stuff like "M-10" rolls off the tongue way easier than "CA 203" or "California State Route 203."
I'm skeptical that this project will not face major environmental backlash. Every group I've ever interacted with that is informed on this subject has all said that shouldn't be built because of the big horn sheep population. Personally I'm in favor of this project, but I'm unfamiliar with the big horn sheep in the area and wasn't even aware they were there. When it was open, I drove the Angeles crest Highway all the time and never saw one. I also hike the area quite frequently and the most I've seen are bobcats and other common wildlife that is easily spotted.
But it does seem like there is a way wildlife crossing incidences could be mitigated. It would just be more costly.
The full reopening alternative includes 5 wildlife crossing bridges. CDFW is on the record as opposing anything (even fixing for evac/emergency vehicle use), but LA County and its agencies are pushing strongly for something and fire concerns have a ton of sway in CA right now.
I will note that the full reopening passes CEQA and meets all modern CA requirements. Exempt from a lot of stuff because it's a reopening of an existing road instead of new construction.
And that's the thing, there is a substantial political push to get 39 reopened. If this was a new highway it probably wouldn't stand a chance. Different story when it comes to something existing and still in the state inventory.
And passing CEQA is the biggest obstacle right now. If the full CEQA evaluation shows that it either passes or is exempt, there go several avenues to challenge it. Okay CEQA plus political will means that the main concern is funding.
What I'd like to know is how many bighorn sheep have been killed (or injured) on CA-39 4.5 miles below the closure, or on CA-2 4.5 miles on either side of CA-39. If those are acceptable numbers, why are they so alarmed about this particular piece of road? Is it because they see bighorn sheep on it from time to time? My answer would be they're on it because there aren't any cars on it. If the road construction crews showed up, the sheep would go somewhere else. They may not be geniuses, but they're not earthworms either.
Quote from: heynow415 on April 05, 2024, 11:49:27 AMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on April 04, 2024, 07:01:21 PMMy understanding is that 39 used to function like Angeles Forest Highway does as a handy alternate through San Gabriel Mountains. I'm understand that a lot of people north of the mountains would use it bypass Cajon Pass and San Bernardino.
Since both of these roads are south of the line generally running from Gaviota Pass to the Grapevine to Cajon Pass, it is proper to place a "the" before the route number being cited. Thank you for your cooperation! :) :) :) (Happy Friday!)
I always thought this locution was reserved for freeways. "The 405" is short for "The 405 freeway". Has anyone ever said, "Let's take the 1 up the coast"?
Quote from: pderocco on April 06, 2024, 07:26:15 PMQuote from: heynow415 on April 05, 2024, 11:49:27 AMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on April 04, 2024, 07:01:21 PMMy understanding is that 39 used to function like Angeles Forest Highway does as a handy alternate through San Gabriel Mountains. I'm understand that a lot of people north of the mountains would use it bypass Cajon Pass and San Bernardino.
Since both of these roads are south of the line generally running from Gaviota Pass to the Grapevine to Cajon Pass, it is proper to place a "the" before the route number being cited. Thank you for your cooperation! :) :) :) (Happy Friday!)
I always thought this locution was reserved for freeways. "The 405" is short for "The 405 freeway". Has anyone ever said, "Let's take the 1 up the coast"?
No, they just incorrectly refer to the entirety of 1 as "PCH."
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 06, 2024, 07:28:15 PMQuote from: pderocco on April 06, 2024, 07:26:15 PMQuote from: heynow415 on April 05, 2024, 11:49:27 AMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on April 04, 2024, 07:01:21 PMMy understanding is that 39 used to function like Angeles Forest Highway does as a handy alternate through San Gabriel Mountains. I'm understand that a lot of people north of the mountains would use it bypass Cajon Pass and San Bernardino.
Since both of these roads are south of the line generally running from Gaviota Pass to the Grapevine to Cajon Pass, it is proper to place a "the" before the route number being cited. Thank you for your cooperation! :) :) :) (Happy Friday!)
I always thought this locution was reserved for freeways. "The 405" is short for "The 405 freeway". Has anyone ever said, "Let's take the 1 up the coast"?
No, they just incorrectly refer to the entirety of 1 as "PCH."
I've heard it/seen "the" used on SoCal non-freeway/expressway roads. Highways with another real name, like PCH, are often called that instead of by their route number but others, like Ortega Hwy, seem to be referred to more often as "the 74" except maybe when you're actually in San Juan Capistrano.
I've always kind of referred CA-1 FROM SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY TO SAN FRANCISCO AS THE PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AS WELL.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 11, 2024, 11:42:26 AMI've always kind of referred CA-1 FROM SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY TO SAN FRANCISCO AS THE PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AS WELL.
