AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules for political content in signatures and user profiles. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: California 245 and other more obscure California State Highways  (Read 27621 times)

coatimundi

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 788
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Marina, CA
  • Last Login: May 12, 2017, 12:42:29 AM
Re: California 245 and other more obscure California State Highways
« Reply #50 on: July 09, 2016, 12:52:27 AM »

As for CA-156 between San Juan Bautista and Hollister, I am not aware of any plans to make that segment a freeway.

Third item in "Construction Projects":
http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist05/paffairs/sanbenito/sbtcog.pdf

If you Google it, you'll probably also find some mentions of it. It's been muddling about for a few years.

156 west is TAMC's deal while east is San Benito's. I think the former has a genuine chance of coming to fruition while the latter will just remain a line item for many years. The people in Hollister will fight it.
Logged

andy3175

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1299
  • Location: San Diego, California, USA
  • Last Login: November 11, 2019, 11:57:06 PM
    • AARoads
Re: California 245 and other more obscure California State Highways
« Reply #51 on: July 09, 2016, 12:53:41 AM »

CA-152 west of the 152-156 intersection is a conventional 2-lane highway and is still considered to be quite dangerous.  Long (and I mean *long*) term plans call for a 4-lane highway to be built starting at the US 101/CA-25 interchange south of Gilroy and proceed east to the 152-156 junction.  Due to funding issues, local agencies are looking at tolling this highway to help pay for it.

It seems like this will take some time. I did find a fact sheet, but it doesn't show much in the way of funding.

http://www.vta.org/sfc/servlet.shepherd/version/download/068A0000001Fbxs

The map on this link shows you are correct. SR 152 will be realigned to the south of Gilroy per this map. This would allow a continuous four-lane corridor all the way to US 101.
Logged
Regards,
Andy

www.aaroads.com

myosh_tino

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2714
  • Silicon Valley Roadgeek

  • Age: 45
  • Location: Cupertino, CA
  • Last Login: October 30, 2019, 02:41:18 PM
    • Silicon Valley Roads @ Markyville.com
Re: California 245 and other more obscure California State Highways
« Reply #52 on: July 09, 2016, 12:54:51 AM »

CA-152 west of the 152-156 intersection is a conventional 2-lane highway and is still considered to be quite dangerous.  Long (and I mean *long*) term plans call for a 4-lane highway to be built starting at the US 101/CA-25 interchange south of Gilroy and proceed east to the 152-156 junction.  Due to funding issues, local agencies are looking at tolling this highway to help pay for it.

An expressway would be a massive improvement for both highways regardless.  I hit some stop and go heading into Gilroy that was backed up almost for a mile on that left hand turn CA 152 takes at the light at the junction with Ferguson Road.

Not sure how familiar you are with CA-152 but that signal at Ferguson was only put in a couple of years ago.  Before, westbound traffic had a make a hard left turn (from a turn pocket) to remain on CA-152.

As for a potential bypass, I did a little digging (using Google) and apparently, there are many opposed to a toll road including the city of Gilroy, environmentalists and agricultural interests in the San Joaquin valley who are concerned that a toll road would increase costs of getting their goods to market.  If this thing is built in the next 10-20 years, I'd be really surprised.
Logged
Quote from: golden eagle
If I owned a dam and decided to donate it to charity, would I be giving a dam? I'm sure that might be a first because no one really gives a dam.

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 9667
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 11:40:44 AM
    • Sure, Why Not? (Highway Blog Spot)
Re: California 245 and other more obscure California State Highways
« Reply #53 on: July 09, 2016, 01:04:31 AM »

CA-152 west of the 152-156 intersection is a conventional 2-lane highway and is still considered to be quite dangerous.  Long (and I mean *long*) term plans call for a 4-lane highway to be built starting at the US 101/CA-25 interchange south of Gilroy and proceed east to the 152-156 junction.  Due to funding issues, local agencies are looking at tolling this highway to help pay for it.

An expressway would be a massive improvement for both highways regardless.  I hit some stop and go heading into Gilroy that was backed up almost for a mile on that left hand turn CA 152 takes at the light at the junction with Ferguson Road.

