AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: J21, Former LRN 130, and CA 201  (Read 3989 times)

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7890
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 12:19:42 AM
    • Sure, Why Not? (Highway Blog Spot)
J21, Former LRN 130, and CA 201
« on: January 15, 2017, 02:49:32 PM »

Given that there is virtually no chance of rain or snow until Wednesday I decided to take the scenic route through the Foot Hills this morning; County Route J21/Dry Creek Road, Boyd Drive/former LRN 130, and CA 201 just to do something different.  Made my way up 65 this morning and east on 198 to the eastern terminus of CA 216....however there was a problem:



Apparently the "End" sign has been alone for some time.  The GSV shows that the 216 magically disappeared some time from 2007 to 2013:

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.3953738,-119.0220834,3a,75y,180h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sxBliXVfoKCHbCGPcVYYOhw!2e0!7i3328!8i1664?hl=en

There isn't any J21 shields left out in the field, come to think of it I can't recall the last county route sign I've seen at all in Tulare County.  The southern terminus of J21 is at CA 216 and the northern terminus is near Badger 18.21 miles to the north.  J21 basically follows Dry Creek hence the name of the road, as you can probably surmise it was anything but dry after the weather this past week:



The first half of J21 is very well maintained and probably on the higher end of what I've found signed County Routes to be.  J21 dips down to a single lane briefly on a tight ridge:





For some reason J21 blows back out to a marked 2-lane but it doesn't last long with the single lane bridge coming up northward:




Things get very narrow and windy for the the duration of the route from the bridge.  I encountered a truck before the first photo below but that was the only vehicle I saw the duration of the journey on J21:





Quick FYI for anyone reading this thread, there will be four posts on this before I wrap things up.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2017, 07:58:07 PM by Max Rockatansky »
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7890
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 12:19:42 AM
    • Sure, Why Not? (Highway Blog Spot)
Re: J21, LRN 130, and CA 201
« Reply #1 on: January 15, 2017, 03:05:06 PM »

Part 2....

I forgot to mention earlier but there was a crap ton of "flooded" signs on the lower elevations when J21 narrowed.  There was a couple pools of standing water but nothing really worrisome, basically they all were gone by 1,000 feet.  At about 1,500 feet there is about only 3-4 miles left to go before CA 245, this is where the Chain Control signage appears:



Surprisingly J21 only has one major hairpin and it is a very wide one for a county route:




North to CA 245 the road is plenty wide but the climb is pretty steep to 3,000 feet at the terminus.  I broke the cloud cover at about 2,700 feet, too bad the sun was obstructing the view of The Great Western Divide with all the snow.  The water on the road was very fresh like a small storm had passed through by the time I hit 245.  The temperature dipped from 44 F at 216 to 29 F at 245, no ice though:








Really all I know about Dry Creek Road is that it has been around for a long time and has been a county route since 1968.  Below is the stub on cahighways.org for J21 and a 1934 Tulare County Map showing Dry Creek Road running next to Dry Creek:

1934 Tulare County Map

http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~247377~5515399?qvq=q%3Apub_title%3D%22California%2BHighway%2BTransportation%2BSurvey%2C%2B1934.%22%3Bsort%3ADate%3Blc%3ARUMSEY%7E8%7E1&mi=75&trs=85

J21 Stub

http://www.cahighways.org/countyj.html#J21


I took a southward turn on CA 245 headed in the direction of Boyd Drive:

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7890
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 12:19:42 AM
    • Sure, Why Not? (Highway Blog Spot)
Re: J21, LRN 130, and CA 201
« Reply #2 on: January 15, 2017, 03:52:36 PM »

Part 3....

Well back to that cloud cover, it was still on CA 245 as a pretty dense fog from about 2,700 to 1,800 feet.  245 had a crap ton of minor mud slides that a Caltrans crew was actively cleaning up, very strange to see them on a Sunday of all times.  I've been meaning to capture this early state highway bridge on 245 for some time, I didn't see the construction date but there appears to be a plaque that I'll have check out next time:



Wasn't too long before I made my way to Boyd Drive which was actually part of LRN 130.  Boyd Drive is a 6 mile road that descends from 245 at about 1,200 feet down to San Joaquin Valley at 600 feet a couple miles east of Orosi:



As you can see Boyd Drive is kinda of narrow:



Despite being curvy Boyd Drive is for the most part very flat for the first five miles.  Interestingly it seems that Boyd Drive had a center stripe that has largely washed away, it is slightly apparent in some of the photos below:




There is only one major hairpin on Boyd Drive which has some decent views westward towards San Joaquin Valley:




I didn't get any pictures but several cows broke out of their containment from washouts and were on Boyd Drive.  The last mile of Boyd Drive dips very quickly down to 600 feet in San Joaquin Valley where it becomes Road 168:





LRN 130 would have continued directly west to Orosi along El Monte Way.  The 1938 shows LRN 130 very clearly heading east out of Orosi to CA 65 which is of course now CA 245:

http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~247377~5515399?qvq=q%3Apub_title%3D%22California%2BHighway%2BTransportation%2BSurvey%2C%2B1934.%22%3Bsort%3ADate%3Blc%3ARUMSEY%7E8%7E1&mi=75&trs=85

Looking back at the 1934 map of Tulare County shows state maintenance on Boyd Drive, Road 168, Avenue 416, El Monte Avenue:

http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~247377~5515399?qvq=q%3Apub_title%3D%22California%2BHighway%2BTransportation%2BSurvey%2C%2B1934.%22%3Bsort%3ADate%3Blc%3ARUMSEY%7E8%7E1&mi=75&trs=85

On the 1950 state highway map CA 63 first appears north of Visalia.  It appears the highway went to Orosi but probably dead ends there since there is no signage on the map showing a turn east towards CA 65 along LRN 130:

http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239567~5511878:Road-Map-of-the-State-of-California?sort=Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No&qvq=q:caltrans;sort:Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=55&trs=86

Daniel has 63 being defined as 198 to 180 on his page but he has 63 appearing in 1953, seems it was slightly earlier.  here is another definition on his page for 63 running from 198 to 69:

http://www.cahighways.org/057-064.html

63 seems to run on LRN 132 from Tulare north to Orange Cove:

http://www.cahighways.org/129-136.html#LR132

The 1963 map shows the LRN numbers more clearly before the renumbering including LRN 130:

http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239528~5511852:State-Highway-Map,-California,-1963?sort=Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No&qvq=q:caltrans;sort:Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=29&trs=86

Strangely in 1964 it seems that CA 63 north of Orosi was renumbered to LRN 226 and LRN 130 became LRN 63:

http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239525~5511850:State-Highway-Map,-California,-1964?sort=Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No&qvq=q:caltrans;sort:Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=27&trs=86

1965 shows the same thing but CA 65 north of CA 198 became CA 69:

http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239522~5511848:State-Highway-Map,-California,-1965?sort=Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No&qvq=q:caltrans;sort:Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=25&trs=86

1966 shows the implied routing for CA 63 adopting the modern alignment to 180 while still showing an LRN of the same number east to CA 69:

http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239519~5511846:State-Highway-Map,-California,-1966?sort=Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No&qvq=q:caltrans;sort:Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=23&trs=86

By 1967 the implied routing north of CA 63 north to CA 180 becomes more clear and former LRN 130 is gone:

http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239516~5511844:State-Highway-Map,-California,-1967?sort=Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No&qvq=q:caltrans;sort:Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=21&trs=86

So in summary it would seem that from 1964 through 1966 that CA 63 might was at least planned on paper from Orosi to take El Monte Way, Avenue 416, Road 168, and Boyd Road east to CA 69.  Granted from the photos it is probably pretty obvious why 63 ultimately never took an eastward swing to CA 69 with the narrow room to work.  The 1966 still shows the alignment as gravel/dirt but it may explain why there is trace remains of a center stripes on Boyd Drive.  Regard....holy crap is that a convoluted back story for such a minor state highway.



« Last Edit: January 15, 2017, 08:03:12 PM by Max Rockatansky »
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7890
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 12:19:42 AM
    • Sure, Why Not? (Highway Blog Spot)
Re: J21, LRN 130, and CA 201
« Reply #3 on: January 15, 2017, 04:05:16 PM »

Part 4...

And this would be where the western terminus for LRN 130 would have been at which was was LRN 132 before it became CA 63:



Since I was in the area I figured that I would clinch CA 201 west of CA 63 since I was missing a mile somewhere in the middle between 63 and 99.  CA 201 was created out of LRN 131 with only a small stub east of it becoming CA 216 past CA 245.  I managed to capture three of the four reassurance CA 201 shields heading to Kingsburg.  Much like Quillz just pointed out in his thread, nary a directional reassurance sign to be found with the 201 shields:






The western terminus of CA 201 is well marked however:





All and all it was a nice change of pace to get back to the Sierras after the Gabilan and Diablos.  Not every day that I can find something worth checking out and worth driving this time of year.  I was original going to try G16 and possibly the Nacimiento-Furgusson Road but it isn't really clear if CA 1 is open or not from the Quick Map.  Should be interesting to see how much things get beat up in Tulare County this coming Wednesday forward maybe until the following Tuesday.

Edit:  Something interesting in regards to the highway bridge on CA 245 in the first photo of part 3.  Apparently there was a community called Auckland that used to be just south of that bridge.  For whatever reason Auckland still appears on Google Maps but doesn't appear to have any traces unlike Badger to the north.  That 1934 map of Tulare County is the last reference that I can find showing Auckland on any map, it disappeared off the state highway map in 1928 and is shown on the oldest state highway map I have from 1918.  The earliest reference to Auckland I can find is on the Tulare County Map which shows that it had a post office in 1892 which is the same map I used to track some of the back story of Badger, Kaweah Colony, and Colony Mill Road.  Kind of another hobby of mine is finding ghost towns, so if anyone has any additional information about Auckland I would love to hear it.

