1975 CalTrans map (courtesy NE2)

[TheStranger]

Saw this posted in the Route 11 thread and decided it warrants its own discussion:

http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239508~5511839:-Verso--California-State-Highways

Some stuff of note -

- In SF, even before the traversable route of US 101 was moved off of the Central Freeway west of Van Ness Avenue, the surface-street section south of Turk/Golden Gate (parts of which had been the original 1930s US 101 routing) was already marked here as a state highway.  The 1989 earthquake led to the current routing, but I wonder if moving it off that segment of freeway had been considered even that far back.

- The unbuilt portion of 380 west of 280 was shown as interstate, not state route (though I recall that was never actually submitted as a possible Interstate route).

- Not only was a Route 1 bypass of Half Moon Bay being considered at the time, but an expressway (or freeway) alignment of 92 west of 280, which has never been constructed.

- The current Isabel Avenue segment of Route 84 in Livermore (finally completed about 2 years ago) was proposed this far back!

- Today's Richmond Parkway between the Giant Highway exit and I-80 near Hilltop Mall in Richmond is a slightly more northerly alignment than the then-proposed Route 93.

- Proposed bypass for Route 12 shown on this, which has not been constructed.

- The unbuilt Route 61 through West Oakland would today likely cross right over the Cypress Freeway replacement portion of I-880; here, it would have been a few hundred feet away from the then-existing Cypress route.

- Route 29 would have been realigned to avoid much of the city of Vallejo, following a new routing along Fairgrounds Drive and then cutting through Solano Junior High School, followed by running through the open space that parallels Cobb Avenue in Vallejo and Condor Court in American Canyon.  (This seems to have been rendered unnecessary with the Route 37 freeway being completed in the area.)

- Anaheim Street in Long Beach is shown as a then-potential realignment of Route 1.

- US 395, I-15E, AND Route 60 are all marked for today's I-215/Route 60 east of Riverside.  Likewise, 15 and 71 shields were marked for the segment of 15 south of Corona, and 15/395 shields for the portion of 15 south of Temecula.

- The westernmost segment of Route 38 was still part of Route 30 at the time, before today's Route 210 freeway (signed as Route 30 for years) was completed in Redlands.

- Colorado Boulevard in Pasadena was shown as signed Route 66 (not US 66 though)/legislative Route 248.

- The unbuilt portion of Route 164 that is not part of 1934-present Route 19 (in other words, the only independent segment, linking Route 19 to I-605) is not shown at all.

- The actual proposed routing of unbuilt Route 171 is shown: from the I-5/Pershing Street junction in San Diego eastward to today's Route 15/I-805 junction.  (Also shown is the then-proposed Route 157, which would have cut east from the Imperial Avenue/I-805 interchange to today's Route 54/125 junction, partially explaining why Route 125 has to exit off of itself in that spot.)

- An extension of today's Route 120 freeway east of Route 99 is shown as proposed.

- A completely different Route 237 freeway alignment from Alviso to I-680 is shown, cutting northeast to Dixon Landing Road's current junction with I-880 and then heading east from there.  (This explains why Route 262's legislative status as a state highway is dependent on whether 237 is constructed as freeway east of 880, as the 1975 Route 237 proposal runs much closer to 262 than today's Calaveras Boulevard and 237 freeway do.)

- The current Bayfront Expressway routing of Route 84 in Menlo Park was not even yet proposed at this time.

- Unbuilt, but adopted at the time, was the portion of Route 217 in Santa Barbara from Los Carneros Road to Goleta Beach, roughly following the south boundary of the Santa Barbara Airport property.

[NE2]

I guess you missed the link someone posted a few months ago: http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/view/search?q=caltrans&sort=Date

But yeah, nice stuff here.

There's also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_California_State_Highways/History/When_each_route_was_added_to_the_state_highway_system - SR 84 in Menlo Park was legislatively added in 1984.

[cahwyguy]

- In SF, even before the traversable route of US 101 was moved off of the Central Freeway west of Van Ness Avenue, the surface-street section south of Turk/Golden Gate (parts of which had been the original 1930s US 101 routing) was already marked here as a state highway.  The 1989 earthquake led to the current routing, but I wonder if moving it off that segment of freeway had been considered even that far back.

Disagree. Look closely at the Google Maps for that part of San Francisco. You can see the remains of what might have been a right of way going from the end of the Central Freeway, up Octavia, and then curving over to Van Ness (it is clear on the map map, and even visible on the satellite map). My guess is that in the 1970s this was cleared right of way with plans for construction, and that would correspond to the curve you see on the map. My guess is this is a map error in not showing it dashed or dotted.

