AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

The next forum trivia night will take place on OCTOBER 30, 2019 at 8:15 PM Eastern.

Author Topic: Max's Pacific Southwest Roads  (Read 27354 times)

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9724
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 08:48:23 PM
    • Sure, Why Not? (Highway Blog Spot)
Re: Max's Pacific Southwest Road Reports
« Reply #25 on: August 24, 2016, 11:50:13 AM »

Alright let's see if I can get through CA 299 in the Trinity Range.

As I'm sure most of your are acutely aware, CA 299 was US Route 299 from 1934 to 1964.  Originally US 299 ran from US 101 in Arcata to US 395 in Alturas, so basically it was just slightly less than 300 mile intrastate which was probably the largest reason it bumped down to a state highway.  There seems to be some conflicting opinion on whether US 299 actually went to the Nevada state line and NV 8A.  According to cahighways the route always went to the state line but USends said it ended in Alturas for it's entire history.  I'm thinking that the stub on cahighways might be missing something or has a typo but the mystery of why US 299/CA 299 goes to the Nevada state line is a mystery I'll leave to you to discern for yourself:

http://www.cahighways.org/289-299.html
http://www.usends.com/90-99/299/299.html

Also, it seems US 299 was signed as CA 44 before the US Route designation.

Okay, so basically the Trinity Mountains is best known today as Bigfoot Country (which "apparently" the famous sighting happened somewhere on CA 96).  The Trinity Range was also the site of one of the more significant non-Sierra gold rush strikes with Weaverville largely being the hub of the activity.  Much like CA 49 there is a bunch of old mining communities and ghost towns.  Unlike CA 49 the terrain is much more difficult, especially between Blue Lake and Weaverville which largely follows the Trinity River.

Speaking of Blue Lake....why in the hell is there a 5 mile freeway from Arcata to Blue Lake?  I mean...that's a little on the excessive side even by California standards.  Apparently CA 200 is the original alignment of US 299/CA 299/CA 44 along with probably Glendale Road to Blue Lake.  I would speculate driving through Blue Lake that the old alignment probably ran along Railroad Avenue and Blue Lake Blvd. 

Blue Lake is kind of a strange town in of itself.  Apparently the town was actually three towns that were founded from the 1850s to the 1870s; Scottsville, Powersville, and Mad River which all consolidated to "Blue Lake" around 1910.  Supposedly the town name of Blue Lake comes from a lake that disappeared in the 1920s when the Mad River shifted course.  Blue Lake was also along the Arcata and Mad River Railroad which started as a narrow gauge logging route in the 1850s and actually stayed in operation until the 1990s.  Regardless something neat before starting up the mountains to Weaverville:



East of Blue Lake CA 299 has a couple passing zones but they largely disappear pretty quickly which means you're on your own to pass on the side of the Trinity River on two-lane sections until Weaverville.  The road is a lot of fun because there is almost no traffic at all.  Basically it's about as fast as your can handle based off your own skill and capabilities of your car.  There are some nice views of the canyons just off of 299:



About 15 miles west of Weaverville there is a ghost town called Helena just north of CA 299.  Apparently Helena was the site of a mining claim back in 1851 and went through the names; Bagdad, North Fork, and Cover before settling on the modern name.  Supposedly a post office opened up in the 1890s but I have no idea when it was shut down or the town was abandoned.  I would speculate it was a relatively modern abandonment given the good condition of the existing structures:




Weaverville is kind of neat and definitely a welcome site after almost 90 miles of canyon driving from Blue Lake.  Like I said before Weaverville was the hub of the Trinity Range mining activity.  Apparently Weaverville was so friggin remote that it actually took a couple years into the 1850s to get a stage route running from Shasta.  When I was passing through this was during the whole landslide debacle north of Weaverville on CA 3....I want to say the dirt bypass wasn't opened up yet if I remember reading the VMS signs correct:




I wish that I had taken a picture of the construction on CA 299 east of Weaverville.  The highway was down to dirt for some apparent passing lane expansion and it was highly amusing to see the general panicked driving patterns evident in the people who were traveling to Redding.  I'll give Caltrans credit though...no flag man which was just fine with me.  About 34 miles east of Weaverville there is another ghost town called Whiskeytown which is largely submerged beneath the lake created by the Whiskeytown Dam.  Apparently Whiskeytown was founded in 1849 and actually existed until sometime between 1960 to 1962 when the Whiskeytown Dam was being built.  The only building I could find was this one, apparently it used to say "Whiskeytown" on the structure but it's been removed:



About 5 miles east of Whiskeytown you have Shasta which is actually now a State Park much like Bodie or Columbia and one of the cool ghost town sites in the state.  Shasta was founded possibly 1848 (I find that date somewhat questionable) and was largely used as a freight supply town for the mines around Weaverville.  The general stage routes out of Weaverville would largely become the alignment US 299/CA 299 ended up taking:



Out of Shasta I cut east into Redding where I took CA 44 to I-5 to cut back to Sacramento.  I would probably rate CA 299 as one of my five favorite state highways simply for the Trinity section.  You could say that I'm a fan....



Since I was staying the night in downtown Sacramento I was within running distance of Old Sacramento.  I won't waste my time with going through the history of the city all the way back to Sutter's Fort and the Gold Rush era but it's definitely neat to see something so old in the middle of a downtown area.  Sacramento doesn't appear to have been damaged anywhere near as bad as San Francisco during the 1906 Earthquake but my understanding always was that it was the fire that took most of San Fran's mining era buildings.  I wouldn't try parking or driving into Old Sac on the weekend....that looked ugly.  :-D






Heading out of Sacramento I decided that I didn't want to take 99 all the way home.  So I cut off on CA 4 around Stockton and began cutting east.  I hit what was left of Telegraph City making the climb up to Copperopolis which I mentioned previously as one of the big Copper Claims during the Gold Rush era.  I want to say Telegraph City lasted sometime into the 20th century simply because Telegraph Road suspiciously looks like the original alignment of CA 4:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Telegraph+City,+CA+95228/@37.9344382,-120.7563996,14z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x8090f2f3bbcc2ca1:0x945176c38639a8e1!8m2!3d37.93444!4d-120.73889?hl=en

Anyways, not much to see but I would speculate the bricks used in this farm are possibly from building foundations:



