California Freeway and Expressway System

[kurumi]

https://wiki.aaroads.com/wiki/California_Freeway_and_Expressway_System

This is a "system of existing or planned freeways and expressways in the U.S. state of California".

I took a cursory (but not exhaustive) look, and it looks like every highway with built portions is on the list.

Route 153, a 1/2-mile road in El Dorado County, is on the system.

So is Route 236, in Big Basin Redwoods State Park. "Several sections of the road are less than two lanes wide and large vehicles are discouraged from traveling this road. The reason for the narrow road is to not disturb the large redwood trees that the road passes by in the densely forested lowlands." But this is going to be an expressway some day.

Are there any existing routes that are not (at least partially) on the system?

[cahwyguy]

There are some routes that aren't on the system, but they are mostly some of the smaller routes for which there are no plans to upgrade them. In particular, I know the portions of Route 710 in Pasadena were removed. That Wiki article is using the code from 2019, and that has changed since then. Further, the article is WRONG. It, for example, lists Route 173 as being in the system. Read the code. Route 173 isn't in the F&E system.

[Max Rockatansky]

You mean to say dirt 173 (then Sign Route 2) wasn't planned for expressway upgrades at some point?  Im retroactively disappointed in the 1950s era California Highway Commission. 

[Max Rockatansky]

Oh boy, I shouldn't have opened the County Route pages.  There is a lot there which isn't current.  Granted it is actually pretty hard to know what is going on some of these county routes you go see for yourself. 

[Voyager]

https://wiki.aaroads.com/wiki/California_Freeway_and_Expressway_System

This is a "system of existing or planned freeways and expressways in the U.S. state of California".

I took a cursory (but not exhaustive) look, and it looks like every highway with built portions is on the list.

Route 153, a 1/2-mile road in El Dorado County, is on the system.

So is Route 236, in Big Basin Redwoods State Park. "Several sections of the road are less than two lanes wide and large vehicles are discouraged from traveling this road. The reason for the narrow road is to not disturb the large redwood trees that the road passes by in the densely forested lowlands." But this is going to be an expressway some day.

Are there any existing routes that are not (at least partially) on the system?

Do you mean still "planned"? There's a few that still exist in the official maps but will never be built, CA 77 I think is still one of them?

[Max Rockatansky]

https://wiki.aaroads.com/wiki/California_Freeway_and_Expressway_System

This is a "system of existing or planned freeways and expressways in the U.S. state of California".

I took a cursory (but not exhaustive) look, and it looks like every highway with built portions is on the list.

Route 153, a 1/2-mile road in El Dorado County, is on the system.

So is Route 236, in Big Basin Redwoods State Park. "Several sections of the road are less than two lanes wide and large vehicles are discouraged from traveling this road. The reason for the narrow road is to not disturb the large redwood trees that the road passes by in the densely forested lowlands." But this is going to be an expressway some day.

Are there any existing routes that are not (at least partially) on the system?

Do you mean still "planned"? There's a few that still exist in the official maps but will never be built, CA 77 I think is still one of them?

There are tons of legislatively defined highway segments still on the books which never got built.  Likewise, there are also CHC alignment adoptions which have never been rescinded.

[Voyager]

https://wiki.aaroads.com/wiki/California_Freeway_and_Expressway_System

This is a "system of existing or planned freeways and expressways in the U.S. state of California".

I took a cursory (but not exhaustive) look, and it looks like every highway with built portions is on the list.

Route 153, a 1/2-mile road in El Dorado County, is on the system.

So is Route 236, in Big Basin Redwoods State Park. "Several sections of the road are less than two lanes wide and large vehicles are discouraged from traveling this road. The reason for the narrow road is to not disturb the large redwood trees that the road passes by in the densely forested lowlands." But this is going to be an expressway some day.

Are there any existing routes that are not (at least partially) on the system?

Do you mean still "planned"? There's a few that still exist in the official maps but will never be built, CA 77 I think is still one of them?

There are tons of legislatively defined highway segments still on the books which never got built.  Likewise, there are also CHC alignment adoptions which have never been rescinded.