1928 State Highway Map

http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239602~5511900:Map-Showing-State-Highway-System--C?sort=Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No&qvq=q:caltrans;sort:Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=78&trs=86

1892 Tulare County Map

http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~24869~970021:Tulare-County,-California-?sort=pub_list_no_initialsort%2Cpub_date%2Cpub_list_no%2Cseries_no&qvq=q:tulare%2Bcounty;sort:pub_list_no_initialsort%2Cpub_date%2Cpub_list_no%2Cseries_no;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=54&trs=346
« Last Edit: January 15, 2017, 10:41:03 PM by Max Rockatansky »
Logged

Quillz

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2506
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Los Angeles, CA
  • Last Login: January 10, 2019, 06:30:26 AM
Re: J21, Former LRN 130, and CA 201
« Reply #4 on: January 15, 2017, 10:41:02 PM »

I spent the weekend in Monterey and today coming back, made use of County Route J16 (Carmel Valley Road). I'm very surprised how poorly maintained some county routes are. I figured they would effectively be the same quality as state routes, but they're not. Much like the one you drove on, I found awful pavements, little to no lane striping, and several instances of single-lane road.
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

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7890
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 12:19:42 AM
    • Sure, Why Not? (Highway Blog Spot)
Re: J21, Former LRN 130, and CA 201
« Reply #5 on: January 15, 2017, 10:50:11 PM »

I spent the weekend in Monterey and today coming back, made use of County Route J16 (Carmel Valley Road). I'm very surprised how poorly maintained some county routes are. I figured they would effectively be the same quality as state routes, but they're not. Much like the one you drove on, I found awful pavements, little to no lane striping, and several instances of single-lane road.

You mean G16 which is ironic since that was part of my original plans for the weekend before CA 1 kept getting delayed on reopening.  Probably the worst as far as bad maintenance would be J1 in San Benito County, at least in Fresno County the route is being resurfaced west of I-5.  I wouldn't really rate J21 as all that bad, really the asphalt was pretty good until that one big switchback near the top a couple miles from CA 245.  The variation between how certain counties maintain their routes is absolutely huge, as you can see Tulare doesn't seem to care about signing them while Monterey is almost obsessive about it.  Some of the County Routes like J59 and J132 are arguably better than a lot of state highways...basically the whole system is all over the place in regards to maintenance and design.

Interestingly I think you kind of caught onto what I was going for with County Route expansion thread.  Really so long as the road goes through as a secondary route or goes somewhere specific like a state park it could easily meet the current criteria for a signed county route...which ain't saying much beyond having a basic level of asphalt.  Personally I wouldn't mind having some quality gravel and dirt roads as part of the County Route program.  That could be the Arizona in me speaking though as I'm used to stuff like AZ 88 and AZ 288 still being in the state highway system.

NE2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13680
  • fuck

  • Age: 10
  • Location: central Florida
  • Last Login: January 23, 2019, 11:49:21 PM
Logged
Florida route log | pre-1945
I will do my best to not make America hate again.
Global warming denial is barely worse than white privilege denial.

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7890
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 12:19:42 AM
    • Sure, Why Not? (Highway Blog Spot)
Re: J21, Former LRN 130, and CA 201
« Reply #7 on: January 15, 2017, 11:09:05 PM »

Gousha (1956) shows SR 63 going east from Orosi: http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~212044~5500195:Shell-Highway-Map-of-California--so
So does the 1950 USGS topo: http://historicaerials.com/?layer=T1950&zoom=15&lat=36.545&lon=-119.261

Nice!....that's one hell of a find right there.  I'd say with all these maps that shows pretty good evidence that CA 63 originally ended at CA 65.   Anything showing CA 63 prior to 1950 in general?  I'd like to fill that last piece of the puzzle for the first year 63 was around if possible and get a note over to Daniel. 

cahwyguy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 305
  • California Highway Guy

  • Age: 59
  • Location: Northridge, CA
  • Last Login: January 23, 2019, 05:52:27 PM
    • California Highways
Re: J21, Former LRN 130, and CA 201
« Reply #8 on: January 15, 2017, 11:15:54 PM »

Do make a distinction, as you investigate, between when the road was created and when it was signed.
Logged
Daniel - California Highway Guy ● Highway Site: http://www.cahighways.org/ ●  Blog: http://blog.cahighways.org/ ● Follow California Highways on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/cahighways

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7890
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 12:19:42 AM
    • Sure, Why Not? (Highway Blog Spot)
Re: J21, Former LRN 130, and CA 201
« Reply #9 on: January 15, 2017, 11:23:28 PM »

Do make a distinction, as you investigate, between when the road was created and when it was signed.

That's part of the mystery that I can't seem to nail down.  It looks like your source for 1958 date on the signage date was possibly Jake from what it looked like on your page?  From what it looks like the route may have existed as early as 1950 but the signage date is still (I suppose this would be an opinion since I don't have a source on this) possibly 1958 unless something else comes up.  Photos of that particular area of Tulare County north of Visalia aren't easy to come by.  I've had issues in the past while researching Badger and Kaweah in the past where photos and really any documentation was sparse to say the least.