I cut down E15 to CA 108/120 and followed 120 towards Yosemite the Priest Grade....I had found out the day previously that Glacier Point had just opened.  I wish that I had stopped at the top to get a picture of both grades but I was battling a car going uphill on the New Grade which is 4% as opposed to the 17% Old Grade that most GPS units will take you down.  I did stop in Groveland/Big Oak Flat briefly and Clavery River.  Like I said earlier in the thread Big Oak Flat and Groveland were responsible for building the stage route to Tioga Pass which made it easy to connect the rest of the route that latter climb Lee Vining Canyon on CA 120:




Since I already talked about all the roads in Yosemite I'll just say that I took Wawona/CA 41 out of the park after Glacier Point.  Glacier Point was just about perfect in early May...this might have been the best photo I've ever taken in 44 National Parks:



Coming down into Fresno I cut east on Road 145 which heads east to Millerton Lake and the Friant Dam.  Ironically Road 145 matches the CA 145 that has an eastern terminus at it with CA 41.  I checked out the Millerton Courthouse which was part of the town of Millerton.  That's significant because Millerton was the first county seat of Fresno County in 1856 before it was switched to Fresno in 1874.  Millerton was drowned out by the Friant Dam being completed in 1944 and ironically the town would be located in Madera County today:



From here it was a fast 65 MPH run on Friant Road (yes it's really split 65 MPH expressway for some reason) back to CA 41 and in turn boring ass CA 99 all the way home.

When I get some I'll get CA 180/Kings Canyon up.  There is some other stuff from this year but a lot of it would be repeats...so I need a little more time to whiddle out the clutter for 2016.



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: Max's Pacific Southwest Road Reports
« Reply #26 on: August 24, 2016, 02:29:31 PM »

Just some thoughts about your trip to my neck of the woods...

-  CA 99 is...just boring so I took it up to CA 46 to over to I-5.  I don't particularly care for taking CA 58 around Bakersfield, maybe some day after the Western Parkway is finished.

Agreed.  When I make my trips to Las Vegas, I always use 46 to go between I-5 and 99. 

-  CA 152 was a disaster like always.  The worst part was that there was a huge truck tire that ripped off a semi in front of me which I had to do a pretty quick swerve to avoid.  I noticed the new truck lane being built for Pacheco Pass but I was early enough to get over without much issue.  Once CA 152 went down to two-lanes however traffic got bad....like really bad...maybe 20 MPH snails pace.  The possibility of a toll road through here is highly intriguing, truckers be damned.  After slogging around I finally hit US 101.

Out of curiosity, what was the time of day when you encountered the congestion on 152?  Also, I don't recall seeing any Caltrans projects for a new truck lane on 152.  Whereabouts was the construction?

-  I should clarify, my Cousin was staying in Cupertino to be exact.  I didn't want to go to downtown San Jose so I cut west on CA 85 and up CA 17 to I-280.  Traffic was really only kind of bogging down on CA 85, both CA 17 and I-280 was good shape.

Interesting... Generally, if north 85 is bogging down (which does happen during the morning commute), north 17 and north 280 would also be pretty congested.  As a local, I would have stayed on 85 to get to Cupertino using either the De Anza Blvd or Stevens Creek Blvd exits.

-  I picked my Cousin and her family up and began the climb via Pierce Road to CA 9.  I kind of found CA 9 to be a little on the way too slow side and largely had local populace going way over the speed limit.

The speed limit on CA-9 was reduced a couple of years ago due to a higher-than-normal accident rate and to quell complaints from cyclists that the road is too dangerous.  Most locals tend to ignore the new lower limit.

Heading out of Big Basin I took the route all the way back to CA 9 but to Boulder Creek.  I wanted to cut north on CA 35 but my Cousin told me she was car sick along with her daughter.  So I ended up going back the same back down hill to Cupertino...kind of boring doubling back, at least in my opinion.  I got treated to lunch at some sort of Chinese place which was sufficient.  Afterwards I dropped the crew back at the hotel and headed back to US 101 via I-280.

That was probably a good idea.  Had you headed north on 35, you're looking at a 35 mile drive back to Cupertino via 35, 84 and I-280.  Between highways 9 and 84, there are no really good ways to get down to the valley.

US 101 and CA 152 turned out be a complete disaster.  I want to say it was 2:30 PM but the traffic was heavy and backing up severely.  The 511 service told me there was "congestion" which to me always means a cluster%#% of a traffic jam.  CA 152 in Gilroy was brutal and backed up all the way into town from Pacheco Pass.

If this was during the week, you're pretty much SOL as there are no alternate routes to avoid the commute traffic.  All freeways headed out of the valley are pretty much congested from 2:30 until 7.  Next time (if there is a "next time") you might want to try using Monterey Hwy between Bernal and Cochrane.  This used to be US 101 before the freeway was built.  Yes there are some signals and the speed limit is only 50 MPH but it might be better than the 4 lanes of stop-and-go traffic on 101.

Apparently there was an encounter my Cousin had with Suicide 17 heading to Santa Cruz....the comment was "surprise sudden turn in the mountains."  :-D

While there are a couple of big sweeping curves on 17 headed to Santa Cruz, there is a notorious one headed north towards San Jose.  Just after going over the summit and passing Summit Road/CA-35, the first curve going downhill is called the "Valley Surprise".  It's a rather tight curve that has a decreasing radius, meaning you have to keep turning the steering wheel to the right to stay in your lane.  Many have been caught by surprise given the number of skid marks on the the pavement and paint marks on the concrete center median.
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

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9724
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 08:48:23 PM
    • Sure, Why Not? (Highway Blog Spot)
Re: Max's Pacific Southwest Road Reports
« Reply #27 on: August 24, 2016, 11:29:52 PM »