Is there a reason they were never relinquished? I actually looked more into it and the wild Sir Francis Drake freeway is still on there. There's absolutely no chance that would ever be built, so curious why they never deleted it.

[Max Rockatansky]

https://wiki.aaroads.com/wiki/California_Freeway_and_Expressway_System

This is a "system of existing or planned freeways and expressways in the U.S. state of California".

I took a cursory (but not exhaustive) look, and it looks like every highway with built portions is on the list.

Route 153, a 1/2-mile road in El Dorado County, is on the system.

So is Route 236, in Big Basin Redwoods State Park. "Several sections of the road are less than two lanes wide and large vehicles are discouraged from traveling this road. The reason for the narrow road is to not disturb the large redwood trees that the road passes by in the densely forested lowlands." But this is going to be an expressway some day.

Are there any existing routes that are not (at least partially) on the system?

Do you mean still "planned"? There's a few that still exist in the official maps but will never be built, CA 77 I think is still one of them?

There are tons of legislatively defined highway segments still on the books which never got built.  Likewise, there are also CHC alignment adoptions which have never been rescinded.

Is there a reason they were never relinquished? I actually looked more into it and the wild Sir Francis Drake freeway is still on there. There's absolutely no chance that would ever be built, so curious why they never deleted it.

Someone has to introduce a legislative bill to actually alter the definition of these highways.  The CTC could rescind actual alignments adoptions I guess whenever they like.

Here is a fun example, CA 276 still exists on paper as a legislatively defined state highway.  Given all the shenanigans surrounding Mineral King and the once planned Disney Resort it is amusing everyone forgot to introduce a bill to delate the highway definition.  This has also spawned some necro-state highways which have been fully relinquished but yet still have a legal definition.  CA 225 is a good example of that.

[Voyager]

https://wiki.aaroads.com/wiki/California_Freeway_and_Expressway_System

This is a "system of existing or planned freeways and expressways in the U.S. state of California".

I took a cursory (but not exhaustive) look, and it looks like every highway with built portions is on the list.

Route 153, a 1/2-mile road in El Dorado County, is on the system.

So is Route 236, in Big Basin Redwoods State Park. "Several sections of the road are less than two lanes wide and large vehicles are discouraged from traveling this road. The reason for the narrow road is to not disturb the large redwood trees that the road passes by in the densely forested lowlands." But this is going to be an expressway some day.

Are there any existing routes that are not (at least partially) on the system?

Do you mean still "planned"? There's a few that still exist in the official maps but will never be built, CA 77 I think is still one of them?

There are tons of legislatively defined highway segments still on the books which never got built.  Likewise, there are also CHC alignment adoptions which have never been rescinded.

Is there a reason they were never relinquished? I actually looked more into it and the wild Sir Francis Drake freeway is still on there. There's absolutely no chance that would ever be built, so curious why they never deleted it.

Someone has to introduce a legislative bill to actually alter the definition of these highways.  The CTC could rescind actual alignments adoptions I guess whenever they like.

Here is a fun example, CA 276 still exists on paper as a legislatively defined state highway.  Given all the shenanigans surrounding Mineral King and the once planned Disney Resort it is amusing everyone forgot to introduce a bill to delate the highway definition.  This has also spawned some necro-state highways which have been fully relinquished but yet still have a legal definition.  CA 225 is a good example of that.

I'm still mad about the Mineral King highway, I definitely didn't want the Disney ski resort to be built, but a highway there would have been nice. It's pretty unpassable without 4wd these days, and as someone who has been *everywhere* in the Sierra, this is not one I'm willing to give a try.

[Max Rockatansky]

https://wiki.aaroads.com/wiki/California_Freeway_and_Expressway_System

This is a "system of existing or planned freeways and expressways in the U.S. state of California".

I took a cursory (but not exhaustive) look, and it looks like every highway with built portions is on the list.

Route 153, a 1/2-mile road in El Dorado County, is on the system.