- The unbuilt portion of 380 west of 280 was shown as interstate, not state route (though I recall that was never actually submitted as a possible Interstate route).

Again, a possible map error -- that was planned as part of 380 since 1969. Back then, there may have been plans to have it is non-chargeable interstate.

- Not only was a Route 1 bypass of Half Moon Bay being considered at the time, but an expressway (or freeway) alignment of 92 west of 280, which has never been constructed.

There are lots of portions of the original freeway and expressway system that have never been constructed. The segment of 92 W of 280 is still on the books as part of the F&E system. Similarly, it is not a surprise that a bypass of HMB was under consideration -- it doesn't state when it was adopted, but it was likely adopted back when lots of bypasses were being adopted.

- The current Isabel Avenue segment of Route 84 in Livermore (finally completed about 2 years ago) was proposed this far back!

That shouldn't be surprise -- often alignments were adopted that early and suffered from a long environmental and ROW acquisition period. I-710 should be a clear example of this.

- Today's Richmond Parkway between the Giant Highway exit and I-80 near Hilltop Mall in Richmond is a slightly more northerly alignment than the then-proposed Route 93.

Not familiar with the area, but is Richmond Parkway part of the state highway system? If not, there's no reason they would be the same.

- Proposed bypass for Route 12 shown on this, which has not been constructed.

You're dealing with the mid-1970s, when many planned routes were cancelled. It might have been based on a since rescinded route adoption.

- The unbuilt Route 61 through West Oakland would today likely cross right over the Cypress Freeway replacement portion of I-880; here, it would have been a few hundred feet away from the then-existing Cypress route.

Given that it is a "routing not determined", I don't think you can be that precise. Dotted routes were general desired, not specific streets planned.

- Route 29 would have been realigned to avoid much of the city of Vallejo, following a new routing along Fairgrounds Drive and then cutting through Solano Junior High School, followed by running through the open space that parallels Cobb Avenue in Vallejo and Condor Court in American Canyon.  (This seems to have been rendered unnecessary with the Route 37 freeway being completed in the area.)

Both routings appear to meet the legislative definition, so this was likely a freeway routing adopted but not constructed (and later rescinded). I don't have access to all the records of specific route adoptions and rescindings (this is different than when the route was added to the state highway system). This may be related to the various back and forth that went on regarding Route 141, which is no longer on the books.

- Anaheim Street in Long Beach is shown as a then-potential realignment of Route 1.

Disagree. Given the convention was to use wider lines for the state routes (either continuous, dashed, or dotted), I think the cartographer just didn't put the (1) close enough to the line.

- US 395, I-15E, AND Route 60 are all marked for today's I-215/Route 60 east of Riverside.  Likewise, 15 and 71 shields were marked for the segment of 15 south of Corona, and 15/395 shields for the portion of 15 south of Temecula.

All those routes were a mess in the 1970s -- there were temporary routings and cosignings throughout the area reflecting the changes (I remember seeing them when I would drive out that way in the late 1970s).

- The westernmost segment of Route 38 was still part of Route 30 at the time, before today's Route 210 freeway (signed as Route 30 for years) was completed in Redlands.

No, you're misreading the map. Orange St. was Route 38 to Lugonia, and then Route 38 went E. Orange Street was the surface street routing for Route 30 as well, and Route 30 continued on its lonesome to Patton, where it continued W. THe surface routing of Route 30 was relinquished when the freeway routing was completed. Both Route 30 and Route 38 started at Route 10 near Redlands.

- Colorado Boulevard in Pasadena was shown as signed Route 66 (not US 66 though)/legislative Route 248.

It may have been signed that way, but it was not part of the legislative definition. There are a few examples of signage being different than the legislative definition post-1964 (BR 80/Route 51, and some short segments in the bay area being examples of this), so it might just have been that Route 248 was signed as 66 to make things easier for the travelling public, who at that time were still used to 66. This is confirmed by the Caltrans bridge log, which noted that Route 248 was signed in its entirety as Route 66.

- The unbuilt portion of Route 164 that is not part of 1934-present Route 19 (in other words, the only independent segment, linking Route 19 to I-605) is not shown at all.

I can only guess that is a mapmakers error. That segment was defined as part of Route 164 in 1975, although Route 164 has always been signed as Route 19.