^^^

-  Given my location it's often easier and more laid back for me to take CA 178 to US 395 or all the way to Ridgecrest.  I tend to find a back way into Nevada usually via State Line Road or something...I can't stand I-15.  But yes, it has to be some pretty special circumstances for me to pick 58 or over 46 for the cut-over to I-5.  Even CA 198 is much more tolerable usually.
-  The congestion on CA 152 was at about 7:00 AM.  Basically if I was planning this all out I would have been up in San Jose probably for at least a day or two rather than the hoofing it back home.  The problem was that there was no notice and I had things to do that weekend...  I was going to stay a day if I could have talked my cousin into Big Sur or Yosemite for the morning but they wanted to slog into San Fran...I suppose that's the thing to do if you are an east coaster.
-  The hotel was just north of I-280 in Cupertino.  Really I was just trying to zig-zag around the traffic back ups hence why I dived on CA 17 when 85 started to stop at the interchange.  I know the main routes in the Bay Area but I'm not the most adept on the surface routes...most of my work used to be down in L.A. or San Diego prior to what I do now.
-  Yeah I noticed on 9 nobody was paying attention I thought it was way slower than what I remembered.  Regardless I would have liked to take CA 35/Skyline for awhile since I drove so far up there, I figured the scenic detour would be worth it.  Apparently I really freaked my Cousin and her kid out...what seems normal to me like 236 apparently ain't so to them.  I think they were a little afraid of what was waiting up 35.  :rolleyes:
-  Honestly I should have just chugged it down to CA 25 and made due with getting home a little later.  I was pretty up in arms with the traffic hence I why I decided the most direct route home.  In retrospect the slower scenic drive with no traffic and mountains would have been pretty nice. 
-  Yep and they were surprised by the Valley Surprised.  I knew exactly where they were by how they described it.  I really think they weren't prepared for this trip, why fly across the country and not do anything for three of the seven days you are there?...much less research where you are going.  But I digress, it was really nice to see some family out this way for a change and at minimum they seemed pretty happy to see me and my wife.  I suppose it's just habit for me to try to suggest the "best" roads possible or try to steer people away from cities to real "scenery."  I'm sure it drives most of my family up the wall, most of them are east coasters asides from my brother.

Back onto to US 299:

-  According to cahighways LRN 28 was the route between Alturas and the Nevada State line, it clear refers to US 299 running the entire distance post 1935:

http://www.cahighways.org/025-032.html

However the maps from 1963 and 1964 show a different story.  1963 still shows US 299 ending in Alturas while LRN 28 goes to the Nevada line, in 1964 it's all CA 299:

http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239528~5511852:State-Highway-Map,-California,-1963?sort=Date&qvq=q:caltrans;sort:Date;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=54&trs=86

http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239525~5511850:State-Highway-Map,-California,-1964?sort=Date&qvq=q:caltrans;sort:Date;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=56&trs=86
« Last Edit: August 25, 2016, 12:50:32 AM by Max Rockatansky »
Logged

roadfro

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3829
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Reno, NV
  • Last Login: Today at 10:09:49 AM
Re: Max's Pacific Southwest Road Reports
« Reply #28 on: August 25, 2016, 10:53:25 AM »

Back onto to US 299:

-  According to cahighways LRN 28 was the route between Alturas and the Nevada State line, it clear refers to US 299 running the entire distance post 1935:

http://www.cahighways.org/025-032.html

However the maps from 1963 and 1964 show a different story.  1963 still shows US 299 ending in Alturas while LRN 28 goes to the Nevada line, in 1964 it's all CA 299:

http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239528~5511852:State-Highway-Map,-California,-1963?sort=Date&qvq=q:caltrans;sort:Date;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=54&trs=86

http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239525~5511850:State-Highway-Map,-California,-1964?sort=Date&qvq=q:caltrans;sort:Date;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=56&trs=86

The map definition makes more sense to me. It's doubtful that AASHTO would have approved a US highway to end as a spur like this jutting off to a state line without purpose. And it's clear that US 299 was never signed in Nevada (and I can't recall ever seeing a Nevada map with US 299 close to the border).
Logged
Roadfro - AARoads Pacific Southwest moderator since 2010, Nevada roadgeek since 1983.

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9724
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 08:48:23 PM
    • Sure, Why Not? (Highway Blog Spot)
Re: Max's Pacific Southwest Road Reports
« Reply #29 on: August 25, 2016, 12:03:04 PM »

I'm sure it's an error by cahighways but it's intriguing to think if there was some secret squirrel plan to extend US 299...or some hidden records that the AASHTO has showing a silent route at some point.  I know for me at least I've brought it up a lot in the fictional threads along with the Winnecucca-to-the-sea.

sdmichael

Re: Max's Pacific Southwest Road Reports
« Reply #30 on: August 25, 2016, 12:57:54 PM »

There is also a big difference between a Sign Route and a Legislative Route. LRN 23 was US 6... and US 395... and SR-89. LRN 4... wasn't all signed US 99. The route that present-day SR-299 follows WAS a State Highway along its entire length but wasn't all signed as such. All the descriptions of US 299 have given a US 101 to US 395 route, Eureka to Alturas, not the extension over the Warner Mountains.
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9724
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 08:48:23 PM
    • Sure, Why Not? (Highway Blog Spot)
Re: Max's Pacific Southwest Road Reports
« Reply #31 on: August 25, 2016, 01:28:40 PM »

There is also a big difference between a Sign Route and a Legislative Route. LRN 23 was US 6... and US 395... and SR-89. LRN 4... wasn't all signed US 99. The route that present-day SR-299 follows WAS a State Highway along its entire length but wasn't all signed as such. All the descriptions of US 299 have given a US 101 to US 395 route, Eureka to Alturas, not the extension over the Warner Mountains.

True and the maps usually show the Signed Routes and LRNs pretty well which is why I'm think there is a goof on the cahighways page.  None of those pre-64 maps show US 299 going east of Alturas but a good deal show the LRN 28 instead.  The cahighways page on 299 is written in a way that insinuates 299 always went to the state line when I think they meant LRN 28.

kkt

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4526
  • Location: Seattle, Washington
  • Last Login: Today at 06:20:21 PM
Re: Max's Pacific Southwest Road Reports
« Reply #32 on: August 25, 2016, 02:24:17 PM »

Thanks for the great trip reports and photos!  I hope I'll be able to do another CA-NV road trip before too much longer.

I wonder if the freeway portion of 299 was a pilot project for making it a freeway from I-5 to 101.  The reason would have been:  Eureka and Arcata need big truck access for their fishing, industry, etc.  Richardson Grove and other bottlenecks along 101 are never going to allow big truck access.  Therefore the best way would be 299 to I-5.

California didn't keep 199 as a US route because they thought it was an especially high capacity road.  They kept it only because it crosses state lines and Oregon wasn't ready to convert it to state route.  California converted every US route to state route, except those that crossed state lines that the other state(s) didn't want to downgrade.  Remember, US routes have no particular standards for speed, passing opportunities, vertical clearance, weight, or anything really.  So California's thinking was there was no need to have US routes at all.
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: Max's Pacific Southwest Road Reports
« Reply #33 on: August 25, 2016, 04:43:57 PM »

-  The congestion on CA 152 was at about 7:00 AM.  Basically if I was planning this all out I would have been up in San Jose probably for at least a day or two rather than the hoofing it back home.

