I could have sworn that I did a dedicated thread about the dirt portion of Panoche Road, but it seems that I did not. This is an interesting road segment given the entirety of Panoche Road was signed as CA 180 in the very early Sign Route era. This can be seen announced in the August 1934 California Highways & Public Works:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54833122715_d2c0908aa7_h.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2rxq62v)1934 AUG CHPW 1 (https://flic.kr/p/2rxq62v) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54833032364_42142e29e4_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2rxpCaJ)1934 AUG CHPW 2 (https://flic.kr/p/2rxpCaJ) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
CA 180 west of Mendota via Panoche Road also appears on Division of Highways maps up to 1938. Given the CSAA was placing signage for the early Sign Routes it is probably pretty reasonable to assume CA 180 remained field-signed likely through the 1940s or even 1950s:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54833046773_e15da9b4aa_h.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2rxpGsa)1938 DOH (https://flic.kr/p/2rxpGsa) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
There was never a formal State Highway adoption for CA 180 west of Mendota. It only became a proposed State Highway in 1959 with Legislative Route Number 263. This would later be legislatively defined as CA 180 starting 1964. Worth noting that CA 180 was intended to end at US 101 near Gilroy until 1984. The segment between Paicines and US 101 was signed as CA 25 and reverted back to 25 legislatively in 1984.
https://www.cahighways.org/ROUTE263.html#LR263
Panoche Road west of Little Panoche Road would later become part of San Benito County Route J1 in 1958:
https://www.cahighways.org/CR-J1.html
So, what makes Panoche Road east of Little Panoche Road so bad? Most of the highway east to I-5 is dirt and not maintained all that great. Definitely doesn't help that it fords Panoche Creek and usually is deep enough to not be passable in a car:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54832587268_490972d8dc_4k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2rxnkRE)IMG_5554 (https://flic.kr/p/2rxnkRE) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
Fortunately, I wasn't in a car. Probably still the ford way too hard (this is a video link):
(https://live.staticflickr.com/31337/54832651650_a6cd250296_b.jpg) (https://www.flickr.com/gp/151828809@N08/jyY5G57429)IMG_E8441 (https://www.flickr.com/gp/151828809@N08/jyY5G57429) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
Plus, there is one absolutely monster grade heading eastbound towards Silver Creek:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54831483532_08d0fc9d6d_4k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2rxgFKJ)IMG_5577 (https://flic.kr/p/2rxgFKJ) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54832573019_4f203758f7_4k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2rxngBZ)IMG_5580 (https://flic.kr/p/2rxngBZ) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
I was surprised the Google Car finally made it out to the dirt portion of Panoche Road in March this year. All the same, I cut a fresh photo log given how this all ties into CA 180 historically.
https://flic.kr/s/aHBqjCwgUN
I remember some kind of proposal to bring 180 to the 101. I assume via some kind of concurrency, which is odd since California hasn't done things like that since 1964. Which is also seemingly how an extension to even 156 would have worked.
Quote from: Quillz on October 05, 2025, 02:11:47 AMI remember some kind of proposal to bring 180 to the 101. I assume via some kind of concurrency, which is odd since California hasn't done things like that since 1964. Which is also seemingly how an extension to even 156 would have worked.
The Postmiles on 25 from Paicines to 101 were numbered as 180. I always took that to infer there wasn't going to be a multiplex.
I guess 180 was a "better" number than 25 since it goes through Fresno and leads to a couple national parks.
Quote from: Quillz on October 05, 2025, 04:52:23 PMI guess 180 was a "better" number than 25 since it goes through Fresno and leads to a couple national parks.
I think idea was an alternative coast option to 152. That is something Fresno County on occasion still asks for.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 05, 2025, 05:07:48 PMQuote from: Quillz on October 05, 2025, 04:52:23 PMI guess 180 was a "better" number than 25 since it goes through Fresno and leads to a couple national parks.
I think idea was an alternative coast option to 152. That is something Fresno County on occasion still asks for.
That is a pretty substantial gap between 152 and 198 for crossing that ridge. But Panoche Rd looks like the only obvious route, and it would be pretty hard to turn it into a real 65mph highway like 152.
Quote from: pderocco on October 05, 2025, 07:16:40 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on October 05, 2025, 05:07:48 PMQuote from: Quillz on October 05, 2025, 04:52:23 PMI guess 180 was a "better" number than 25 since it goes through Fresno and leads to a couple national parks.
I think idea was an alternative coast option to 152. That is something Fresno County on occasion still asks for.
That is a pretty substantial gap between 152 and 198 for crossing that ridge. But Panoche Rd looks like the only obvious route, and it would be pretty hard to turn it into a real 65mph highway like 152.
That's the problem, everyone wants an expressway. Just widening Panoche Road west of Little Panoche Road to two lane standards would make it competitive with 198 for passenger vehicles. Caltrans doesn't seem to have a taste for new conventional mountain highway mileage unless the local authorities build up to state standards. I don't see San Benito County ever having the money to do that kind of rebuild.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 05, 2025, 07:23:45 PMQuote from: pderocco on October 05, 2025, 07:16:40 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on October 05, 2025, 05:07:48 PMQuote from: Quillz on October 05, 2025, 04:52:23 PMI guess 180 was a "better" number than 25 since it goes through Fresno and leads to a couple national parks.