- The actual proposed routing of unbuilt Route 171 is shown: from the I-5/Pershing Street junction in San Diego eastward to today's Route 15/I-805 junction.  (Also shown is the then-proposed Route 157, which would have cut east from the Imperial Avenue/I-805 interchange to today's Route 54/125 junction, partially explaining why Route 125 has to exit off of itself in that spot.)

Actually, that's not a proposed routing -- it is a general "routing not determined" routing. As for Route 157, my notes show "A routing was adopted in 1962, but it was rescinded locally by SANDAG (San Diego Association of Governments, the regional planning agency) in 1974, and deleted from the state highway system 20 years later. " That's why the 157 routing is shown.

- An extension of today's Route 120 freeway east of Route 99 is shown as proposed.

My notes state "There is a adopted but unconstructed 20 mile portion from Route 99 to Oakdale that is parallel to the existing traversable route. ", which is probably what you're discussing.

- A completely different Route 237 freeway alignment from Alviso to I-680 is shown, cutting northeast to Dixon Landing Road's current junction with I-880 and then heading east from there.  (This explains why Route 262's legislative status as a state highway is dependent on whether 237 is constructed as freeway east of 880, as the 1975 Route 237 proposal runs much closer to 262 than today's Calaveras Boulevard and 237 freeway do.)

My guess is that they adopted the routing, and then discovered it was much less expensive (and much fewer environmental impacts) to just upgrade the existing expressway. Remember the 1970s is when EIRs started. Note that both routings fit the legislative definition. My pages note the following:

At one time, there were plans to build this a freeway from I-680 to I-880. However, this now seems unlikely, and a study is being conducted in 2002 to explore upgrading Route 262 instead. According to a posting by Joe Rouse on m.t.r, the planned freeway alignment tied in with the existing alignment west of I-880, crossing I-880 at Dixon Landing Road, and ending at I-680 just south of Scott Creek Road. There are two bridges on I-680 just south of Scott Creek where the ramps would have passed underneath that might have been part of the plan. The problem with this hypothetical routing (it is unclear if it ever went beyond the "on paper" level) was that it would go through a big chunk of the South Bay National Wildlife Refuge. Daniel T. reported on m.t.r that the 1967 and 1969 Gousha maps of San Jose both show the proposed routing, and this routing matches the 1967 Regal Map of San Jose, which actually shows interchange designs. According to the map routings, the I-680 to I-880 connector left the current Route 237 alignment just east of Lafayette Street. It then went NE to Zanker Road, with a standard diamond interchange. It then turned NNE, having a modified cloverleaf interchange with the Nimitz Freeway (EB 237/NB Nimitz and WB 237/SB Nimitz were to be flyovers). Dixon Landing would have been rerouted to loop around the southern end of this interchange. Route 237 would then cross the Alameda/Santa Clara County line, have a half interchange at Oakland Road (straight ramps for EB 237/SB Oakland, loop ramps for NB Oakland/WB 237). The last interchange, 237/680, would be a trumpet, with EB 237/NB 680 flying over and NB 680/WB 237 flying under (at Scott Creek Road, hence the Caltrans Bridge Log entry).

- The current Bayfront Expressway routing of Route 84 in Menlo Park was not even yet proposed at this time.

THat was created in 1984 as an effect of the swap between Route 84 and Route 114.

- Unbuilt, but adopted at the time, was the portion of Route 217 in Santa Barbara from Los Carneros Road to Goleta Beach, roughly following the south boundary of the Santa Barbara Airport property.

According to my notes, it is still unbuilt. I show Route 217 as unconstructed from Fowler (now Moffet Pl) to US 101.

[NE2]

- In SF, even before the traversable route of US 101 was moved off of the Central Freeway west of Van Ness Avenue, the surface-street section south of Turk/Golden Gate (parts of which had been the original 1930s US 101 routing) was already marked here as a state highway.  The 1989 earthquake led to the current routing, but I wonder if moving it off that segment of freeway had been considered even that far back.

Disagree. Look closely at the Google Maps for that part of San Francisco. You can see the remains of what might have been a right of way going from the end of the Central Freeway, up Octavia, and then curving over to Van Ness (it is clear on the map map, and even visible on the satellite map). My guess is that in the 1970s this was cleared right of way with plans for construction, and that would correspond to the curve you see on the map. My guess is this is a map error in not showing it dashed or dotted.