Incidentally if anyone else is reading this post, I'm referring to this CA 63 shield in the gallery which has a date stamp on it:

http://shields.aaroads.com/show.php?image=CA19570631&search=63
« Last Edit: January 15, 2017, 11:31:13 PM by Max Rockatansky »
Logged

NE2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13680
  • fuck

  • Age: 10
  • Location: central Florida
  • Last Login: January 23, 2019, 11:49:21 PM
Re: J21, Former LRN 130, and CA 201
« Reply #10 on: January 15, 2017, 11:30:46 PM »

SR 63 was definitely signed by 1954 (and included what's now SR 137 between SR 99 and SR 63): http://archive.org/stream/californiahighwa195455calirich#page/34/mode/2up/search/ssr+63
Logged
Florida route log | pre-1945
I will do my best to not make America hate again.
Global warming denial is barely worse than white privilege denial.

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7890
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 12:19:42 AM
    • Sure, Why Not? (Highway Blog Spot)
Re: J21, Former LRN 130, and CA 201
« Reply #11 on: January 15, 2017, 11:39:31 PM »

SR 63 was definitely signed by 1954 (and included what's now SR 137 between SR 99 and SR 63): http://archive.org/stream/californiahighwa195455calirich#page/34/mode/2up/search/ssr+63

That would make sense, 137 was a post renumbering route and would have been just LRN 134.  It would been the have logical thing to sign 63 on Tulare Avenue from US 99 given there was no east/west signed route there at the time.   

Edit:  Page 19 has a 63 shield on a BGS for the exit to Tulare Avenue in the far background of the lower picture.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2017, 10:39:19 AM by Max Rockatansky »
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5003
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: January 23, 2019, 09:44:37 PM
Re: J21, Former LRN 130, and CA 201
« Reply #12 on: January 16, 2017, 05:46:14 AM »

SSR 63 was definitely signed over LRN 130 from (then) SSR 65 to Orosi, where it turned south on LRN 132 to Visalia.  Back in the summer of '61 I attended a Boy Scout summer camp with my troop in the General Grant section of Kings Canyon Park.  My dad came up from Glendale to pick me up at the end of the event, and we took 65 (now 245) south from 180 on that return trip, but cut over on SSR 63/LRN 130 in order to visit my great uncle in Dinuba, a few miles west of Orosi.  It was my first trip to that area as a budding roadgeek (apparently I'd been all over that area when I was about 3, but without any detailed recollection on my part).  The endless citrus groves and the RR crossings seemingly appearing out of nowhere (both SP and Santa Fe had multiple branch lines devoted to the citrus traffic; there was even a short electric-powered line more or less following, at times 198 and [now] 216, the Visalia Electric, which also served the area east of Visalia) were particularly striking features to me at the time. 

LRN 132, which was originally SSR 63 from just east of central Tulare north through Visalia to Orosi, extended north and west from its SSR 63-signed portion to a stub-end in Orange Cove; after the '64 renumbering, that stub was originally to be signed as CA 226, but CA 63 was extended in the '70's north on this highway to former county route J19, which skirted the east side of Orange Cove.  CA 63 then utilized J19 north to CA 180, where it still terminates.  The CA 226 designation was decommissioned and has not been re-used to date. 
« Last Edit: January 16, 2017, 05:48:42 AM by sparker »
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7890
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 12:19:42 AM
    • Sure, Why Not? (Highway Blog Spot)
Re: J21, Former LRN 130, and CA 201
« Reply #13 on: January 16, 2017, 07:40:45 AM »

SSR 63 was definitely signed over LRN 130 from (then) SSR 65 to Orosi, where it turned south on LRN 132 to Visalia.  Back in the summer of '61 I attended a Boy Scout summer camp with my troop in the General Grant section of Kings Canyon Park.  My dad came up from Glendale to pick me up at the end of the event, and we took 65 (now 245) south from 180 on that return trip, but cut over on SSR 63/LRN 130 in order to visit my great uncle in Dinuba, a few miles west of Orosi.  It was my first trip to that area as a budding roadgeek (apparently I'd been all over that area when I was about 3, but without any detailed recollection on my part).  The endless citrus groves and the RR crossings seemingly appearing out of nowhere (both SP and Santa Fe had multiple branch lines devoted to the citrus traffic; there was even a short electric-powered line more or less following, at times 198 and [now] 216, the Visalia Electric, which also served the area east of Visalia) were particularly striking features to me at the time. 

LRN 132, which was originally SSR 63 from just east of central Tulare north through Visalia to Orosi, extended north and west from its SSR 63-signed portion to a stub-end in Orange Cove; after the '64 renumbering, that stub was originally to be signed as CA 226, but CA 63 was extended in the '70's north on this highway to former county route J19, which skirted the east side of Orange Cove.  CA 63 then utilized J19 north to CA 180, where it still terminates.  The CA 226 designation was decommissioned and has not been re-used to date.

