Closed Section of Route 39 - Update

[cahwyguy]

[I would have posted it in the appropriate thread, but the search on this forum is poor and I couldn't find it easily]

I'm working on the highway pages today, going through the June CTC minutes. I saw the following revision to the 2024 SHOPP, which should provoke some discussion. Folks: This is why, when I post my changelogs and such, you should really read what is in the CTC minutes section.

In June 2025, the CTC revised this project in the 2024 SHOPP: 07-LA-39 40.0/44.4. PPNO 07-5381; ProjID 0718000117; EA 34770. Route 39 Near Falling Springs, from 1.8 miles north of Crystal Lake Road to Route 2. Rehabilitate and reopen a 4.4 mile segment of Route 39 as an evacuation route. (Long Lead Project) (PA&ED, PS&E, R/W Sup only). FY Changes: 29-30 28-29. Allocation Changes ($ × $1000) ["⊘" indicates phase not programmed]: PS&E $7,000 $8,632; R/W Sup $100 $178; ⊘Con Sup $7,000 $13,201; ⊘R/W Cap $100 $3; ⊘Const Cap $35,000 $51,582; TOTAL $57,100 $81,496. Note: Program PS&E and R/W support phases on this long lead project because the environmental document has been completed. Advance the year of delivery to expedite the reopening of the route so that it can be used as an evacuation route in case emergencies such as wildfires. Update project description to match the preferred alternative. Increase in cost is based on the estimate for the preferred alternative.
(Source: June 2025 CTC Agenda, Agenda Item 2.1a.(1d) #58)

[LilianaUwU]

So the plan is to first have it ready as an evacuation route, then to work on it further to open it to everyone?

[Max Rockatansky]

Seemingly so, the insinuation seems to be eventual full reopening.

[cahwyguy]

So the plan is to first have it ready as an evacuation route, then to work on it further to open it to everyone?

That's unclear from the CTC minutes. All that is clear is that, for now, it is being opened as an evacuation route. We may know more if we can find the completed environmental document.

[gonealookin]

This might be "the appropriate thread" (found by going to Google and entering "California SR 39 site:aaroads.com/forum"):

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=22380.0

[cahwyguy]

This might be "the appropriate thread" (found by going to Google and entering "California SR 39 site:aaroads.com/forum"):

Ah, out of habit I used Route instead of SR (because that's the convention for auto-linking on my website), and I didn't restrict it to the forum. I was using search within the forum, not Google.

[pderocco]

I've never seen any forum whose search is anywhere near as good as a Google search of the forum. The only advantage is that the forum can narrow the search to a particular section or thread, but you're more likely to be trying to find the right section or thread.

[pderocco]

So the plan is to first have it ready as an evacuation route, then to work on it further to open it to everyone?

I can see it now: the fire's burning up the canyon, and everyone's crowding at the gate, saying "Who's got the key?"

[Rothman]

I've never seen any forum whose search is anywhere near as good as a Google search of the forum. The only advantage is that the forum can narrow the search to a particular section or thread, but you're more likely to be trying to find the right section or thread.

Pfft.  I have yet to see Google search all boards in our forum.  It leaves a couple out.

[ClassicHasClass]

So the plan is to first have it ready as an evacuation route, then to work on it further to open it to everyone?

I can see it now: the fire's burning up the canyon, and everyone's crowding at the gate, saying "Who's got the key?"

I knew there was a reason I keep boltcutters in the car.

[Quillz]

Even as an evacuation route, this seems like the one that is going to happen "any day now." I remember back in 2003, it was supposedly going to be opened as an evacuation route, although I don't think it ever happened.

I just find the whole thing odd. It's been closed since 1978, all from one rock slide? I understand they happen, but there are many other routes in the state that go through similar issues and just close and reopen as necessary. Did Caltrans just get lazy with this one and just for whatever reason not want to reopen it? I know things are always more complicated than they seem, but I really can't figure out why this one segment has remained close for nearly a half century at this point.

[Max Rockatansky]

Even as an evacuation route, this seems like the one that is going to happen "any day now." I remember back in 2003, it was supposedly going to be opened as an evacuation route, although I don't think it ever happened.

I just find the whole thing odd. It's been closed since 1978, all from one rock slide? I understand they happen, but there are many other routes in the state that go through similar issues and just close and reopen as necessary. Did Caltrans just get lazy with this one and just for whatever reason not want to reopen it? I know things are always more complicated than they seem, but I really can't figure out why this one segment has remained close for nearly a half century at this point.