Zuh? That part of the freeway was built to the south side of McAllister, with ramps to Franklin/Golden Gate and from Gough/Turk. US 101 presumably used Golden Gate and Turk between the freeway and Van Ness.
http://archive.org/stream/cavol3940liforniahigh6061wa00calirich#page/n103/mode/2up
http://www.historicaerials.com/aerials.php?scale=4&lat=37.78&lon=-122.42&year=1968
http://foundsf.org/index.php?title=Second_Freeway_Revolt

[TheStranger]

- In SF, even before the traversable route of US 101 was moved off of the Central Freeway west of Van Ness Avenue, the surface-street section south of Turk/Golden Gate (parts of which had been the original 1930s US 101 routing) was already marked here as a state highway.  The 1989 earthquake led to the current routing, but I wonder if moving it off that segment of freeway had been considered even that far back.

Disagree. Look closely at the Google Maps for that part of San Francisco. You can see the remains of what might have been a right of way going from the end of the Central Freeway, up Octavia, and then curving over to Van Ness (it is clear on the map map, and even visible on the satellite map). My guess is that in the 1970s this was cleared right of way with plans for construction, and that would correspond to the curve you see on the map. My guess is this is a map error in not showing it dashed or dotted.

NE2's response covers basically what I understand to have been the case - the freeway was never built past Turk Street.  (I don't know what the signage status of Van Ness Avenue/South Van Ness Avenue between Duboce and Turk was from the late 1950s to after 1989, when the route regained 101 signage)

- Today's Richmond Parkway between the Giant Highway exit and I-80 near Hilltop Mall in Richmond is a slightly more northerly alignment than the then-proposed Route 93.

Not familiar with the area, but is Richmond Parkway part of the state highway system? If not, there's no reason they would be the same.

Though I recall it was constructed municipally, the signage at certain points (particularly at Giant Highway) seems to be more CalTrans style than anything locally installed. 

- The unbuilt Route 61 through West Oakland would today likely cross right over the Cypress Freeway replacement portion of I-880; here, it would have been a few hundred feet away from the then-existing Cypress route.

Given that it is a "routing not determined", I don't think you can be that precise. Dotted routes were general desired, not specific streets planned.

As a reference point I look at the various Southern Crossing proposal maps of that era (most of which are on Eric Fischer's Flickr page) which do show a proposed freeway in West Oakland roughly along that path.

- Anaheim Street in Long Beach is shown as a then-potential realignment of Route 1.

Disagree. Given the convention was to use wider lines for the state routes (either continuous, dashed, or dotted), I think the cartographer just didn't put the (1) close enough to the line.

Hm.  I thought it was odd that the "legislative" tiny 1 marker was placed so far south of the Route 1 shield, especially since I don't think there are other examples on the map in which a road was labeled with both a route shield and a tiny legislative-route marker of the same number.

No, you're misreading the map. Orange St. was Route 38 to Lugonia, and then Route 38 went E. Orange Street was the surface street routing for Route 30 as well, and Route 30 continued on its lonesome to Patton, where it continued W. THe surface routing of Route 30 was relinquished when the freeway routing was completed. Both Route 30 and Route 38 started at Route 10 near Redlands.

So post-1964 30/38 once shared a terminus at I-10 and about a mile of concurrency?

[DTComposer]

- Anaheim Street in Long Beach is shown as a then-potential realignment of Route 1.

Disagree. Given the convention was to use wider lines for the state routes (either continuous, dashed, or dotted), I think the cartographer just didn't put the (1) close enough to the line.

Hm.  I thought it was odd that the "legislative" tiny 1 marker was placed so far south of the Route 1 shield, especially since I don't think there are other examples on the map in which a road was labeled with both a route shield and a tiny legislative-route marker of the same number.

I believe the tiny shields are left over from a previous edition of the map, when those shields would have been on the routing of the Crosstown Freeway (which was routed around 10th Street). They deleted this proposal sometime in the 1970s; why they would have erased the dashed lines, but not the route shields, I don't know.

Different cartography, but compare to the 1970 map:

http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239512~5511841:-Verso--State-Highway-Map,-Californ?sort=Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No

[TheStranger]

- Anaheim Street in Long Beach is shown as a then-potential realignment of Route 1.

Disagree. Given the convention was to use wider lines for the state routes (either continuous, dashed, or dotted), I think the cartographer just didn't put the (1) close enough to the line.

Hm.  I thought it was odd that the "legislative" tiny 1 marker was placed so far south of the Route 1 shield, especially since I don't think there are other examples on the map in which a road was labeled with both a route shield and a tiny legislative-route marker of the same number.