That's a neat story about the area.  I guess this all clarifies for me why 63 takes so many weird 90 degree turns to back track from Orosi to the west to get to 180; it wasn't intended to go that way in the beginning.  I suppose it makes sense to straighten 63 into a clearly north/south route rather than one that really would have been all over the place on LRN 130.  Odd though that LRN 130 was dropped and never became at least a signed county route given that it is a handy short cut from 245 to 63 despite the poor condition. 

There are some strange back stories for so many routes in the area, you've mentioned the debacle with 65/69/245 in the past.  180 had a crazy alignment over Dunlap Road originally and additional state highways like 201, 198, 245, and 216 still utilize 90 degree cuts in their alignments...granted some of them are softened with curves (198 and 216 come to mind).

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5003
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: January 23, 2019, 09:44:37 PM
Re: J21, Former LRN 130, and CA 201
« Reply #15 on: February 27, 2017, 06:14:26 AM »

Found a 1956 state map from Shell that has 63 on Boyd Drive east out of Orosi to 65:

http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~212044~5500195:Shell-Highway-Map-of-California--so?sort=Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No&qvq=q:california%2Bhighway%2Bmap;sort:Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=24&trs=202

As a kid, it always intrigued me that Gousha maps actually showed unsigned CA state highways sans circular numerical indicators by the dark lines usually reserved for numbered state routes, when they didn't do so in other states with unsigned routes (i.e., OR).  Also, those dark lines were navy blue on Shell & Chevron maps, but jet black on the ones supplied to Texaco.  My dad had a Shell credit card back in the late '50's when I started collecting maps, and one of the perks of that was that he could order free out-of-state Shell maps (state and major city) for those states with Shell stations -- and they had a co-op agreement with Phillips 66 for maps of states they didn't serve.  Needless to say, I pretty much bugged my dad to order a batch of maps at least once a month!  He'd regularly say that if he abused that privilege too much, they'd cut him off -- and he was reluctant to test out that theory!  But by the time I was 9, I had Gousha maps of every state.  Then I discovered both Gousha and McNally road atlases.......which regularly became Xmas stocking stuffers!
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7890
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 12:19:42 AM
    • Sure, Why Not? (Highway Blog Spot)
Re: J21, Former LRN 130, and CA 201
« Reply #16 on: February 27, 2017, 07:40:02 AM »

Usually my Dad and I were on the road through several states throughout the year in the car.  For some reason he put me in charge of being the navigator with the AAA road atlas which he never got updated.  I remember about 8-10 years in we started to encounter highway realignment or ever Interstate sections that had been completed previously.  He was pretty cavalier about not worrying about exploring some road that wasn't on the map based off on what the guide sign would tell me.  It made me paranoid as all hell as a kid though, he would do that stuff on almost an empty tank and left us stranded a couple times.  :-D  I always did grab the state highway maps at rest areas and would study them in my spare time.  I guess that I was more or less just interested in what was out there and how off the beaten path it could be...I suppose not much has changed in that regard.

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7890
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 12:19:42 AM
    • Sure, Why Not? (Highway Blog Spot)
Re: J21, Former LRN 130, and CA 201
« Reply #17 on: April 28, 2017, 08:21:47 PM »

SSR 63 was definitely signed over LRN 130 from (then) SSR 65 to Orosi, where it turned south on LRN 132 to Visalia.  Back in the summer of '61 I attended a Boy Scout summer camp with my troop in the General Grant section of Kings Canyon Park.  My dad came up from Glendale to pick me up at the end of the event, and we took 65 (now 245) south from 180 on that return trip, but cut over on SSR 63/LRN 130 in order to visit my great uncle in Dinuba, a few miles west of Orosi.  It was my first trip to that area as a budding roadgeek (apparently I'd been all over that area when I was about 3, but without any detailed recollection on my part).  The endless citrus groves and the RR crossings seemingly appearing out of nowhere (both SP and Santa Fe had multiple branch lines devoted to the citrus traffic; there was even a short electric-powered line more or less following, at times 198 and [now] 216, the Visalia Electric, which also served the area east of Visalia) were particularly striking features to me at the time. 

LRN 132, which was originally SSR 63 from just east of central Tulare north through Visalia to Orosi, extended north and west from its SSR 63-signed portion to a stub-end in Orange Cove; after the '64 renumbering, that stub was originally to be signed as CA 226, but CA 63 was extended in the '70's north on this highway to former county route J19, which skirted the east side of Orange Cove.  CA 63 then utilized J19 north to CA 180, where it still terminates.  The CA 226 designation was decommissioned and has not been re-used to date.