What I've never understood about all of this is why EIRs would be needed to clear and reopen an existing roadway.  It isn't as though new right of way is being obtained.

[pderocco]

Even as an evacuation route, this seems like the one that is going to happen "any day now." I remember back in 2003, it was supposedly going to be opened as an evacuation route, although I don't think it ever happened.

I just find the whole thing odd. It's been closed since 1978, all from one rock slide? I understand they happen, but there are many other routes in the state that go through similar issues and just close and reopen as necessary. Did Caltrans just get lazy with this one and just for whatever reason not want to reopen it? I know things are always more complicated than they seem, but I really can't figure out why this one segment has remained close for nearly a half century at this point.

What I've never understood about all of this is why EIRs would be needed to clear and reopen an existing roadway.  It isn't as though new right of way is being obtained.

Looking at historical imagery in Google Earth, I think there have been repeated small slides, each needing individual repairs, since the earliest 1995 imagery. So perhaps they'd need to reshape the slopes outside the actual ROW, to reduce the danger of future slides.

[Quillz]

Seems likely. Those are similar issues with CA-1 through Big Sur and US-101 near Crescent City. I know the latter will eventually get a tunnel realignment, the former will probably have to be realigned at some point as well.

[Plutonic Panda]

I had heard the argument that it was due to a mountain goat.

[Quillz]

That might have been one factor. It's not the only factor. 

[cahwyguy]

I"m going through the October 2025 CTC Agenda, and this item is there for future consideration of funding: https://catc.ca.gov/-/media/ctc-media/documents/ctc-meetings/2025/2025-10/74-2-2c6-a11y.pdf

The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is the CEQA Lead Agency for the
Project. The Project is located on State Route 39 from post mile 40.0 to post mile 44.4 in Los
Angeles County. The Project would restore and reopen a segment of State Route 39 as an
evacuation route and for use by Caltrans, U.S. Forest Service, and emergency-response
personnel. The project includes roadway rehabilitation, roadway delineation, clearing of debris
and rocks, drainage system restoration, new retaining walls, repair of existing soldier pile walls,
and repair of masonry retaining walls.

[...]

Digging deeper into the linked EIR (https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/district-7/documents/env-docs/sr-39-reopening-final-eir-ea-fonsi-january-2025_a11y.pdf), they considered four alternatives:

Alternative 1 – No-Build Alternative: The "No-Build Alternative" proposes to maintain the
existing conditions of the roadway without any improvements. The current safety
concerns would not be addressed.

Alternative 2 – Evacuation Route (Minimum Build): This alternative proposes limited
roadway restoration. Access to the roadway would be strictly for emergency service
responders and maintenance access. The roadway would continue to be closed to
public highway traffic.

Alternative 3 – Active Transportation Access (Shuttle and Bicycle Path Facilities): This
alternative proposes to restrict access to the roadway to recreational related activities
(e.g., enjoying vista views, hiking, biking, picnicking, camping, fishing, etc.) and allow
only an onsite shuttle service to operate and ferry national forest visitors through the
restricted roadway. The road would remain closed to public vehicles. This alternative
also proposes two sustainable public parking areas (at PMs 40.0 and 44.4) to be
constructed for visitors to park their vehicles and bicycles. The main structural features
include three viaduct structures, a rock-shed, five soldier pile retaining walls, six rock
catchment walls, and repairs to several retaining walls that are in poor condition.

Alternative 4 – Full Opening: This alternative proposes to rehabilitate and reopen the
closed segment of SR-39 to public traffic and provide unrestricted access and a
through-traffic connection between Interstate 210 (Foothill Freeway) and SR-2 (Angeles
Crest Highway). A roundabout feature is also proposed at the SR-2/SR-39 junction. No
parking lots are proposed under this alternative. The main structural features include
five viaduct structures, a rock-shed, five soldier pile retaining walls, four rock catchment
walls, and repairs to several retaining walls that are in poor condition.

It notes that "The restored connection would be accessible throughout the year, with seasonal
closures during times of inclement weather. These closures would likely occur during
the winter and early-spring seasons."

It looks like they went with Alternative 2. Why?

Alternative 2 was selected by the Caltrans Project Development Team (PDT) for the
following reasons:

Stakeholder Feedback: During the 60-day circulation period of the Draft Environmental
Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Caltrans received 100 comment
letters, many of which stated their preference to keep the roadway closed to public
access or maintain the road for emergency services. Twenty-six (26) commenters
stated their preference for Alternative 2. Project stakeholders such as the City of Azusa,
Nature for All, and the Sierra Club all stated their preference for the Evacuation Route
(Minimal Build) option. The USFS has stated that they have no preference or position
on which alternative is selected; however, they support the project and all of its build
alternatives. Alternative 2 would be the least impactful to the environment and would
provide better and safer access for first responders and for use as an evacuation route
during natural disasters or other emergencies that require immediate evacuation off of
the mountain.