So is Route 236, in Big Basin Redwoods State Park. "Several sections of the road are less than two lanes wide and large vehicles are discouraged from traveling this road. The reason for the narrow road is to not disturb the large redwood trees that the road passes by in the densely forested lowlands." But this is going to be an expressway some day.

Are there any existing routes that are not (at least partially) on the system?

Do you mean still "planned"? There's a few that still exist in the official maps but will never be built, CA 77 I think is still one of them?

There are tons of legislatively defined highway segments still on the books which never got built.  Likewise, there are also CHC alignment adoptions which have never been rescinded.

Is there a reason they were never relinquished? I actually looked more into it and the wild Sir Francis Drake freeway is still on there. There's absolutely no chance that would ever be built, so curious why they never deleted it.

Someone has to introduce a legislative bill to actually alter the definition of these highways.  The CTC could rescind actual alignments adoptions I guess whenever they like.

Here is a fun example, CA 276 still exists on paper as a legislatively defined state highway.  Given all the shenanigans surrounding Mineral King and the once planned Disney Resort it is amusing everyone forgot to introduce a bill to delate the highway definition.  This has also spawned some necro-state highways which have been fully relinquished but yet still have a legal definition.  CA 225 is a good example of that.

I'm still mad about the Mineral King highway, I definitely didn't want the Disney ski resort to be built, but a highway there would have been nice. It's pretty unpassable without 4wd these days, and as someone who has been *everywhere* in the Sierra, this is not one I'm willing to give a try.

You don't need 4WD to use Mineral King Road.  Even the dirt portions are just covering asphalt.  The corridor underwent a resurfacing this year within Sequoia National Park which ought to make it far less haggard.  Functionally 90% of Mineral King Road overlays the original stage road to the silver mines.  Definitely worth a drive and was one of my favorite rural highways to feature on my page:

https://www.gribblenation.org/2018/09/mineral-king-roadmountain-road-375.html

For context I've driven up to Mineral King in a Sonic, Impreza and Challenger.  The biggest issue is at the parking lots where Marmots like to munch on exposed wiring and hoses.

[Scott5114]

There are some routes that aren't on the system, but they are mostly some of the smaller routes for which there are no plans to upgrade them. In particular, I know the portions of Route 710 in Pasadena were removed. That Wiki article is using the code from 2019, and that has changed since then. Further, the article is WRONG. It, for example, lists Route 173 as being in the system. Read the code. Route 173 isn't in the F&E system.

@rschen7754 heads up

[Quillz]

I think a lot of these were added because the first half of the 20th century had a "we can do anything, build anywhere" mentality. This is why so many freeways were planned just about everywhere. Things like the Reseda Freeway, the Santa Paula Freeway, etc. You can see on the original 1934 highway map a lot of routes were just dotted lines, with no real regard given to how those connections would be made. It was a "here's the dream, we'll focus on the reality later" mentality.

As to why a lot of these still exist, well, as noted, it's because there needs to be legislation to say they don't exist. But I would imagine there's also always the nonzero chance that some of these could get revived or attempted again. Or, some of these could be used as political pet projects. You know, "elect me and I'll finally build this freeway!" scenario. Of course nothing ever comes of it, so naturally it just gets recycled for the next election cycle.

[rschen7754]

There are some routes that aren't on the system, but they are mostly some of the smaller routes for which there are no plans to upgrade them. In particular, I know the portions of Route 710 in Pasadena were removed. That Wiki article is using the code from 2019, and that has changed since then. Further, the article is WRONG. It, for example, lists Route 173 as being in the system. Read the code. Route 173 isn't in the F&E system.

@rschen7754 heads up

I kindly have to ask, where is the later versions of the code? The CA legislature still has the 2019 version https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=SHC&division=1.&title=&part=&chapter=2.&article=2. I can correct 173 since I see it is no (longer?) there, but not 710.

[cahwyguy]

There are some routes that aren't on the system, but they are mostly some of the smaller routes for which there are no plans to upgrade them. In particular, I know the portions of Route 710 in Pasadena were removed. That Wiki article is using the code from 2019, and that has changed since then. Further, the article is WRONG. It, for example, lists Route 173 as being in the system. Read the code. Route 173 isn't in the F&E system.