Not sure how familiar you are with CA-152 but that signal at Ferguson was only put in a couple of years ago.  Before, westbound traffic had a make a hard left turn (from a turn pocket) to remain on CA-152.

As for a potential bypass, I did a little digging (using Google) and apparently, there are many opposed to a toll road including the city of Gilroy, environmentalists and agricultural interests in the San Joaquin valley who are concerned that a toll road would increase costs of getting their goods to market.  If this thing is built in the next 10-20 years, I'd be really surprised.

Had a couple run ins over the years mainly from where 156 terminates.  I saw what you were talking about with the hard left though where that light is.  It's almost one of those situations where maybe a large traffic circle would work better with a more consistent flow of traffic rather than the back up that light is causing?

What kind of tolls are they talking that has San Joaquin farm folks so upset?  Say if it cost $3.00 dollars for each pass through even that's probably going to be offset by the gains in transport time on each truck.

myosh_tino

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2714
  • Silicon Valley Roadgeek

  • Age: 45
  • Location: Cupertino, CA
  • Last Login: October 30, 2019, 02:41:18 PM
    • Silicon Valley Roads @ Markyville.com
Re: California 245 and other more obscure California State Highways
« Reply #54 on: July 09, 2016, 01:30:03 AM »

What kind of tolls are they talking that has San Joaquin farm folks so upset?  Say if it cost $3.00 dollars for each pass through even that's probably going to be offset by the gains in transport time on each truck.

I don't have any idea but here's something to think about.

The auto toll on our local toll bridges runs $4-6.  A 5-axle 18-wheeler crossing the same bridge has to pay a $25 toll.  Looking to see how the toll roads in Orange County operate, it appears that tolls for big rigs compared to cars roughly follow the same ratio.  On CA-73, autos pay $5-8 while big rigs pay $20-32 depending on time of day.
Logged
Quote from: golden eagle
If I owned a dam and decided to donate it to charity, would I be giving a dam? I'm sure that might be a first because no one really gives a dam.

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 9667
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 11:40:44 AM
    • Sure, Why Not? (Highway Blog Spot)
Re: California 245 and other more obscure California State Highways
« Reply #55 on: July 09, 2016, 09:31:47 AM »

What kind of tolls are they talking that has San Joaquin farm folks so upset?  Say if it cost $3.00 dollars for each pass through even that's probably going to be offset by the gains in transport time on each truck.

I don't have any idea but here's something to think about.

The auto toll on our local toll bridges runs $4-6.  A 5-axle 18-wheeler crossing the same bridge has to pay a $25 toll.  Looking to see how the toll roads in Orange County operate, it appears that tolls for big rigs compared to cars roughly follow the same ratio.  On CA-73, autos pay $5-8 while big rigs pay $20-32 depending on time of day.

Ah, yes that's true...but would Caltrans really follow the same toll schedule for a non-urban corridor?  If they were considering a similar rate to CA 73 then yeah I see why those farmers would be pretty angry.  At minimum at least seems like there a consensus that an upgrade really needs to be done...too bad it will be a slow go. 

coatimundi

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 788
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Marina, CA
  • Last Login: May 12, 2017, 12:42:29 AM
Re: California 245 and other more obscure California State Highways
« Reply #56 on: July 09, 2016, 01:36:16 PM »

To my knowledge, all toll roads and bridges charge by the axle. Even facilities like the Ohio Turnpike and the rural toll roads in Oklahoma. It's to offset the extra wear on the road.
These new facility bypass toll roads, where an existing free facility is bypassed, never work. When traffic volumes slack off - and they're relatively low most of the day on 152 - then no one wants to pay the toll. Two examples of this in Texas: Hardy Toll Road in Houston (it was basically subsidized by the much more successful Sam Houston Tollway) and SH 130 that has already gone bankrupt.
Unless there's significant development east of Gilroy - and there may very well be some day - that creates traffic impediments on the existing corridor, I don't see how a toll facility would be economically feasible.
Logged

myosh_tino

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2714
  • Silicon Valley Roadgeek