Safety: The proposed roadway restoration under the Preferred Alternative is specifically
designed to enhance safety for the first responders and maintenance crews who
routinely clear obstructions along the route. Currently, geological instability and slope
degradation contribute to hazards such as flooding, landslides, erosion, and rockfall,
endangering personnel and rendering the roadway unreliable as an emergency
evacuation route. Alternative 2 proposes a host of improvements that include rock
scaling to address slope instability, installing and replacing retaining walls where the
slope has failed, and installing MGS to provide additional roadway safety. By
addressing these challenges, the proposed project will improve safety conditions to a
level that would provide a secure and functional roadway for its users, as well as
decrease response times for first responders during emergencies that occur in the area.
Cost: Alternative 2 represents the most cost-effective option, with a total capital cost of
$46 million. Its streamlined design achieves significantly lower costs compared to
Alternatives 3 and 4 while fully maintaining safety standards. Additionally, the proposed
road restorations will bring the facilities up to sufficient standards, reducing the
frequency and extent of required maintenance. As a result, long-term maintenance
costs are expected to decrease, providing ongoing financial and operational benefits.

Purpose and Need: Alternative 2 meets a portion of the project's purpose and need by
enhancing safety and access for emergency first-responders, including the USFS and
the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, and Caltrans maintenance crews. By
focusing on critical rehabilitation measures such as stabilizing slopes, improving
drainage, and mitigating rockfall hazards, this alternative addresses many of the
underlying safety concerns that jeopardize personnel working along the closed section
of SR-39. Although the segment from PM 40.0 to PM 44.4 would remain closed to the
public, the preferred alternative significantly improves emergency response capabilities
and reduces risk for those who routinely access the roadway. Although it does not fulfill
every aspect of the project's broader purpose and need, it still achieves the primary
goals of preserving roadway integrity, providing critical access during emergencies, and
enhancing overall safety conditions.

Environment: Alternative 2 is the least environmentally invasive option due to its
minimal design, which helps preserve the surrounding environment and significantly
reduces impacts to the fully protected Nelson's Bighorn Sheep. The total acreage of
impacted lands under the Preferred Alternative is substantially smaller compared to
Alternatives 3 and 4, minimizing the effects on plants, animals, and other natural
resources within the project area. Although road improvements will be made, the
roadway will remain officially closed to the public, ensuring that traffic volume does not
increase. This will further benefit wildlife, particularly species that rely on safe road
crossings.

[Plutonic Panda]

Of course they went with alt 2. What else did you expect? Absolutely stupid if they don't reopen this road. Smh

[Max Rockatansky]

I can't help but feel if this was a roadway that didn't carry a state highway number it would have been repaired long ago.  Los Angeles County or the Forest Service patching things up flies more under the radar.

[Plutonic Panda]

It's very disappointing they went with this direction. All I'm hoping for at this point is perhaps it's an interim fix. I thought at one point they were considering going with a phase approach with the ultimate goal of a full reopening.

[Max Rockatansky]

I mean hey, if you can pull off a clinch on 39 now you'll have accomplished the ultimate.  All it takes is one forest fire, impeccable timing and a willingness to risk everything for a clinch.

[Plutonic Panda]

I'm not gonna lie late at night one night, I was driving up Mulholland and I went to the trailhead near Encino Hills. The gate was open and I may or may not have driven halfway down the dirt portion until I got scared and I said yeah, this is probably not a good idea and I turned around. I kind of wish I would've completed it but it my gut told me it was not a good idea. I suspect the Rangers were probably on that trail and they were further down the path than I was.

[cahwyguy]

It's very disappointing they went with this direction. All I'm hoping for at this point is perhaps it's an interim fix. I thought at one point they were considering going with a phase approach with the ultimate goal of a full reopening.

I have a feeling that the priorities of the readers of this board are very different than the priorities of Caltrans or the CTC. Here, there is much less concern with total cost, environmental impact, or the wishes of nearby residents. Not in their list, for some reason, is also reduction of VMT. Having it emergency use certainly reduces VMT. VMT, again, is not a priority for some of the readers of this board.

In short: Very different goals. In fact, it is rare that the goals of the CTC and Caltrans would tend to align with the readers of this board fully on major projects.