@rschen7754 heads up

I kindly have to ask, where is the later versions of the code? The CA legislature still has the 2019 version https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=SHC&division=1.&title=&part=&chapter=2.&article=2. I can correct 173 since I see it is no (longer?) there, but not 710.

Justia Law has the 2024 version: https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-shc/ . A simple Google search gave it to me. But I also follow all legislation, so I tend to catch such changes for my pages, which is why I know about 710:

Section 622.3 of the Streets and Highway Code explicitly authorizes relinquishment of the Pasadena stub, per SB 7 (Chapter 835, 10/21/2019):

    (a) Upon a determination by the commission that it is in the best interest of the state to do so, the commission may, upon terms and conditions approved by it, relinquish to the City of Pasadena the portion of Route 710 within the jurisdictional limits of that city, if the department and the city enter into an agreement providing for that relinquishment.

    (b) A relinquishment under this section shall become effective on the date following the county recorder's recordation of the relinquishment resolution containing the commission's approval of the terms and conditions of the relinquishment.

    (c) On and after the effective date of the relinquishment, all of the following shall occur:

    (1) The relinquished portion of Route 710 shall cease to be a state highway.

    (2) The relinquished portion of Route 710 shall be ineligible for future adoption under Section 81.

    (3) The City of Pasadena shall ensure the continuity of traffic flow on the relinquished portion of Route 710.

Note: SB 7 modified the definition of the route in the Freeway and Expressway system (Article 2 of the SHC) to, as of 1/1/2024, delete the gap between Alhambra Ave in Los Angeles and California Street in Pasadena (i.e., the space between the stubs) from the freeway and expressway system. This means that if the state wants a freeway in that segment, they have to start the route adoption process from scratch. SB 7 does not authorize relinquishment of the Alhambra stub, nor any portion of the unconstructed gap that is not in the City of Pasadena.

In 2019, both AB 29 (Chapter 791, 10/21/2019) and SB 7 (Chapter 835, 10/21/2019) were chaptered, and SB 7, being chaptered last, took precedence. SB 7 changed the definition of the route in the freeway and expressway system to prepare for relinquishment of the Route 710 gap (note that it did not change the definition of the route itself):

    (1) Route 47 to Route 1.

    (2) Route 1 near the City of Long Beach to Route 10 near the City of Alhambra.

    (3) Route 10 near the City of Alhambra to Route 210 near the City of Pasadena.

SB 7 explicitly requires, that as of 1/1/2024, items (2) and (3) are changed to

    (2) Route 1 near the City of Long Beach to Route 10 near the City of Alhambra Alhambra Avenue in the City of Los Angeles.

    (3) Route 10 near the City of Alhambra California Boulevard in the City of Pasadena to Route 210.

This explicitly deletes the unconstructed portion of Route 710 from the freeway and expressway system. Further, SB 7 added Section 622.3 to the SHC to read:

    (a) Upon a determination by the commission that it is in the best interest of the state to do so, the commission may, upon terms and conditions approved by it, relinquish to the City of Pasadena the portion of Route 710 within the jurisdictional limits of that city, if the department and the city enter into an agreement providing for that relinquishment.

    (b) A relinquishment under this section shall become effective on the date following the county recorder's recordation of the relinquishment resolution containing the commission's approval of the terms and conditions of the relinquishment.

    (c) On and after the effective date of the relinquishment, all of the following shall occur:

    (1) The relinquished portion of Route 710 shall cease to be a state highway.

    (2) The relinquished portion of Route 710 shall be ineligible for future adoption under Section 81.

    (3) The City of Pasadena shall ensure the continuity of traffic flow on the relinquished portion of Route 710.

[rschen7754]

There are some routes that aren't on the system, but they are mostly some of the smaller routes for which there are no plans to upgrade them. In particular, I know the portions of Route 710 in Pasadena were removed. That Wiki article is using the code from 2019, and that has changed since then. Further, the article is WRONG. It, for example, lists Route 173 as being in the system. Read the code. Route 173 isn't in the F&E system.