I believe the tiny shields are left over from a previous edition of the map, when those shields would have been on the routing of the Crosstown Freeway (which was routed around 10th Street). They deleted this proposal sometime in the 1970s; why they would have erased the dashed lines, but not the route shields, I don't know.

Different cartography, but compare to the 1970 map:

http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239512~5511841:-Verso--State-Highway-Map,-Californ?sort=Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No

Makes perfect sense now!  (So Anaheim Street would have been approximately the freeway corridor in all likelihood, based on the earlier map)

I also assume the 39 realignment around Midway City and Westminster was an adopted-but-rescinded freeway routing as well.

[DTComposer]

- Anaheim Street in Long Beach is shown as a then-potential realignment of Route 1.

Disagree. Given the convention was to use wider lines for the state routes (either continuous, dashed, or dotted), I think the cartographer just didn't put the (1) close enough to the line.

Hm.  I thought it was odd that the "legislative" tiny 1 marker was placed so far south of the Route 1 shield, especially since I don't think there are other examples on the map in which a road was labeled with both a route shield and a tiny legislative-route marker of the same number.

I believe the tiny shields are left over from a previous edition of the map, when those shields would have been on the routing of the Crosstown Freeway (which was routed around 10th Street). They deleted this proposal sometime in the 1970s; why they would have erased the dashed lines, but not the route shields, I don't know.

Different cartography, but compare to the 1970 map:

http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239512~5511841:-Verso--State-Highway-Map,-Californ?sort=Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No

Makes perfect sense now!  (So Anaheim Street would have been approximately the freeway corridor in all likelihood, based on the earlier map)

Closer to 10th Street for the portion in Long Beach, although it did use Anaheim Street in Wilmington.

Go about 3/4 down page 4 of this thread to see the Thomas Bros. map with the routing:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4456.75

I also assume the 39 realignment around Midway City and Westminster was an adopted-but-rescinded freeway routing as well.

I'm sure if you dig around in that thread you'll find that routing as well.

[cahwyguy]

As I'm continuing to work on the updates to my pages... You might find some of your answers in the Caltrans Traversable Highways Report, http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tsip/hseb/products/TravHwy02.pdf . It appears a number of adopted freeway routings were rescinded around the time of the 1975 map.

[ACSCmapcollector]

I have noticed that CA 198 between CA 99 and CA 63 was expressway in 2005, this is a topographical error and it should have shown CA 198 in the city of Visalia, California as freeway under construction in 1998 and finished in 2001.

Scott C. Presnal
Morro Bay, CA

[andy3175]

- The actual proposed routing of unbuilt Route 171 is shown: from the I-5/Pershing Street junction in San Diego eastward to today's Route 15/I-805 junction.  (Also shown is the then-proposed Route 157, which would have cut east from the Imperial Avenue/I-805 interchange to today's Route 54/125 junction, partially explaining why Route 125 has to exit off of itself in that spot.)

Actually, that's not a proposed routing -- it is a general "routing not determined" routing. As for Route 157, my notes show "A routing was adopted in 1962, but it was rescinded locally by SANDAG (San Diego Association of Governments, the regional planning agency) in 1974, and deleted from the state highway system 20 years later. " That's why the 157 routing is shown.

Speaking of SR 157, when looking through local planning documents for that portion of San Diego, there is a linear stretch of open space named the "Encanto Expressway." I wonder if the Encanto Expressway was intended to become part of SR 157 (obviously not anymore). Some reference info can be found at the following links:

http://www.sandiego.gov/planning/community/profiles/skylineparadisehills/pdf/sphccopnspcelem.pdf

The Jamacha open space system (the abandoned Encanto Expressway right-of-way) consisting of approximately 54 acres, is a second open space system within the community. This undeveloped canyon runs parallel to Jamacha Road from Encanto park on the west to Cardiff Street on the east. Single-family development lines the canyon's southern rim and the floor of the canyon along the foot of the northern canyon wall. Acquisition of this open space system is approximately 80 percent complete.

Maps of the Encanto Expressway can be found at these links:

http://www.sdcanyonlands.org/images/pdfs/DedicationInfo/skylineparadisehills.pdf (look for pink-colored open space area near Jamacha Road)

http://71.6.170.26/revize/sedc/project_and_development/docs/july11/PD_7a_Southeastern_SD_Neighborhoods_Initiative.pdf (look for orange area near Jamacha Road)

Regards,
Andy

[andy3175]

- Today's Richmond Parkway between the Giant Highway exit and I-80 near Hilltop Mall in Richmond is a slightly more northerly alignment than the then-proposed Route 93.