  • Age: 45
  • Location: Cupertino, CA
  • Last Login: October 30, 2019, 02:41:18 PM
    • Silicon Valley Roads @ Markyville.com
Re: California 245 and other more obscure California State Highways
« Reply #57 on: July 09, 2016, 02:32:38 PM »

These new facility bypass toll roads, where an existing free facility is bypassed, never work. When traffic volumes slack off - and they're relatively low most of the day on 152 - then no one wants to pay the toll. Two examples of this in Texas: Hardy Toll Road in Houston (it was basically subsidized by the much more successful Sam Houston Tollway) and SH 130 that has already gone bankrupt.

If you look at the document Andy linked to in an earlier post, the only proposed interchanges would be at CA-156, CA-25, Bolsa Road and US 101.  There doesn't appear to be any access between the proposed toll road and the existing highway.
Logged
Quote from: golden eagle
If I owned a dam and decided to donate it to charity, would I be giving a dam? I'm sure that might be a first because no one really gives a dam.

coatimundi

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 788
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Marina, CA
  • Last Login: May 12, 2017, 12:42:29 AM
Re: California 245 and other more obscure California State Highways
« Reply #58 on: July 09, 2016, 04:10:06 PM »

It looks like the eastern end is at the existing 152, but its sole purpose would be to suck traffic off of 152.
A Gilroy bypass is a good idea and would get good use; I just think that a toll road would not.
Logged

myosh_tino

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2714
  • Silicon Valley Roadgeek

  • Age: 45
  • Location: Cupertino, CA
  • Last Login: October 30, 2019, 02:41:18 PM
    • Silicon Valley Roads @ Markyville.com
Re: California 245 and other more obscure California State Highways
« Reply #59 on: July 09, 2016, 04:17:30 PM »

It looks like the eastern end is at the existing 152, but its sole purpose would be to suck traffic off of 152.
A Gilroy bypass is a good idea and would get good use; I just think that a toll road would not.

What I'm saying is I don't believe there's going to be an exit to the old highway at the east end of the proposed toll road.  If you're on west CA-152 past CA-156, your only option is to use the toll road.
Logged
Quote from: golden eagle
If I owned a dam and decided to donate it to charity, would I be giving a dam? I'm sure that might be a first because no one really gives a dam.

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 9667
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 11:40:44 AM
    • Sure, Why Not? (Highway Blog Spot)
Re: California 245 and other more obscure California State Highways
« Reply #60 on: July 09, 2016, 10:55:23 PM »

It looks like the eastern end is at the existing 152, but its sole purpose would be to suck traffic off of 152.
A Gilroy bypass is a good idea and would get good use; I just think that a toll road would not.

What I'm saying is I don't believe there's going to be an exit to the old highway at the east end of the proposed toll road.  If you're on west CA-152 past CA-156, your only option is to use the toll road.

Hence all the rage about the trucks having to use the toll...if they had an option to dive off onto an older alignment there wouldn't be so much angst.  Regardless the urban sprawl has backed up to 152 and 156...not to mention that it's one of the primary routes to get out of San Joaquin Valley to the Bay area or Monterrey.

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6098
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 08:03:57 AM
Re: California 245 and other more obscure California State Highways
« Reply #61 on: July 10, 2016, 03:35:12 AM »

I'm just surprised the plan as shown actually intersects 152 a mile or so west of the 152/156 junction; that route would require a multilane facility over the existing steep hill (both directions) immediately west of the junction.  The ridge that 152 presently surmounts only extends less than a mile southward; continuing the expressway/freeway south on 156 for a mile or so before turning west would avoid this hill completely, making the route considerably more "truck-friendly" (and likely less costly to construct; I'd guess that, at least westbound, a truck climbing lane would be appropriate) -- which seems to be one of the main rationales for the route upgrade in the first place.  The rest of the corridor seems fine, curving north around the airport. 