That makes sense then as there is quite a bit of commute traffic from Los Banos.

-  The hotel was just north of I-280 in Cupertino.  Really I was just trying to zig-zag around the traffic back ups hence why I dived on CA 17 when 85 started to stop at the interchange.

That also makes sense as 85 does slow down at 17 and remains that way into Mountain View during the morning commute.

Apparently I really freaked my Cousin and her kid out...what seems normal to me like 236 apparently ain't so to them.  I think they were a little afraid of what was waiting up 35.  :rolleyes:

Too bad, because 35 north of 9 is a really nice relatively wide two-lane highway with some sweeping curves and fantastic views if the fog hasn't rolled in.  Oddly enough, 35 south of 9 is very narrow road with many one-lane segments.
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.

nexus73

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1815
  • Age: 64
  • Location: Coos Bay OR
  • Last Login: Today at 05:40:16 PM
Re: Max's Pacific Southwest Road Reports
« Reply #34 on: August 25, 2016, 07:15:56 PM »

I wonder if the freeway portion of 299 was a pilot project for making it a freeway from I-5 to 101.  The reason would have been:  Eureka and Arcata need big truck access for their fishing, industry, etc.  Richardson Grove and other bottlenecks along 101 are never going to allow big truck access.  Therefore the best way would be 299 to I-5.

As I recall, the long term plan was for all of 101 and 299 to become freeway/expressway in NorCal.  101 is doable.  299? Boy howdy, is there a lot of terrain taming to be done for that to happen!

Rick
Logged
US 101 is THE backbone of the Pacific coast from Bandon OR to Willets CA.  Industry, tourism and local traffic would be gone or severely crippled without it being in functioning condition in BOTH states.

coatimundi

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 788
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Marina, CA
  • Last Login: May 12, 2017, 12:42:29 AM
Re: Max's Pacific Southwest Road Reports
« Reply #35 on: August 25, 2016, 08:02:25 PM »

I wonder if the freeway portion of 299 was a pilot project for making it a freeway from I-5 to 101.  The reason would have been:  Eureka and Arcata need big truck access for their fishing, industry, etc.  Richardson Grove and other bottlenecks along 101 are never going to allow big truck access.  Therefore the best way would be 299 to I-5.

As I recall, the long term plan was for all of 101 and 299 to become freeway/expressway in NorCal.  101 is doable.  299? Boy howdy, is there a lot of terrain taming to be done for that to happen!

And remember that timber was king of that region when 299 in Humboldt was built in 1965. And there was a large lumberyard in Blue Lake at the time.
299 overall is in the freeway and expressway system, and it was shown as a proposed freeway on early maps. But a lot of other roads were as well. If you think about it, if Redding and Eureka had both gained a significant amount of population and regional prominence (and Redding kinda did), then the two cities would need a freeway connection between them. Caltrans had planned for that possibility, but the decline of the lumber industry has likely doomed it. I don't think the Eureka area will be growing much more anytime soon (especially when pot becomes legal throughout the state).
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9724
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 08:48:23 PM
    • Sure, Why Not? (Highway Blog Spot)
Re: Max's Pacific Southwest Road Reports
« Reply #36 on: August 25, 2016, 10:55:59 PM »

KKT

-  You might be right in regards to the lumber with Blue Lake and Eureka once having a significant industry.  Nowadays it's rare to see any trucks on 299 from Eureka to Redding, I didn't see a single one on this trip.

I guess that I never found US 199 to be "high capacity."  The road is extremely remote and pretty damn treacherous even with the expressway portions which are basically glorified passing zones.  Personally I think if CA 62 got finished about 10 years early instead of the mid-70s when I-10 was fully functional US 60 would probably still be around in California:

http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239506~5511838:California-State-Highways,-December?sort=Date&qvq=q:caltrans;sort:Date;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=68&trs=86


Myosh_Tino

-  Yeah the cards were basically 100% stacked not in my favor with things being a Friday and having to compete rush hour.  At least I had an educated assumption as to what I was in for...usually I hit the Bay Area on the weekend due to ease of transportation.  Had things been my way they would have been planned out much more.  I really would have liked to do more of 35...I guess that I'll wait until winter hits and the Sierras aren't largely available. 

Nexus73 and coatimundi

-  Basically it just goes back to the lumber industry largely shuttering around Eureka and Blue Lake.  Like I said, not one single truck over that entire distance of travel...either direction.  Seems like the entire area is way past it's prime except with in regards to tourism.  The terrain of 299 is way too difficult to make for a viable expressway probably even with a strong lumber industry. 

kkt

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4526
  • Location: Seattle, Washington
  • Last Login: Today at 06:20:21 PM
Re: Max's Pacific Southwest Road Reports
« Reply #37 on: August 26, 2016, 01:23:34 PM »

KKT

-  You might be right in regards to the lumber with Blue Lake and Eureka once having a significant industry.  Nowadays it's rare to see any trucks on 299 from Eureka to Redding, I didn't see a single one on this trip.

Yes, Caltrans ended up doing a lot of improvements to 101 so it's a pretty good truck route now, except for Richardson Grove.  So 299 never got upgrades that would make it a good truck route, aside from the Arcata to Blue Lake section.
 
Quote
I guess that I never found US 199 to be "high capacity."

Yeah, it's not high capacity at all.  California kept it as a US route only because it also passes through Oregon, same as the other US routes that California kept in 1964.

One thing that keeps more industry from coming to Eureka and Arcata is the not so good truck access.  101 still has the size limitation at Richardson Grove.  Of course, some who live on the north coast are happy that there's limited industry there, while others are not.
 