ROCK ON DUDE
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 11, 2024, 11:42:26 AMI've always kind of referred CA-1 FROM SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY TO SAN FRANCISCO AS THE PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AS WELL.
"Cabrillo Highway" is pretty well established between Las Cruces and San Francisco. Makes sense, that was the original southern extent of CA-1. Historically, Pacific Coast Highway was strictly SoCal only and would have been associated with the original CA-3 and then later US-101A. There are some references to PCH in Pismo Beach, but that's all I've ever seen. If it's in use north of there, never seen it.
Shoreline Highway is by far the most used name for 1 north of the Golden Gate Bridge.
Quote from: Quillz on April 13, 2024, 04:35:51 PMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on April 11, 2024, 11:42:26 AMI've always kind of referred CA-1 FROM SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY TO SAN FRANCISCO AS THE PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AS WELL.
"Cabrillo Highway" is pretty well established between Las Cruces and San Francisco. Makes sense, that was the original southern extent of CA-1. Historically, Pacific Coast Highway was strictly SoCal only and would have been associated with the original CA-3 and then later US-101A. There are some references to PCH in Pismo Beach, but that's all I've ever seen. If it's in use north of there, never seen it.
Interesting. I do recall saying Cabrillo highway used as that name?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 13, 2024, 09:46:21 PMShoreline Highway is by far the most used name for 1 north of the Golden Gate Bridge.
I need to get up and explore more of northern california.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 14, 2024, 03:46:38 AMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on April 13, 2024, 09:46:21 PMShoreline Highway is by far the most used name for 1 north of the Golden Gate Bridge.
I need to get up and explore more of northern california.
There are basically three major coastal highways: Pacific Coast Highway, Cabrillo Highway, Shoreline Highway. They are nicely siloed between SoCal, Central Cali, and NorCal. Historically, CA-3 covered PCH, CA-1 covered the other two. It seems after 1964, Caltrans wanted to have a single number unify all three, and since CA-1 was well established and much better known than the short stint of CA-3, this was the reasoning as to why CA-1 was extended into SoCal. This also seems to have created the perception PCH refers to the entire stretch, when the historical quirk is PCH and CA-1 had no association prior to 1964.
And yes, I suggest you do. It's beautiful, the drive on CA-1 between CA-116 and US-101 is great. I love the NorCal beaches, they remind me a lot of Oregon in that they are rocky, rugged, foggy, etc. Glass Beach is a highlight for me, and of course there are some nice beaches in the Redwood Curtain, weather permitting.
Quote from: Quillz on April 14, 2024, 07:12:41 AMHistorically, CA-3 covered PCH, CA-1 covered the other two.
Close. Sign Route 3 (to distinguish it from post-1964 Route 3) existed only from the start of state highway numbering until (I think) 1936, when US 101A was created. I'm not sure Sign Route 3 was ever signed in the field.
So, you had US 101A for the PCH portion, and Sign Route 1 for the Cabrillo Highway and Shoreline Highway portions.
I'm not aware of 1934 CA 3 ever being signed. There is a map somewhere (I think of my CA 36 blog) which showed progress of signing State Sign Routes by late 1936. The emphasis seemed on rural highways like CA 36.
Quote from: cahwyguy on April 14, 2024, 08:52:09 AMQuote from: Quillz on April 14, 2024, 07:12:41 AMHistorically, CA-3 covered PCH, CA-1 covered the other two.
Close. Sign Route 3 (to distinguish it from post-1964 Route 3) existed only from the start of state highway numbering until (I think) 1936, when US 101A was created. I'm not sure Sign Route 3 was ever signed in the field.
So, you had US 101A for the PCH portion, and Sign Route 1 for the Cabrillo Highway and Shoreline Highway portions.
I'm not sure of it being signed, either. But I was talking from a more strict "technical" sense, that route was CA-3 for a short while. I didn't mention 101A but I was aware of it. The larger point was the association with PCH = CA-1 is more recent than some people might realize. (Although at this point we're talking a half-century old association so I guess it has probably spent more time as part of CA-1 than not).
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 14, 2024, 09:20:52 AMI'm not aware of 1934 CA 3 ever being signed. There is a map somewhere (I think of my CA 36 blog) which showed progress of signing State Sign Routes by late 1936. The emphasis seemed on rural highways like CA 36.
This lack of signage might also explain why Caltrans did more frequent reshuffling in the earlier days. One of the more prominent cases I can think of was original CA-13 becoming the modern CA-17. That was most likely due to poor signage. I've also wondered how reshuffling would have worked in California if it was a state like Alaska where names are more often used than numbers. Seems in a setup like that, there would be more frequent renumbering.