If this route is ever developed, I would hope Caltrans would deploy seamless freeway access from south 101 to east 152 (please, no parclo shit, citing a Santa Teresa Blvd. extension as an excuse :no:).       
Logged

coatimundi

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 788
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Marina, CA
  • Last Login: May 12, 2017, 12:42:29 AM
Re: California 245 and other more obscure California State Highways
« Reply #62 on: July 10, 2016, 03:21:19 PM »

It looks like the eastern end is at the existing 152, but its sole purpose would be to suck traffic off of 152.
A Gilroy bypass is a good idea and would get good use; I just think that a toll road would not.

What I'm saying is I don't believe there's going to be an exit to the old highway at the east end of the proposed toll road.  If you're on west CA-152 past CA-156, your only option is to use the toll road.

Then the traffic would just stay on 156 and go through Dunneville to get around the tolls. I'm sure those people have to deal enough with that now on the weekends.
I don't know about 152 but, locally, it's just known that you don't get on 156 on Friday or Sunday in the summers. If you have to go that way, you take back routes, and that's what Prunedale residents do just to get around for errands. But the Central Valley folks seem relatively content to not go through the trouble of finding a back route and sitting in traffic. Once you put a $5 toll in their way though, then I think that will get them looking at other options, especially when those other options don't add that much time to the drive.

It's just like LA: every little vehicular orifice is eventually filled. And that's exacerbated when money comes into play.
Logged

Quillz

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2513
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Los Angeles, CA
  • Last Login: July 24, 2019, 12:25:24 PM
Re: California 245 and other more obscure California State Highways
« Reply #63 on: July 10, 2016, 11:53:16 PM »

Off-topic, but all of CA-245 was once part of CA-65, according to the original 1934 highway plan. It was changed because CA-65 has been intended for a long time to connect farther northward into the Sacramento area.

To add to the topic (and maybe it's already been mentioned), but one of my favorite scenic routes is CA-150 to CA-192 to CA-154 to CA-246. It's a long bypass of the 101 to the south, but is mainly in the foothills north of the coast, and offers some fantastic views on clear days, especially once you ascend into the San Marcos Pass. (Historically, all of this was once simply CA-150).
Logged
US Highways: 1 / 2 / 6 / 12 / 14 / 16 / 18 / 20 / 26 / 30 / 50 / 64 / 66 / 84 / 85 / 87 / 91 / 93 / 95 / 97 / 99 / 101 / 189 / 191 / 201 / 285 / 287 / 385 / 395
Interstate Highways: 5 / 10 / 15 / 17 / 25 / 40 / 45 / 70 / 80 / 84 / 89 / 90 / 93 / 95

Quillz

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2513
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Los Angeles, CA
  • Last Login: July 24, 2019, 12:25:24 PM
Re: California 245 and other more obscure California State Highways
« Reply #64 on: July 10, 2016, 11:58:17 PM »

That's the thing with 198, it pretty much is still a full expressway between CA 99 and CA 43 but doesn't have a single traffic light or drop below 65 MPH.  About the only thing past the air station you get is Harris Ranch before 198 crosses I-5, it's actually a fun as hell road to take out to US 101 regardless if you stay on it or use CA 25.  The real interesting part of CA 25 is that it apparently follows part of the San Andreas fault.  Correct if I'm wrong but didn't 180 at one point connect out to via Panoche Road 25 or am I just imaging things that were on a drawing board?
According to some old highway maps I've got, CA-180 (on paper) has its western terminus at CA-25, although it presently ends at CA-33, and I believe it always has. There is talk of extending it west to I-5, but I have no idea if this will ever happen.
Logged
US Highways: 1 / 2 / 6 / 12 / 14 / 16 / 18 / 20 / 26 / 30 / 50 / 64 / 66 / 84 / 85 / 87 / 91 / 93 / 95 / 97 / 99 / 101 / 189 / 191 / 201 / 285 / 287 / 385 / 395
Interstate Highways: 5 / 10 / 15 / 17 / 25 / 40 / 45 / 70 / 80 / 84 / 89 / 90 / 93 / 95

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 9667
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 11:40:44 AM
    • Sure, Why Not? (Highway Blog Spot)
Re: California 245 and other more obscure California State Highways
« Reply #65 on: July 11, 2016, 12:08:40 AM »