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9724
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 08:48:23 PM
    • Sure, Why Not? (Highway Blog Spot)
Re: Max's Pacific Southwest Road Reports
« Reply #38 on: August 26, 2016, 07:59:11 PM »

Today's road adventure was FINALLY the Parkfield Grade.  For those who are familiar with some of my posts on the Pacific Southwest Board I've been talking about the Parkfield Grade for a long time.  Well today was the day...and it was worth the trip.  First though I headed out of Bakersfield north on CA 99 and cut over CA 198 before heading up CA 41 for the night.  Since I had some time to kill I decided to see if my route research on the pre-1964 CA 198 expressway held true with the older surface alignment in Kings County:

-  First I flipped around on 7th Avenue east of Hanford near the expressway extension to Goshen and CA 99.  Basically there is a cut-off stub of Old CA 198 that starts here at East Lacey Blvd, you can see it on the right in this photo:



-  Continuing west on East Lacey I crossed CA 43 which would have been routed here in 1963 when the route of LRN was completed.  CA 43 always appeared to use this bypass route of Hanford and never 10th Avenue which seems like LRN 135 was being built towards initially:



-  Old CA 198 picks up a Business Route sign in the above photo...or did since it seems to have been displaced by construction.  Old CA 198 would have followed 7th Street in the first picture below, I initially thought that it might have cut south on Douty on the second picture but that turns out not to be the case:




-  Old CA 198 would have cut across 11th Avenue and jogged to the right in the first pic on Garner Avenue before swinging left on West Lacey Blvd in the second pic.  I would speculate that there was a traffic light here in the past:




-  Old CA 198 would have cut west on West Lacey to 14th Avenue and cut south where I am in the first pic to Armona.  In Armona the route would have cut west first on Front Street in the second pic (right turn) and merge into Hanford-Armona Road which can be seen on the left in the third pic:





-  Old CA 198 followed Hanford-Armona until what was 19th 1/2 Avenue which is largely absorbed by the CA 41 expressway in the first pic.  Turning south Old CA 198 followed CA 41 where it turned west on Jackson Avenue in the second pic which would be a right hand turn.  Old CA 198 would have followed two bridges over the Kings River one of which is in the third pic and was roughly cut off by the new expressway in the forth pic...the old alignment heads straight towards the power lines:






Anyways before I get too ahead of myself here at the maps I used to find the Pre-Expressway alignement:

1960 Highway Map:
http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239537~5511858:State-Highway-Map,-California,-1960?sort=Date&qvq=q:caltrans;sort:Date;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=48&trs=86
1961 Highway Map: 
http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239534~5511856:State-Highway-Map,-California,-1961?sort=Date&qvq=q:caltrans;sort:Date;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=50&trs=86
1962 Highway Map
http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239531~5511854:State-Highway-Map,-California,-1962?sort=Date&qvq=q:caltrans;sort:Date;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=52&trs=86
1963 Highway Map
http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239528~5511852:State-Highway-Map,-California,-1963?sort=Date&qvq=q:caltrans;sort:Date;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=54&trs=86
1964 Highway Map:
http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239525~5511850:State-Highway-Map,-California,-1964?sort=Date&qvq=q:caltrans;sort:Date;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=56&trs=86
1965 Highway Map:
http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239522~5511848:State-Highway-Map,-California,-1965?sort=Date&qvq=q:caltrans;sort:Date;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=58&trs=86
1966 Highway Map:
http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239519~5511846:State-Highway-Map,-California,-1966?sort=Date&qvq=q:caltrans;sort:Date;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=60&trs=86

^^^ kkt

-  Yeah I really don't think there was a stones chance in hell of much beyond a bunch of passing lanes on 299 between Redding and Arcata.  The terrain gets a lot better east of Weaverville but around the Trinity River Canyon it's pretty tight and would require excessive blasting.
-  Even still, it's kind of silly that US 199 stuck around when there wasn't much regard about punting US 60 and US 66 out of state while they were still in Arizona.  That route is one of the primary reasons I don't like the farce that happened post 1964 in regards to US Routes being devalued so much in California. 

« Last Edit: August 26, 2016, 11:55:00 PM by Max Rockatansky »
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9724
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 08:48:23 PM
    • Sure, Why Not? (Highway Blog Spot)
Re: Max's Pacific Southwest Road Reports
« Reply #39 on: August 26, 2016, 08:46:27 PM »

Onward....

Anyways  CA 198 which quickly descends down to a two-lane highway west of Avenal Cutoff Road. I should note that I spent the night in Fresno last night at the Father-In-Laws...he didn't want to go on today's ride but god did it lighten the load today on distance.  :-D  :-D :-D  I headed back down CA 41 and cut back west on CA 198 towards the Diablo Range.  I stopped to take a picture of this CA 269 Shield....well because when else will I ever get another chance?...and headed south via the CA 33/CA 198 multiplex to Coalinga:




I followed CA 198 through Coalinga and headed into the Diablo Range.  Despite the warnings about 30 foot or longer length trucks they are a pretty common sight from the valley and I ran into this one about 3 miles west of Coalinga.  I managed to make a pass and turned south on the Parkfield Grade about 9 miles west of Coalinga:





The Parkfield Grade is about 19 miles long and runs from CA 198 in Fresno County to the village of Parkfield in Monterrey County.  The Grade was constructed by the local ranchers in the 1890s and it's actually pretty well inhabited.  The Grade starts out at about 1,200 feet at CA 198 and ascends up to about 3,600 at the Monterrey County line where the pavement ends.  The road on the Fresno County side is very good for how rural it is, I would say it's mostly two-lane with maybe some lane and half sections.  I wasn't worried about having to get by someone all the way to the top, the only thing that was questionable was some flood prone washes and substantial uncleared rock slides.  It's very apparent that the Parkfield Grade is very lightly used:






Crossing into Monterrey County the Parkfield Grade becomes known as Parkfield-Coalinga Road.  The road isn't paved for about 4 miles heading down from 3,600 feet to 1,800.  I found myself using 1st gear quite a bit on the first mile and half then largely 2nd until I was at the bottom where the pavement resumed.  I would speculate that the road grade is 15% or more in places heading down to Parkfield.  There is some really narrow stretches that were at best 10 feet wide especially near the county line:






In reference to the third picture above, the mileage panels were blank.  I honest have no idea if Monterrey ever had a route number for Parkfield-Coalinga Road.

