While doing the AARoads links update yesterday, I came across the following. I sent this to
@Max Rockatansky , but I figured I'd post it here as well.
Look at the definition of LRN 234. What is the likelihood that this was a placeholder for the proposed extension of I-70 into California across Minaret Summit (See the Gribblenation Blog: California State Route 203 the proposed Minaret Summit Highway (https://www.gribblenation.org/2017/07/california-state-203-road-that-could.html))?
In 1953, Chapter 1700 defined LRN 234 as:
Quote"...the Nevada State Line across the Sierra Nevada Mountains into the San Francisco Bay area on a route to be selected by the California Highway Commission, which route may include all or portions of any existing state highway route or routes. The commission, in determining said route, shall consider military necessities and recommendations appropriate federal authorities.
The commission shall allocate from time to time as federal funds, other than regular federal aid apportionments, are made available as required in this section from the State Highway Fund the sum of twenty million dollars ($20,000,000), for the construction of said route. Such money shall be made available in equal parts in the five fiscal years next succeeding the effective date of this section to the extent that such federal funds are available for matching purposes in each of such years. The allocation of money provided for in this section shall be made out of moneys contained in the State Highway Fund available for construction of state highways in County Group No. 1, but which is not subject to Section 188.4 of this code; and expenditures from such allocation shall be credited against the expenditure required to be made pursuant to Section 188.4 in the counties in which the route provided for in this section lies until June 30, 1962.
No money shall be expended from the allocation make by this section unless and until moneys equal to or in excess of the amount expendable each year from this allocation shall be made available by the Federal Government, in addition to the regular federal aid allocations, for expenditure by the department for the construction of the route provided for in this section, to the end that any sums expended from this allocation shall be matched by like or greater amounts from the Federal Government"
In 1957, Chapter 1911 deleted this LRN. It appears to never have been constructed, nor a sign route number assigned.
I still can't believe I somehow missed LRN 234 on your page or just looking at DOH maps of that era.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 07, 2025, 07:25:23 PMI still can't believe I somehow missed LRN 234 on your page or just looking at DOH maps of that era.
Well, I just checked the 1954 and 1956 maps. There is no route shown for LRN 234, nor is it in the route list (although LRN 233 is there twice; the second one is presumably LRN 235). So unless you went to the legislative code or my site, it
wasn't hard was easy (I hate double negatives) to miss.
I think anyone who thinks Interstate 70 should be extended to California is crazy. If the US 50 freeway east of Sacramento were ever to become part of the Interstate System, it should be an eastern extension of Interstate 305.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 08, 2025, 12:35:01 PMI think anyone who thinks Interstate 70 should be extended to California is crazy. If the US 50 freeway east of Sacramento were ever to become part of the Interstate System, it should be an eastern extension of Interstate 305.
Crazy or not they were actual proposals that were seriously studied.