That's the thing with 198, it pretty much is still a full expressway between CA 99 and CA 43 but doesn't have a single traffic light or drop below 65 MPH.  About the only thing past the air station you get is Harris Ranch before 198 crosses I-5, it's actually a fun as hell road to take out to US 101 regardless if you stay on it or use CA 25.  The real interesting part of CA 25 is that it apparently follows part of the San Andreas fault.  Correct if I'm wrong but didn't 180 at one point connect out to via Panoche Road 25 or am I just imaging things that were on a drawing board?
According to some old highway maps I've got, CA-180 (on paper) has its western terminus at CA-25, although it presently ends at CA-33, and I believe it always has. There is talk of extending it west to I-5, but I have no idea if this will ever happen.

Do you happen to have a scan?  I'm pretty sure that you're referring to the map I've seen but unable to track down that had 180 out to 25.

Quillz

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2513
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Los Angeles, CA
  • Last Login: July 24, 2019, 12:25:24 PM
Re: California 245 and other more obscure California State Highways
« Reply #66 on: July 11, 2016, 12:14:08 AM »

That's the thing with 198, it pretty much is still a full expressway between CA 99 and CA 43 but doesn't have a single traffic light or drop below 65 MPH.  About the only thing past the air station you get is Harris Ranch before 198 crosses I-5, it's actually a fun as hell road to take out to US 101 regardless if you stay on it or use CA 25.  The real interesting part of CA 25 is that it apparently follows part of the San Andreas fault.  Correct if I'm wrong but didn't 180 at one point connect out to via Panoche Road 25 or am I just imaging things that were on a drawing board?
According to some old highway maps I've got, CA-180 (on paper) has its western terminus at CA-25, although it presently ends at CA-33, and I believe it always has. There is talk of extending it west to I-5, but I have no idea if this will ever happen.

Do you happen to have a scan?  I'm pretty sure that you're referring to the map I've seen but unable to track down that had 180 out to 25.
Logged
US Highways: 1 / 2 / 6 / 12 / 14 / 16 / 18 / 20 / 26 / 30 / 50 / 64 / 66 / 84 / 85 / 87 / 91 / 93 / 95 / 97 / 99 / 101 / 189 / 191 / 201 / 285 / 287 / 385 / 395
Interstate Highways: 5 / 10 / 15 / 17 / 25 / 40 / 45 / 70 / 80 / 84 / 89 / 90 / 93 / 95

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 9667
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 11:40:44 AM
    • Sure, Why Not? (Highway Blog Spot)
Re: California 245 and other more obscure California State Highways
« Reply #67 on: July 11, 2016, 12:27:25 AM »

That would be the one...that's basically showing 180 heading west along Panoche Road.  Seems as we discussed earlier that the route did possibly exist legislatively for a little bit which is probably where the map maker got the information from:

From cahighways.org:

In 1963, the first two segments were defined as "(a) Route 101 near Gilroy to Route 156. (b) Route 156 to Route 99 near Fresno passing near Paicines and Mendota."

In 1965 Chapter 1371 split (b) into two segments: "(b) Route 156 to Route 5 passing near Paicines. (c) Route 5 to Route 99 passing near Mendota."

In 1984, Chapter 409 deleted (a), truncated (b), and clarified (d): "(b) Route 156 Route 25 near Paicines to Route 5. [...] (d) The General Grant Grove section of Kings Canyon National Park to Kings Canyon River Kings Canyon National Park boundary near Cedar Grove." The former (a) and the segment removed from (b) were transferred to Route 25. This resulted in the current definition of (a)

 
Pre 1964 Signage History
   

In 1934, Route 180 was (to be) signed along the route from Jct Route 25 at Pacines to Jct. Route 7 (US 395) at Independence, via Fresno. Oddly, it was part of LRN 263, defined in 1959, and does not appear to have been part of the state highway system between 1933 and 1959. The routing was only "proposed" in 1963, and likely corresponds to a county route. "Tis a puzzlement"

 
Status
   

Unconstructed Unconstructed; the traversable local routing may be signed as County Route J1. The traversable route is Panoche Road and San Benito County Road with no plans for improvement. The 32' San Benito County Road has a structural section consisting of chip seal over Class 4 asphaltic base. No state adoption is requested or recommended. Panoche Road between San Benito County and I-5 is an unimproved dirt road. If a new state highway is constructed in the area, a new alignment is recommended, and it is unlikely any of the existing road would be incorporated. State adoption of Panoche Road was not recommended.