Not familiar with the area, but is Richmond Parkway part of the state highway system? If not, there's no reason they would be the same.

Though I recall it was constructed municipally, the signage at certain points (particularly at Giant Highway) seems to be more CalTrans style than anything locally installed. 

When researching updates to my California 93 page, I found some info about attempts to determine what it would take to bring Richmond Parkway into the state highway system. My California 93 page basically profiles the locally constructed and locally maintained Richmond Parkway. The routing of the Richmond Parkway happens to follow (roughly) a "proposed" (Daniel forgive me if I'm using the wrong word here) alignment of planned/unconstructed California 93. However, the Richmond Parkway was built locally and is not currently part of the state highway system.

I found this page under the Contra Costa Transportation Authority that discusses what it would take to "upgrade" Richmond Parkway into a true California 93. The link was http://www.ccta.net/assets/documents/Fact~Sheets~-~Measure~J/9002.pdf, but since the project to upgrade Richmond Parkway to California 93 was abandoned, the only way to access the original document is to see the Google cache.

Project Scope: Upgrade existing roadway to Caltrans Urban Arterial Standards; and/or provide funds to maintain roadway.

Funding Sources ($ in million): Total $94.0M
Measure J Transportation Sales Tax $0.6M
Other (TBD)93.4M
Measure J funds shown in escalated dollars. Actual commitment is in 2004 dollars as shown in Appendix A.

Need/Purpose: The Richmond Parkway (SR 93) provides a direct connection between Interstate 580 and Interstate 80 through the city of Richmond. It is built mostly to urban arterial standards; however, improvements are needed to facilitate the transfer of its ownership to Caltrans.

Possible Segmentation: Construction phasing is being considered because of the size of the project.

Issues: Project has significant funding shortfall. Cost reflects upgrade to urban arterial standards.

Current Status: Abandoned

Based on the abandonment of this project and the fact it's not in the current program, I doubt Richmond Parkway will be transferred to the state anytime soon.

Regards,
Andy

[andy3175]

- The actual proposed routing of unbuilt Route 171 is shown: from the I-5/Pershing Street junction in San Diego eastward to today's Route 15/I-805 junction.  (Also shown is the then-proposed Route 157, which would have cut east from the Imperial Avenue/I-805 interchange to today's Route 54/125 junction, partially explaining why Route 125 has to exit off of itself in that spot.)

Actually, that's not a proposed routing -- it is a general "routing not determined" routing.

Speaking of SR 171, that was the planned Switzer Canyon Freeway. This freeway would have originated at the I-5/Pershing Boulevard interchange near the Navy Hospital, proceeded northeast along Pershing Boulevard to the foot of Balboa Park Golf Course, and then made its way northeast across the golf course and into Switzer Canyon open space, which is currently a preserve. The final mile or so would have gone through houses and development in the North Park community before linking to I-805 and possibly I-8. The freeway was voted to be removed by SANDAG in 1993 and formally removed from the state legislative rolls in 1994. Some additional resources:

http://public.csusm.edu/kovri001/1950s.html

(T)he "Switzer Canyon Freeway," one of a few from the Draft Master Plan which was routed, was assigned a State Route number (specifically, State Route 171) and was never built. Pershing Drive through the southeast corner of Balboa Park follows a portion of the intended alignment, and the significant offramps which connect that road with Interstate 5 are the last remaining testament to this particular deceased route.

http://www.sandiegohistory.org/amero/notes-1953.htm

August 13, 1953, B-1:1-2. A Switzer Canyon Freeway, proposed long ago, would cause the Municipal Golf Course to be redesigned or eliminated, participants in a City Planning Commission discussion declared yesterday.

http://www.sandiego.gov/park-and-recreation/pdf/parkdesign/bpmasterplan.pdf

Changing public attitudes toward the environment also played a role in thwarting some of the Bartholomew Plan (1960 Balboa Park Master Plan) recommendations such as the Switzer Canyon Freeway.

Regards,
Andy

[NE2]

oh shit

[sdmichael]

One of the maps in that 1934 survey did answer a question about how the State Highway connected with Garvey from downtown before the Ramona Blvd extension was built. Makes sense. Great find! Now if I can go back up to Sacramento and get more copies or transcribe the data from the State Highways Through Incorporated Cities - 1935 book. It gives a detailed street by street routing.