My understanding that the stream under the two bridges below is the San Andreas Fault as it runs through the village of Parkfield.  Parkfield is an interesting place; apparently it was founded in 1854 as a ranching town called Russelville but was renamed to "Parkfield" when the old name was rejected by the Postal Service.  Sometime in the late 1800s there was silver and coal mining claims opened which led to the population peaking out at about 900.  Apparently the coal mine flooded and Parkfield became most a derelict.  The modern population is mainly due to the almost perfect run of 22 year intervals of 6.0 magnitude or greater earthquakes that happen in the village.  My understanding most of the residents are from the USGS and the bulk of the buildings are 1980s flair....although I'm not sure if I believe even 18 people live there now.  I did see some evidence on the second bridge of seismic shifting but it really wasn't large enough to be worth taking a picture of:








So for what it's worth this was a fun as hell road and probably my new secret squirrel route to take family on when they need a good scare during visits.  :-D  I saw a grand total of ONE vehicle the entire time I was on the Parkfield Grade/Parkfield-Coalinga Road.  To give some comparison Mineral King Road I want to say that I passed about 25 cars on the way back down....a little excess given the condition of the road.  I would speculate that even the dirt section is passable in wet weather...at least going down the hill, it's pretty unexpectedly good.  Anyways I'll wrap this up in a third post but for now here is some reference material on the Parkfield Grade and Parkfield:

http://www.trails.com/tcatalog_trail.aspx?trailid=BGS130-047
http://www.motorcycleroads.us/roads/ca_pg.html
http://www.schweich.com/camonpkfldcoalardA.html
http://www.schweich.com/imagehtml/IMG10488sm.html
http://parkfield.com/about_parkfield.php


« Last Edit: August 26, 2016, 09:12:07 PM by Max Rockatansky »
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9724
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 08:48:23 PM
    • Sure, Why Not? (Highway Blog Spot)
Re: Max's Pacific Southwest Road Reports
« Reply #40 on: August 26, 2016, 09:28:56 PM »

Final post for this excursion.

Oddly, I've never been to Soda Lake or the Carrizo Plain National Monument...even though I've driven by it.  I've been to about 50 National Monuments so I figured that it was high time to check them out on the way home.  Coming out Parkfield I ht Cholame Road for about 14 miles which became questionable in quality upon San Luis Obispo County picking up maintenance.  I made a quick jog on CA 46/41 to Bitterwater road passing the James Dean Memorial in the process:





Bitterwater Road is interesting.  The first section from CA 46/41 is in bad shape with no center stripe.  I would speculate that's because it dips briefly into Kern County before hitting San Luis Obispo again heading south.  There was some really beat up sections at times but the road flattened out by the time I hit CA 58.  I took CA 58 over to Soda Lake Road and down to said lake and Carrizo Plain National Monument.  Apparently the Carrizo Plain is basically a small desert at 15x50 miles in size since it gets less than 10 inches of rain a year.  Soda Lake was apparently formed when the San Andreas Fault cut off the streams supplying it with water.  The mountains in the background at the Temblor Range:






Can anyone tell me what the hell is up with California Valley?  It seems like the whole thing was WAY over planned as a community.  There are literally road signs to roads that don't exist or were long overgrown was dead grass.  Who would want to live out in that plain anyways?...tis a mystery to me how the place is even a thing.  Regardless I took CA 58 all the way back home.  Mckittrick is always interesting to pass through with the oil fields...I'm fairly certain it's what inspired Little Boston in There Will be Blood.  CA 58 always surprises people with all the sudden 90 degree turns and fairly decently high grades heading west.  I'll have to go out and try to do something Sunday, I have new tires coming next week and about 1,500 miles before I have to change the transmission fluid....might as well get my money's worth:



Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9724
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 08:48:23 PM
    • Sure, Why Not? (Highway Blog Spot)
Re: Max's Pacific Southwest Road Reports
« Reply #41 on: August 26, 2016, 10:56:48 PM »

Found this on Youtube. 

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3749
  • Last Login: Today at 06:58:33 PM
Re: Max's Pacific Southwest Road Reports
« Reply #42 on: August 27, 2016, 02:55:04 AM »

Can anyone tell me what the hell is up with California Valley?  It seems like the whole thing was WAY over planned as a community.  There are literally road signs to roads that don't exist or were long overgrown was dead grass.  Who would want to live out in that plain anyways?...tis a mystery to me how the place is even a thing.


The wikipedia article on the community brings up briefly how land speculation led to the town's existence:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Valley,_California
Logged
Chris Sampang

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9724
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 08:48:23 PM
    • Sure, Why Not? (Highway Blog Spot)
Re: Max's Pacific Southwest Road Reports
« Reply #43 on: August 27, 2016, 08:56:57 AM »

Well hell...I suppose that explains the derelict and abandoned ranch houses.  If they thought Soda Lake was going to be reformed no wonder there was a land grab.  It's weird though, there is an actually street grid laid out....even if it is just weathered dirt or gravel roadway. 

coatimundi

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 788
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Marina, CA
  • Last Login: May 12, 2017, 12:42:29 AM
Re: Max's Pacific Southwest Road Reports
« Reply #44 on: August 27, 2016, 10:58:36 PM »

I had (I never threw it away but I can't find it now) Southern California DeLorme atlas that showed all the streets of California Valley laid out but indicated that there was no population. Always intrigued me. Before GSV, I finally took a trip out there to see it, and it's pretty weird. I believe most of it's part of Carrizo Plain National Monument now.
Kind of the California version of Florida's Golden Gate Estates: "It's land... in Cali-for-nye-ay; the land of milk and honey. Improvements? You don't need improvements! Water? It comes from the mountains, magically!"
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9724
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 08:48:23 PM
    • Sure, Why Not? (Highway Blog Spot)
Re: Max's Pacific Southwest Road Reports
« Reply #45 on: August 27, 2016, 11:24:09 PM »

Apparently that was thing, there was supposed to be water via the California State Water Project but the planned aquaduct was routed to the north closer to Cholame.  According to the BLM most of the Monument is still south of the planned development of California Valley and often follows the borders of it almost exactly:

http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/prog/nlcs/Carrizo_Plain_NM.html

At Golden Gate Estates has some development the closer you are to I-75.  There was another place called Wedgefield east of Orlando that was like California Valley and even had an abandoned segment of FL 13 running through it.

roadfro

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3829
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Reno, NV
  • Last Login: Today at 10:09:49 AM
Re: Max's Pacific Southwest Road Reports
« Reply #46 on: August 28, 2016, 12:41:56 AM »

Yeah look at the 1956 map, there is an arbitrary "51" right at the south end of NV 17 at US 50.  The way it's labeled would almost make you think that "51" was what went south out of Virginia City via Gold Hill and Silver City to US 50...could be a map error or me reading something wrong.  And you're right, most of the stuff that I do have on the pre-76 routes just mentions a lot of them but doesn't really give a ton of details leading to map hunting.  I have a pretty decent source for Nevada Road maps somewhere in my book marks that I'll have to dig up some time.  It's just funny that after all this time that 79 actually became a paved and somewhat reasonable road in comparison to some of the other non-state maintained ones like we discussed with 8A, 34, and 3C recently.