Quillz

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2513
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Los Angeles, CA
  • Last Login: July 24, 2019, 12:25:24 PM
Re: California 245 and other more obscure California State Highways
« Reply #68 on: July 11, 2016, 12:43:22 AM »

Also interesting to note that the same map shows a proposed routing of CA-180 across the Sierra to end at US-395 (then CA-7). Not sure how that would have worked, would have required entirely new roadway most likely, and certainly will never happen because now the Sequoia Nat'l Park is there. (Also interesting to note that any such eastern extension would be running through the highest peaks of the Sierra).

Logged
US Highways: 1 / 2 / 6 / 12 / 14 / 16 / 18 / 20 / 26 / 30 / 50 / 64 / 66 / 84 / 85 / 87 / 91 / 93 / 95 / 97 / 99 / 101 / 189 / 191 / 201 / 285 / 287 / 385 / 395
Interstate Highways: 5 / 10 / 15 / 17 / 25 / 40 / 45 / 70 / 80 / 84 / 89 / 90 / 93 / 95

coatimundi

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 788
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Marina, CA
  • Last Login: May 12, 2017, 12:42:29 AM
Re: California 245 and other more obscure California State Highways
« Reply #69 on: July 11, 2016, 01:26:25 AM »

Also interesting to note that the same map shows a proposed routing of CA-180 across the Sierra to end at US-395 (then CA-7)

Aren't most of the routes that end in the Sierras like that? Like 190 and 168? Where the idea was started with just a line on a map in a planning office, but the execution was too difficult, contentious, and/or expensive to actually follow through with.
Something about disconnected routes really annoys me. They should just be renumbered.
Logged

Quillz

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2513
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Los Angeles, CA
  • Last Login: July 24, 2019, 12:25:24 PM
Re: California 245 and other more obscure California State Highways
« Reply #70 on: July 11, 2016, 01:32:42 AM »

Also interesting to note that the same map shows a proposed routing of CA-180 across the Sierra to end at US-395 (then CA-7)

Aren't most of the routes that end in the Sierras like that? Like 190 and 168? Where the idea was started with just a line on a map in a planning office, but the execution was too difficult, contentious, and/or expensive to actually follow through with.
Something about disconnected routes really annoys me. They should just be renumbered.
The southern crossings, yes. 168 and 190 still have cross-Sierra connections "on paper" even today, yet won't happen either due to geography or wilderness areas being the way. The northern crossings were feasible due to the lower topography. And I agree that discontiguous sections should just be different highways altogether.
Logged
US Highways: 1 / 2 / 6 / 12 / 14 / 16 / 18 / 20 / 26 / 30 / 50 / 64 / 66 / 84 / 85 / 87 / 91 / 93 / 95 / 97 / 99 / 101 / 189 / 191 / 201 / 285 / 287 / 385 / 395
Interstate Highways: 5 / 10 / 15 / 17 / 25 / 40 / 45 / 70 / 80 / 84 / 89 / 90 / 93 / 95

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 9667
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 11:40:44 AM
    • Sure, Why Not? (Highway Blog Spot)
Re: California 245 and other more obscure California State Highways
« Reply #71 on: July 11, 2016, 07:42:12 AM »

Also interesting to note that the same map shows a proposed routing of CA-180 across the Sierra to end at US-395 (then CA-7)

Aren't most of the routes that end in the Sierras like that? Like 190 and 168? Where the idea was started with just a line on a map in a planning office, but the execution was too difficult, contentious, and/or expensive to actually follow through with.
Something about disconnected routes really annoys me. They should just be renumbered.