I'll also note there were two additional alternatives that were discarded earlier in the environmental process. They are in the EIR, and will be on my pages when I do the updates.

[Plutonic Panda]

I'm very aware that California department of transportation has switched from levels of service consideration to vehicle miles traveled. And I'm sure you're aware that I think that's a very ridiculous ultimatum they have to put themselves in and I've been very outspoken on it. While I remain very pro Car and freeway, I am careful and cautious of our environment. I go backpacking in Yosemite all the time I'm hiking. I love the great outdoors. Kayaking Colorado through Moab. I get it.

The Los Angeles forest is a huge national forest. Their absolutely needs to be environmental considerations but at the same time there's just a handful of main roads that go through it and where is the evidence to show that reopening this road full-time is going to cause any significant harm to the forest? And if this short stretch of road will do that then heck while we're at it why not just close the entire crest highway while we're at it?

I mean after all, let's be honest is that highway really needed? It's almost certainly gonna have to have major repairs in the future due to landslides. It's gonna happen again. It's just a matter of when. So why not just get rid of the problem right now? That way we can close all of the campsites and all of the maintenance that comes with all of these overlooks that the Department of agriculture has to maintain.

And I think you could also make an argument that building a tunnel from the 2/210 interchange to Palmdale would help the forest as it would take more cars that use the Angeles Forest Highway to bypass congestion on CA-14(another spectacle that is to behold Metro is proposing an actual widening which I honestly don't think will ever happen or at least anytime soon). You could make several arguments for such a tunnel. A lot of people drive on those mountain roads and they get road rage because of slow drivers and there's a big safety issue that comes with people making illegal passes which happens regularly.

Well, at the end of the day, obviously that tunnel is very unlikely given the 710 tunnel didn't happen. The cost would be enormous. Well, you got people that are up in arms about the high speed rail segment going through the forest and you also have people that are questioning whether or not we should keep repairing state route one around the Big Sur area.

And I know we keep going in circles on this, but it's just frustrating to see news like this. All I can do is hope that maybe one day the tides will change. I'm not holding my breath though. In all actuality, I'm pretty happy with what we have. We're blessed to have pretty significant infrastructure here. And I do appreciate the improvements that Metro has made to their mass transportation system as I use it daily.

[cahwyguy]

I'm very aware that California department of transportation has switched from levels of service consideration to vehicle miles traveled. And I'm sure you're aware that I think that's a very ridiculous ultimatum they have to put themselves in and I've been very outspoken on it. While I remain very pro Car and freeway, I am careful and cautious of our environment. I go backpacking in Yosemite all the time I'm hiking. I love the great outdoors. Kayaking Colorado through Moab. I get it.

The Los Angeles forest is a huge national forest. Their absolutely needs to be environmental considerations but at the same time there's just a handful of main roads that go through it and where is the evidence to show that reopening this road full-time is going to cause any significant harm to the forest? And if this short stretch of road will do that then heck while we're at it why not just close the entire crest highway while we're at it?

I mean after all, let's be honest is that highway really needed? It's almost certainly gonna have to have major repairs in the future due to landslides. It's gonna happen again. It's just a matter of when. So why not just get rid of the problem right now? That way we can close all of the campsites and all of the maintenance that comes with all of these overlooks that the Department of agriculture has to maintain.

And I think you could also make an argument that building a tunnel from the 2/210 interchange to Palmdale would help the forest as it would take more cars that use the Angeles Forest Highway to bypass congestion on CA-14(another spectacle that is to behold Metro is proposing an actual widening which I honestly don't think will ever happen or at least anytime soon). You could make several arguments for such a tunnel. A lot of people drive on those mountain roads and they get road rage because of slow drivers and there's a big safety issue that comes with people making illegal passes which happens regularly.

Well, at the end of the day, obviously that tunnel is very unlikely given the 710 tunnel didn't happen. The cost would be enormous. Well, you got people that are up in arms about the high speed rail segment going through the forest and you also have people that are questioning whether or not we should keep repairing state route one around the Big Sur area.

And I know we keep going in circles on this, but it's just frustrating to see news like this. All I can do is hope that maybe one day the tides will change. I'm not holding my breath though. In all actuality, I'm pretty happy with what we have. We're blessed to have pretty significant infrastructure here. And I do appreciate the improvements that Metro has made to their mass transportation system as I use it daily.

Mind you, my comment wasn't intended to convince you to agree. I don't expect folks here to agree. But what we should strive for is to at least understand the CTC/Caltrans reasoning.