I totally missed that "51" on the map this morning. According to a collection of old state laws from 1958 (conveniently copied when I found them, for just this type of purpose), that NV 51 is legitimate. It is separate from what was NV 17 and NV 80. I forgot that the 51 designation was reassigned in the 1960s to what is now SR 225/Mountain City Hwy (previously a combination of parts of NV 11, 11A and 43) to match ID 51.

It makes sense that Six Mile Canyon Rd would eventually be paved, as it eliminates some backtracking between Virginia City and points east along US 50. Most of the other old routes we've discussed weren't really serving any useful population or purpose by renumbering time.

Revisiting briefly the discussion on Six Mile Canyon Road. I just came across this blog post which talks a little about the history surrounding this road: http://backyardtraveler.blogspot.com/2009/03/nevadas-roots-found-in-six-mile-canyon.html

The post describes the road as converting to a maintained dirt road once exiting Virginia City. If that post is accurate as written in 2009, then this route (or at least Storey County's section of it) has only recently been paved within the last ~7 years. I've never driven the route myself, so cannot confirm—however, the author has written articles for Nevada Magazine and has published some Nevada travel books, so I have no reason to doubt the information.
Logged
Roadfro - AARoads Pacific Southwest moderator since 2010, Nevada roadgeek since 1983.

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3749
  • Last Login: Today at 06:58:33 PM
Re: Max's Pacific Southwest Road Reports
« Reply #47 on: August 28, 2016, 01:24:15 AM »


Kind of the California version of Florida's Golden Gate Estates: "It's land... in Cali-for-nye-ay; the land of milk and honey. Improvements? You don't need improvements! Water? It comes from the mountains, magically!"

So I looked up Golden Gate Estates and found this recent (April 2016) article on the community:

http://archive.naplesnews.com/news/local/from-scam-to-plan-golden-gate-estates-growth-to-get-collier-county-update-3001ae82-0866-5197-e053-01-375956461.html
Logged
Chris Sampang

coatimundi

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 788
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Marina, CA
  • Last Login: May 12, 2017, 12:42:29 AM
Re: Max's Pacific Southwest Road Reports
« Reply #48 on: August 28, 2016, 02:07:56 AM »


Kind of the California version of Florida's Golden Gate Estates: "It's land... in Cali-for-nye-ay; the land of milk and honey. Improvements? You don't need improvements! Water? It comes from the mountains, magically!"

So I looked up Golden Gate Estates and found this recent (April 2016) article on the community:

http://archive.naplesnews.com/news/local/from-scam-to-plan-golden-gate-estates-growth-to-get-collier-county-update-3001ae82-0866-5197-e053-01-375956461.html

It got some revival during the last housing boom as well. It's close enough to an existing metro area to be a potentially viable development. Some of it has been swallowed up by the Florida Panther protection area, so any push to develop it on a large scale would meet push back from those trying to keep a buffer for the panther. The legacy of the overdevelopment of the Everglades is not so quickly forgotten.
I think people just know its history and know what's there, and see potential automatically. The history has kept it mostly off-limits thus far.

Back on topic, California Valley I believe is mostly in the developer-unfriendly coastal counties, so I don't know that there's much future there. SLO County is a bit more open to developers than we are here, but there's still quite a bit of skepticism regarding water dedication among locals, just as there is here. It's so heavily ag that any new water allocation scares the rich Northeasterner vineyard owners about their water being taken. And it's somewhat justified: look up the very recent story of Justin Vineyards after Fiji Water bought them.
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9724
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 08:48:23 PM
    • Sure, Why Not? (Highway Blog Spot)
Re: Max's Pacific Southwest Road Reports
« Reply #49 on: August 28, 2016, 07:22:20 PM »

Really there has a been a huge push back in favor of the Everglades since the end of WWII.  First you had Henry Flaggler scouting out what is now the Ingraham Highway for the Overseas Railroad.   It's an interesting read up to see how much the Park Service worked to push people out of Flamingo after Everglades National Park was founded in 1947.  You had the whole saga of the Everglades Jetport in the late 60s which led to the now virtually derelict Dade-Collier Training and Transition Airport sitting in the middle of the Everglades.  Basically they started building a giant airport out in the middle of the Everglades which was meant to be the largest airport in the world.  One runway got completed and then the project stalled as it became really apparent that the Big Cypress National Preserve was going to become a thing....which it did in 1974.  Funny, back in the early days of American Florida all anyone wanted to do was drained the Everglades and now they are shutting down sugar cane to save it.

Even still, the whole California Valley thing appears to be a flight of full on fantasy.  Did they really truly believe that that the aquaduct wouldn't follow major roadways instead of being out of the middle of a barren empty plain?  It's like you said, some of the intrigue probably came from San Luis Obispo County being more friendly to development....suppose inland it's out of sight, out of mind.

Okay...today's adventure was Kaiser Pass Road and the saga of the western alignment of CA 168.  I only did the first 8 miles of Kaiser Pass road given that I'm still kind of questioning the car, there was a lot of people due to the weekend, and that the overlook I wanted was only a 2.5 mile round trip run.  SOOOOOooooo....starting from the top since I didn't really stop to take too many pictures, figured that would be something for heading back down.  I started out by heading up the modern CA 168 alignment (which I'll touch on substantially in a bit) and pulled off onto Kaiser Pass Road.  I've been to Huntington Lake before...so I was thinking that this might be a Challenger day.  Six miles into Kaiser Pass Road I was thinking the same thing until I hit the final two before the pass....holy crap that got narrow, but I'll touch on that shortly.  Pictures start from the end of CA 168 West and Kaiser Pass:




Supposedly the first 6 miles of Kaiser Pass Road is 8% grade which isn't all that bad considering it is definitely two-lane.  Once the One/One and one-half lane section starts the road up to Kaiser Pass was definitely over 10% if not as high as 20% in places.  Basically my objective was the White Bark Vista which overlooks the high Sierras, the other Big Creek Hydroelectric Project Lakes west of Huntington, and is at an elevation of 9,551 feet above sea level.  I took the Dusy-Ershim Trail to reach the White Bark Vista:



White Bark is really a pretty vista and gives you some decent looks at Edison and Florence Lake.  Somewhere down in that valley below me is Mono Hot Springs which I would like to visit...maybe during the end of the summer season right before the first snow if I can work it?  For what it's worth the Dusy-Ershim Trail had me thinking it was good enough for a car a little into my run but it has some decent sized rock crops.  I think that a 2WD truck or SUV wouldn't have a problem at all navigating the trail, I took my pictures heading down hill from here on out.  The second picture is turn off to another decent overlook:





After checking out the second vista I resumed my run back down my trail to the Sonic.  It was completely silent out and a car was heading north, I didn't hear anything heading south so it was time to bail back down to Huntington Lake:




And with good reason, no engine noise meant nobody was coming which was HUGELY critical for the first half mile down from Kaiser Pass.  The road is really, really, REALLY bad here at maybe 7-8 feet wide with a big drop off on the western flank of the road.  Someone is going to have to back up if you encounter a car here and given how I was heading downhill I didn't want that to be me.  Usually in this situation I roll the windows down so I can hear what's coming, I got lucky and met the first driver heading the other way when the road widened briefly after the first large bend.  I'm in first gear at this point given the huge grade...I'm really glad I decided against the Challenger given it has 8 gears and it's as wide as a half-ton pickup truck.  The next 1.5 miles aren't so bad heading down hill as there is plenty of room to get past people if you take it slow which is something I had to do three times.  Kaiser Pass Road widened back out to a full two-lane at the gate:





After Kaiser Pass Road widened I stopped on a turnout overlooking Huntington Lake and got a picture.  I didn't see any assurance markers where CA 168 starts but it's important to keep in mind something about that intersection in the second picture:




So with that in mind CA 168 is a very old route and was among the first in the state to become signed in 1934.  The LRN was envisioned as a trans-Sierra route to Nevada all the way back when it received LRN 76 back in 1931.  While there doesn't appear to have been ever an official adopted alignment across the Sierras I would speculate that it would have had to include Kaiser Pass Road all the way to Edison Lake.  Kaiser Pass Road was likely built during the Second Phase of the Big Creek Hydroelectric Project which began in 1921.  The reason I say this is that the First Phase created Huntington Lake between 1913-1914 which means that the road to Kaiser Pass existed even back in the 1910s.  Florence Lake is the eastern most lake of the Big Creek project and was opened in 1926 upon completion of the dam bearing the name of the lake.  It would seem logical that that a one-lane road to the lakes where the dams were being built would be totally sufficient which in this case would likely mean this is where Kaiser Pass Road comes from.  Apparently there was a dog sled route up Kaiser Pass in 1920...I don't know the back story but it would seem that it might have been to scout routes out? 

Interesting fact about the second picture above; CA 168 used to start to the right and follow Huntington Lake across the north shore all the way to the village of Shaver Lake.  Apparently this alignment was replaced by 1956 and for anyone who has been on it....well you understand why since it has sections that are fairly similar to the narrow portions of Kaiser Pass Road:

1954 Highway Map
http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239555~5511870:Road-Map-of-the-State-of-California?sort=Date&qvq=q:caltrans;sort:Date;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=36&trs=86

1956 Highway Map
http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239549~5511866:Road-Map-of-the-State-of-California?sort=Date&qvq=q:caltrans;sort:Date;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=40&trs=86

So heading towards Shaver Lake the first reassurance marker for CA 168 is pretty close to the China Peak Ski Resort.  I stopped by Shaver Lake since it had some restroom and to check out the dam site.  Apparently Shaver Lake was also part of the Second Phase of the Big Creek Project being completed in 1927.  I passed through the village of Shaver Lake which is a little too artsy fartsy for my tastes.  By now the weekend warrior crowd is in full force and basically riding bumper to bumper.  I have zero intention on joining them down the modern expressway and stopped at a general store just past the intersection with Tollhouse Road:







The reason I turned onto Tollhouse Road was simply due to the fact that it's the 1934-1973 alignment of CA 168.  Prior to 1974 CA 168 would have cut east from it's current alignment to Humphrey's Station, north to Tollhouse, and up the big grade to Shaver Lake.  The grade used by Tollhouse Road to Tollhouse was built in the 1860s for the lumber industry which was present at the time roughly where Shaver Lake is now.  Basically you gain go from 1,900 to 4,500 feet above sea level in about 5 miles, so it's a fast climb.  The road is beautiful though with lots of nice vistas of the mountains and surrounding valleys.  In the fourth picture the modern CA 168 climbs on the rock face as an expressway all the way to the extreme right:






For what it's worth I could only find a couple highway maps showing the progression of the replacement of Tollhouse Road but couldn't find 1974:

1966 Highway Map
http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239519~5511846:State-Highway-Map,-California,-1966?sort=Date&qvq=q:caltrans;sort:Date;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=60&trs=86

1970 Highway Map
http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239509~5511840:State-Highway-Map,-California,-1970?sort=Date&qvq=q:caltrans;sort:Date;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=66&trs=86

1975 Highway Map
http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239506~5511838:California-State-Highways,-December?sort=Date&qvq=q:caltrans;sort:Date;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=68&trs=86

Interestingly as I entered Tollhouse there was actually a button-copy sign which seems to be a relic of the old CA 168 alignment.  From Humphrey's Station you would hang a right to follow the old alignment of CA 168 to where it meets the modern one which will take you back to Clovis.  I also took a picture of this CA 168 shield out in the open...cause why not?  I also passed the Academy ghost town and took a picture of the marker.  It tells an interesting tale which ties in with the village of Tollhouse and lumber industry:






One more note on CA 168s alignment.  Prior to 2001 the western segment of CA 168 would have followed Tollhouse Road southwest into Clovis, west on 3rd Street, south on Clovis Avenue, and west on Shaw Avenue to Fresno and CA 41.  Off-hand I don't recall when the CA 41 freeway was built but the old surface route was at Blackstone.  Strange to thing that the route doesn't even connect to CA 41 anymore.

But think about....that original 1934 route and the hellish trip you would have to take up to Huntington Lake.  Back in those days you'd have to contend with all those uber high-grade roads, with pre-war technology, on top of poor surface quality.  Basically a trip up CA 168 would have been a one-way trip for sure at least overnight, you'd have to stop repeatedly just to cool your brakes.  Strange to think that anyone really thought it was feasible for the two CA 168s ever to connect in retrospect, especially considering how crazy things get on Kaiser Pass Road even until today.

But the good news today is that I have a new goal to reach Florence Lake at some point...maybe 2017.  It seems that running a couple fresh tanks of gas has relieved the issue I was having up in Nevada....so with tires being installed Wednesday it seems everything will be sorted out.  I have about 1,000 miles to go until my transmission fluid needs to be changed....Sherman Pass seems realistic maybe now for Labor Day.  At this rate I might sneak Ebbetts and Sonora Pass in at this rate before Utah in October....might as well get as much out of summer as possible.



 


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.