I think idea was an alternative coast option to 152. That is something Fresno County on occasion still asks for.
That is a pretty substantial gap between 152 and 198 for crossing that ridge. But Panoche Rd looks like the only obvious route, and it would be pretty hard to turn it into a real 65mph highway like 152.
That's the problem, everyone wants an expressway. Just widening Panoche Road west of Little Panoche Road to two lane standards would make it competitive with 198 for passenger vehicles. Caltrans doesn't seem to have a taste for new conventional mountain highway mileage unless the local authorities build up to state standards. I don't see San Benito County ever having the money to do that kind of rebuild.
They have even less taste for building entirely new roads, unless they're major freeways. It seems like all 2-lane rural routes are legacy roads from a century ago.
Quote from: pderocco on October 05, 2025, 09:50:21 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on October 05, 2025, 07:23:45 PMQuote from: pderocco on October 05, 2025, 07:16:40 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on October 05, 2025, 05:07:48 PMQuote from: Quillz on October 05, 2025, 04:52:23 PMI guess 180 was a "better" number than 25 since it goes through Fresno and leads to a couple national parks.
I think idea was an alternative coast option to 152. That is something Fresno County on occasion still asks for.
That is a pretty substantial gap between 152 and 198 for crossing that ridge. But Panoche Rd looks like the only obvious route, and it would be pretty hard to turn it into a real 65mph highway like 152.
That's the problem, everyone wants an expressway. Just widening Panoche Road west of Little Panoche Road to two lane standards would make it competitive with 198 for passenger vehicles. Caltrans doesn't seem to have a taste for new conventional mountain highway mileage unless the local authorities build up to state standards. I don't see San Benito County ever having the money to do that kind of rebuild.
They have even less taste for building entirely new roads, unless they're major freeways. It seems like all 2-lane rural routes are legacy roads from a century ago.
At least pre-1970. Most (if not all?) the Chapter 1473 state highway additions that year held the stipulation that the local authorities must build to Division of Highways (now Caltrans) standards to be adopted.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 05, 2025, 10:32:59 PMQuote from: pderocco on October 05, 2025, 09:50:21 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on October 05, 2025, 07:23:45 PMQuote from: pderocco on October 05, 2025, 07:16:40 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on October 05, 2025, 05:07:48 PMQuote from: Quillz on October 05, 2025, 04:52:23 PMI guess 180 was a "better" number than 25 since it goes through Fresno and leads to a couple national parks.
I think idea was an alternative coast option to 152. That is something Fresno County on occasion still asks for.
That is a pretty substantial gap between 152 and 198 for crossing that ridge. But Panoche Rd looks like the only obvious route, and it would be pretty hard to turn it into a real 65mph highway like 152.
That's the problem, everyone wants an expressway. Just widening Panoche Road west of Little Panoche Road to two lane standards would make it competitive with 198 for passenger vehicles. Caltrans doesn't seem to have a taste for new conventional mountain highway mileage unless the local authorities build up to state standards. I don't see San Benito County ever having the money to do that kind of rebuild.
They have even less taste for building entirely new roads, unless they're major freeways. It seems like all 2-lane rural routes are legacy roads from a century ago.
At least pre-1970. Most (if not all?) the Chapter 1473 state highway additions that year held the stipulation that the local authorities must build to Division of Highways (now Caltrans) standards to be adopted.
But it also seems that nowadays, even counties don't build new roads. They may occasionally upgrade them, perhaps widen or straighten them, but no one ever cuts a new road through virgin land unless it's a freeway or a suburban housing development.
Quote from: pderocco on October 05, 2025, 11:04:49 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on October 05, 2025, 10:32:59 PMQuote from: pderocco on October 05, 2025, 09:50:21 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on October 05, 2025, 07:23:45 PMQuote from: pderocco on October 05, 2025, 07:16:40 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on October 05, 2025, 05:07:48 PMQuote from: Quillz on October 05, 2025, 04:52:23 PMI guess 180 was a "better" number than 25 since it goes through Fresno and leads to a couple national parks.
I think idea was an alternative coast option to 152. That is something Fresno County on occasion still asks for.
That is a pretty substantial gap between 152 and 198 for crossing that ridge. But Panoche Rd looks like the only obvious route, and it would be pretty hard to turn it into a real 65mph highway like 152.
That's the problem, everyone wants an expressway. Just widening Panoche Road west of Little Panoche Road to two lane standards would make it competitive with 198 for passenger vehicles. Caltrans doesn't seem to have a taste for new conventional mountain highway mileage unless the local authorities build up to state standards. I don't see San Benito County ever having the money to do that kind of rebuild.
They have even less taste for building entirely new roads, unless they're major freeways. It seems like all 2-lane rural routes are legacy roads from a century ago.
At least pre-1970. Most (if not all?) the Chapter 1473 state highway additions that year held the stipulation that the local authorities must build to Division of Highways (now Caltrans) standards to be adopted.
But it also seems that nowadays, even counties don't build new roads. They may occasionally upgrade them, perhaps widen or straighten them, but no one ever cuts a new road through virgin land unless it's a freeway or a suburban housing development.
Everyone wants the suburban dream and yet also seems to think any new road in a remote area will bring a mass of overwhelming tourism.