@rschen7754 heads up

I kindly have to ask, where is the later versions of the code? The CA legislature still has the 2019 version https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=SHC&division=1.&title=&part=&chapter=2.&article=2. I can correct 173 since I see it is no (longer?) there, but not 710.

Justia Law has the 2024 version: https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-shc/ . A simple Google search gave it to me. But I also follow all legislation, so I tend to catch such changes for my pages, which is why I know about 710:

Section 622.3 of the Streets and Highway Code explicitly authorizes relinquishment of the Pasadena stub, per SB 7 (Chapter 835, 10/21/2019):

    (a) Upon a determination by the commission that it is in the best interest of the state to do so, the commission may, upon terms and conditions approved by it, relinquish to the City of Pasadena the portion of Route 710 within the jurisdictional limits of that city, if the department and the city enter into an agreement providing for that relinquishment.

    (b) A relinquishment under this section shall become effective on the date following the county recorder's recordation of the relinquishment resolution containing the commission's approval of the terms and conditions of the relinquishment.

    (c) On and after the effective date of the relinquishment, all of the following shall occur:

    (1) The relinquished portion of Route 710 shall cease to be a state highway.

    (2) The relinquished portion of Route 710 shall be ineligible for future adoption under Section 81.

    (3) The City of Pasadena shall ensure the continuity of traffic flow on the relinquished portion of Route 710.

Note: SB 7 modified the definition of the route in the Freeway and Expressway system (Article 2 of the SHC) to, as of 1/1/2024, delete the gap between Alhambra Ave in Los Angeles and California Street in Pasadena (i.e., the space between the stubs) from the freeway and expressway system. This means that if the state wants a freeway in that segment, they have to start the route adoption process from scratch. SB 7 does not authorize relinquishment of the Alhambra stub, nor any portion of the unconstructed gap that is not in the City of Pasadena.

In 2019, both AB 29 (Chapter 791, 10/21/2019) and SB 7 (Chapter 835, 10/21/2019) were chaptered, and SB 7, being chaptered last, took precedence. SB 7 changed the definition of the route in the freeway and expressway system to prepare for relinquishment of the Route 710 gap (note that it did not change the definition of the route itself):

    (1) Route 47 to Route 1.

    (2) Route 1 near the City of Long Beach to Route 10 near the City of Alhambra.

    (3) Route 10 near the City of Alhambra to Route 210 near the City of Pasadena.

SB 7 explicitly requires, that as of 1/1/2024, items (2) and (3) are changed to

    (2) Route 1 near the City of Long Beach to Route 10 near the City of Alhambra Alhambra Avenue in the City of Los Angeles.

    (3) Route 10 near the City of Alhambra California Boulevard in the City of Pasadena to Route 210.

This explicitly deletes the unconstructed portion of Route 710 from the freeway and expressway system. Further, SB 7 added Section 622.3 to the SHC to read:

    (a) Upon a determination by the commission that it is in the best interest of the state to do so, the commission may, upon terms and conditions approved by it, relinquish to the City of Pasadena the portion of Route 710 within the jurisdictional limits of that city, if the department and the city enter into an agreement providing for that relinquishment.

    (b) A relinquishment under this section shall become effective on the date following the county recorder's recordation of the relinquishment resolution containing the commission's approval of the terms and conditions of the relinquishment.

    (c) On and after the effective date of the relinquishment, all of the following shall occur:

    (1) The relinquished portion of Route 710 shall cease to be a state highway.

    (2) The relinquished portion of Route 710 shall be ineligible for future adoption under Section 81.

    (3) The City of Pasadena shall ensure the continuity of traffic flow on the relinquished portion of Route 710.

Thanks, so there is nothing past what the 2019 version had.

It appears that some idiot added all the routes to the list in 2008, and it was never caught. I adjusted the list and removed references from the routes that are not part of the system at all. I'll have to take another pass and check the routes that are partially in the system at some point.