Some were more realistic than others but none were cheap crossing the Sierra, now you have too much environmental red tape too.  190 probably has the best chance out of the split Sierra routes or once planned to be complete with Sherman Pass via J41.  The road is already surfaced but it's....dubious...  Another non-Sierra example is the planned route of 178 crossing the high mountains around Death Valley.

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 9667
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 11:40:44 AM
    • Sure, Why Not? (Highway Blog Spot)
Re: California 245 and other more obscure California State Highways
« Reply #72 on: July 18, 2016, 11:21:48 PM »

Just bumping this up this the whole 65, 69 and 245 discussion brewed back up.

Quillz

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2513
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Los Angeles, CA
  • Last Login: July 24, 2019, 12:25:24 PM
Re: California 245 and other more obscure California State Highways
« Reply #73 on: July 18, 2016, 11:25:45 PM »

Also interesting to note that the same map shows a proposed routing of CA-180 across the Sierra to end at US-395 (then CA-7)

Aren't most of the routes that end in the Sierras like that? Like 190 and 168? Where the idea was started with just a line on a map in a planning office, but the execution was too difficult, contentious, and/or expensive to actually follow through with.
Something about disconnected routes really annoys me. They should just be renumbered.

Some were more realistic than others but none were cheap crossing the Sierra, now you have too much environmental red tape too.  190 probably has the best chance out of the split Sierra routes or once planned to be complete with Sherman Pass via J41.  The road is already surfaced but it's....dubious...  Another non-Sierra example is the planned route of 178 crossing the high mountains around Death Valley.
I actually drove the entire J41 or w/e it's called while on field study. Entered the Sierra around Kennedy Meadows, took another road that led to J41, there was also a detour south to CA-178. Surprisingly, the road was pretty good quality, well-paved and while not much in the way of shoulders, it was far from what I'd consider a dangerous road. I could realistically see all of it being part of CA-190, especially since these roads already exist, as opposed to whatever proposed alignment Caltrans has had on the books for decades.

With talk of a possible Olancha bypass, perhaps this is a catalyst to finally get a completed CA-190.
Logged
US Highways: 1 / 2 / 6 / 12 / 14 / 16 / 18 / 20 / 26 / 30 / 50 / 64 / 66 / 84 / 85 / 87 / 91 / 93 / 95 / 97 / 99 / 101 / 189 / 191 / 201 / 285 / 287 / 385 / 395
Interstate Highways: 5 / 10 / 15 / 17 / 25 / 40 / 45 / 70 / 80 / 84 / 89 / 90 / 93 / 95

ACSCmapcollector

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 388
  • Last Login: May 25, 2019, 08:53:06 PM
Re: California 245 and other more obscure California State Highways
« Reply #74 on: July 18, 2016, 11:30:22 PM »

Also interesting to note that the same map shows a proposed routing of CA-180 across the Sierra to end at US-395 (then CA-7)

Aren't most of the routes that end in the Sierras like that? Like 190 and 168? Where the idea was started with just a line on a map in a planning office, but the execution was too difficult, contentious, and/or expensive to actually follow through with.
Something about disconnected routes really annoys me. They should just be renumbered.

Some were more realistic than others but none were cheap crossing the Sierra, now you have too much environmental red tape too.  190 probably has the best chance out of the split Sierra routes or once planned to be complete with Sherman Pass via J41.  The road is already surfaced but it's....dubious...  Another non-Sierra example is the planned route of 178 crossing the high mountains around Death Valley.
I actually drove the entire J41 or w/e it's called while on field study. Entered the Sierra around Kennedy Meadows, took another road that led to J41, there was also a detour south to CA-178. Surprisingly, the road was pretty good quality, well-paved and while not much in the way of shoulders, it was far from what I'd consider a dangerous road. I could realistically see all of it being part of CA-190, especially since these roads already exist, as opposed to whatever proposed alignment Caltrans has had on the books for decades.

With talk of a possible Olancha bypass, perhaps this is a catalyst to finally get a completed CA-190.

Then why would the present California state route 245 be so "crooked" with turns on the north side of the route?
Logged

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.