Rather than starting a new thread I figured that I would just post this album here:

https://flic.kr/s/aHskYMN9SZ

Basically I drove CA 63 south off of CA 180 today to get heading back south.  That being the case I drove the alignment of SSR 226/LRN 132 from Orange Cove to Orosi.  Nothing really all that notable given it was a short route, but neat to see given I know what it once was now.  The drop on CA 63 in the Orange Cove Hills south from CA 180 has a deceptively huge grade to it.  I actually warped a rotor going too fast and heating got things a little too hot.  Even managed a J19 Shield which probably had a lot to do with Fresno County actually signing County Routes pretty well.

cahwyguy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 305
  • California Highway Guy

  • Age: 59
  • Location: Northridge, CA
  • Last Login: January 23, 2019, 05:52:27 PM
    • California Highways
Re: J21, Former LRN 130, and CA 201
« Reply #18 on: September 02, 2017, 02:21:22 PM »

I'm going through this discussion as part of following some emailed information from Max R. I don't think this issue is fully resolved -- at least I can't figure it out fully.

Let's go to the definitions:

LRN 10: The route that would become LRN 10 was defined in the 1909 First Highway Bond act as running from Goshen to Hanford. In 1915, Chapter 404 extended it from Hanford to San Lucas ("an extension connecting the San Joaquin valley trunk line in Tulare County with the coast trunk line in Monterey County by the continuation of the lateral between the cities of Visalia and Hanford through Coalinga by the most direct and practical route..."). The 1919 Third Bond Issue further extended the route from Visalia (note that Goshen changed its name to Visalia) to Sequoia National Park. By 1935, the route was codified into the highway code as: From [LRN 2] near San Lucas to the Sequoia National Park line via Coalinga, Hanford, and Visalia.

LRN 129: In 1929, Chapter 767 defined the route from "[LRN 4] near Bakersfield to Fresno-General Grant National Park Road" as a state highway. In 1935, this was codified as LRN 129 in the highway code with the definition: "[LRN 4] near Bakersfield to [LRN 41] near General Grant National Park."

LRN 130: In 1933, Chapter 767 defined the route from "Orosi to Bakersfield-General Grant Park Road" as a state highway. This was codified into the highway code as LRN 130, with the definition: Orosi to [LRN 129]

LRN 132: In 1933, Chapter 767 defined the route "Tulare-Lindsay Road near Tulare to Orange Cove" as part of the highway system. In 1935, this was codified in the highway code as LRN 132, with the definition: [LRN 134] near Tulare to Orange Cove

LRN 134: In 1933, Chapter 767 defined the route from "Corcoran to Lindsay via Tulare" as part of the state highway system. In 1935, this was codified in the highway code as LRN 134, with the definition: "[LRN 135] at Corcoran to Lindsay via Tulare"

So where did the signed routes fit into all of this? It is important to note that a portion of what was pre-1964 Signed Route 65 became Route 69, and then was renumbered as Route 245 (no one has mentioned Route 69 above).

LRN 134 became Route 137.  LRN 10 became Route 198. Route 198 and Route 65 appear to have been the only routes signed in 1938 (at least, they are the only ones showing as signed of this bunch on Rumsey's map). LRN 129 was SSR 65, portions of which became Route 69 and later Route 245.

So, if LRN 132 (which became Route 63) ran from the Tulare-Lindsey Road (current Route 137, LRN 134), that would imply that (a) The portion from where LRN 132 met LRN 134 wasn't part of Route 63 at any time; and (b) it appears that LRN 132 and LRN 10 must have run concurrently for a small portion near Visalia, yet I didn't think LRNs ran concurrently. So was there something else that was LRN 132.

As for Route 63: The 1963 definition for the 2nd segment was "Route 198 to Route 69 via Orosi." Recall: Route 69 is former Route 65 and current Route 245. The portion of LRN 132 from Orosi to Orange Cove was signed as Route 226 post 1963. In 1965, Route 226 was deleted and added to Route 63, with the Orosi to Route 69 (245) portion being deleted from the state highways system. I show it as becoming CR J40, but those are horribly signed -- it was Avenue 416 and Boyd Drive.


Logged
Daniel - California Highway Guy ● Highway Site: http://www.cahighways.org/ ●  Blog: http://blog.cahighways.org/ ● Follow California Highways on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/cahighways

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5003
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: January 23, 2019, 09:44:37 PM
Re: J21, Former LRN 130, and CA 201
« Reply #19 on: September 02, 2017, 03:01:32 PM »

I'm going through this discussion as part of following some emailed information from Max R. I don't think this issue is fully resolved -- at least I can't figure it out fully.

Let's go to the definitions:

LRN 10: The route that would become LRN 10 was defined in the 1909 First Highway Bond act as running from Goshen to Hanford. In 1915, Chapter 404 extended it from Hanford to San Lucas ("an extension connecting the San Joaquin valley trunk line in Tulare County with the coast trunk line in Monterey County by the continuation of the lateral between the cities of Visalia and Hanford through Coalinga by the most direct and practical route..."). The 1919 Third Bond Issue further extended the route from Visalia (note that Goshen changed its name to Visalia) to Sequoia National Park. By 1935, the route was codified into the highway code as: From [LRN 2] near San Lucas to the Sequoia National Park line via Coalinga, Hanford, and Visalia.

LRN 129: In 1929, Chapter 767 defined the route from "[LRN 4] near Bakersfield to Fresno-General Grant National Park Road" as a state highway. In 1935, this was codified as LRN 129 in the highway code with the definition: "[LRN 4] near Bakersfield to [LRN 41] near General Grant National Park."

LRN 130: In 1933, Chapter 767 defined the route from "Orosi to Bakersfield-General Grant Park Road" as a state highway. This was codified into the highway code as LRN 130, with the definition: Orosi to [LRN 129]

LRN 132: In 1933, Chapter 767 defined the route "Tulare-Lindsay Road near Tulare to Orange Cove" as part of the highway system. In 1935, this was codified in the highway code as LRN 132, with the definition: [LRN 134] near Tulare to Orange Cove

LRN 134: In 1933, Chapter 767 defined the route from "Corcoran to Lindsay via Tulare" as part of the state highway system. In 1935, this was codified in the highway code as LRN 134, with the definition: "[LRN 135] at Corcoran to Lindsay via Tulare"

So where did the signed routes fit into all of this? It is important to note that a portion of what was pre-1964 Signed Route 65 became Route 69, and then was renumbered as Route 245 (no one has mentioned Route 69 above).

LRN 134 became Route 137.  LRN 10 became Route 198. Route 198 and Route 65 appear to have been the only routes signed in 1938 (at least, they are the only ones showing as signed of this bunch on Rumsey's map). LRN 129 was SSR 65, portions of which became Route 69 and later Route 245.

So, if LRN 132 (which became Route 63) ran from the Tulare-Lindsey Road (current Route 137, LRN 134), that would imply that (a) The portion from where LRN 132 met LRN 134 wasn't part of Route 63 at any time; and (b) it appears that LRN 132 and LRN 10 must have run concurrently for a small portion near Visalia, yet I didn't think LRNs ran concurrently. So was there something else that was LRN 132.

As for Route 63: The 1963 definition for the 2nd segment was "Route 198 to Route 69 via Orosi." Recall: Route 69 is former Route 65 and current Route 245. The portion of LRN 132 from Orosi to Orange Cove was signed as Route 226 post 1963. In 1965, Route 226 was deleted and added to Route 63, with the Orosi to Route 69 (245) portion being deleted from the state highways system. I show it as becoming CR J40, but those are horribly signed -- it was Avenue 416 and Boyd Drive.




Prior to the '64 renumbering, SSR 63 was signed on LRN 134 from LRN 4 (US 99) east a short distance to LRN 132, north on LRN 132 to LRN 130 near Orosi, and then east on LRN 130 to LRN 129 (SSR 65).  Post-renumbering: the "stub" of LRN 132 from Orosi to Orange Cove was indeed new CA 226, but was never signed as such; the '65 renumbering put the kibosh on that.  CA 63 continued to be signed over the short section of new CA 137 for about a year and a half; CA 137 signage was erected over the summer of '65, truncating CA 63 to the 63/137 interchange east of Tulare.  Curiously, the Paige Avenue exit on CA 99 (south of the 99/137 interchange in central Tulare) was marked as "TO CA 63" on the exit's BGS during the late '60's, since taking Paige east from the exit for about a half-mile brought one to Mooney Blvd., the local extension of CA 63.  That signage disappeared around 1970, with no further mention of CA 63 anywhere along CA 99. 
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7890
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 12:19:42 AM
    • Sure, Why Not? (Highway Blog Spot)
Re: J21, Former LRN 130, and CA 201
« Reply #20 on: September 02, 2017, 03:32:33 PM »

Ugh....really sucks to see the pictures jacked up by Photobucket's new third party site sharing policy, I'll have to fix that when I get back home today.  I'll double check my map sources from David Ramsey tonight also, too bad there isn't historical photos that I could find in regards to 63.

cahwyguy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 305
  • California Highway Guy

  • Age: 59
  • Location: Northridge, CA
  • Last Login: January 23, 2019, 05:52:27 PM
    • California Highways
Re: J21, Former LRN 130, and CA 201
« Reply #21 on: September 02, 2017, 05:57:47 PM »

Prior to the '64 renumbering, SSR 63 was signed on LRN 134 from LRN 4 (US 99) east a short distance to LRN 132, north on LRN 132 to LRN 130 near Orosi

Given this, please explain to me how there wasn't a multiplex of LRN 132 and LRN 10 for the short distance near Visalia, because LRN 10/SSR 198 existed at that time?
Logged
Daniel - California Highway Guy ● Highway Site: http://www.cahighways.org/ ●  Blog: http://blog.cahighways.org/ ● Follow California Highways on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/cahighways

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5003
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: January 23, 2019, 09:44:37 PM
Re: J21, Former LRN 130, and CA 201
« Reply #22 on: September 03, 2017, 01:57:38 AM »

Prior to the '64 renumbering, SSR 63 was signed on LRN 134 from LRN 4 (US 99) east a short distance to LRN 132, north on LRN 132 to LRN 130 near Orosi

Given this, please explain to me how there wasn't a multiplex of LRN 132 and LRN 10 for the short distance near Visalia, because LRN 10/SSR 198 existed at that time?


Although Division of Highways normal practice prior to the '64 renumbering was to divide the LRN's into sections separated by any multiplexes along the route, with the legal definition expressed in subsets as (a), (b), (c), and so forth, that practice was in fact pretty lax at times; a lot of short multiplexes seemed to slip through the cracks.  The "jog" of LRN 132 over LRN 10 in Visalia was one of those instances; there was no break in the definition of LRN 132; it was expressed as a single route.  I can attest from personal experience as a kid that the multiplex of SSR 63 and SSR 198 was indeed signed as such in the late '50's and early '60's (many visits to my great-uncle in Dinuba as well as a few to Sequoia NP). 

However, post-renumbering, it seems as if the legal route definitions have "tightened up" a bit, with separate sections generally expressed as such within the legislative descriptions.   CA 63 is indeed listed in this manner, with one section extending from CA 137 to CA 198 and the other from CA 198 to CA 180. 
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7890
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 12:19:42 AM
    • Sure, Why Not? (Highway Blog Spot)
Re: J21, Former LRN 130, and CA 201
« Reply #23 on: September 03, 2017, 08:09:42 AM »

Prior to the '64 renumbering, SSR 63 was signed on LRN 134 from LRN 4 (US 99) east a short distance to LRN 132, north on LRN 132 to LRN 130 near Orosi

Given this, please explain to me how there wasn't a multiplex of LRN 132 and LRN 10 for the short distance near Visalia, because LRN 10/SSR 198 existed at that time?


Although Division of Highways normal practice prior to the '64 renumbering was to divide the LRN's into sections separated by any multiplexes along the route, with the legal definition expressed in subsets as (a), (b), (c), and so forth, that practice was in fact pretty lax at times; a lot of short multiplexes seemed to slip through the cracks.  The "jog" of LRN 132 over LRN 10 in Visalia was one of those instances; there was no break in the definition of LRN 132; it was expressed as a single route.  I can attest from personal experience as a kid that the multiplex of SSR 63 and SSR 198 was indeed signed as such in the late '50's and early '60's (many visits to my great-uncle in Dinuba as well as a few to Sequoia NP). 

However, post-renumbering, it seems as if the legal route definitions have "tightened up" a bit, with separate sections generally expressed as such within the legislative descriptions.   CA 63 is indeed listed in this manner, with one section extending from CA 137 to CA 198 and the other from CA 198 to CA 180.

Interestingly I've noticed that 63 seems to exist on both on the 198 freeway for a short job and the Frontage Roads with Mineral King Avenue and Noble Avenue.  To continue on southbound 63 signage would seem to indicate you stay on westbound Mineral King Avenue to Mooney Avenue:

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.3273213,-119.2964274,3a,75y,239.58h,83.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2UPzsfEzT7bona2FSkktBQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

However if you jump onto 198 west you'll see 63 is also signed:

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.3273213,-119.2964274,3a,75y,239.58h,83.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2UPzsfEzT7bona2FSkktBQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

Northbound 63 on Noble seems to be more vague with signage:

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.3273213,-119.2964274,3a,75y,239.58h,83.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2UPzsfEzT7bona2FSkktBQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

But nonetheless 63 is co-signed on the 198 freeway northbound also:

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.3273213,-119.2964274,3a,75y,239.58h,83.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2UPzsfEzT7bona2FSkktBQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en


As for the Boyd Drive album in question, the link (that isn't broke) is right here:

https://flic.kr/s/aHskRudh1Z

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5003
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: January 23, 2019, 09:44:37 PM
Re: J21, Former LRN 130, and CA 201
« Reply #24 on: September 03, 2017, 07:06:47 PM »

Prior to the '64 renumbering, SSR 63 was signed on LRN 134 from LRN 4 (US 99) east a short distance to LRN 132, north on LRN 132 to LRN 130 near Orosi

Given this, please explain to me how there wasn't a multiplex of LRN 132 and LRN 10 for the short distance near Visalia, because LRN 10/SSR 198 existed at that time?


Although Division of Highways normal practice prior to the '64 renumbering was to divide the LRN's into sections separated by any multiplexes along the route, with the legal definition expressed in subsets as (a), (b), (c), and so forth, that practice was in fact pretty lax at times; a lot of short multiplexes seemed to slip through the cracks.  The "jog" of LRN 132 over LRN 10 in Visalia was one of those instances; there was no break in the definition of LRN 132; it was expressed as a single route.  I can attest from personal experience as a kid that the multiplex of SSR 63 and SSR 198 was indeed signed as such in the late '50's and early '60's (many visits to my great-uncle in Dinuba as well as a few to Sequoia NP). 

However, post-renumbering, it seems as if the legal route definitions have "tightened up" a bit, with separate sections generally expressed as such within the legislative descriptions.   CA 63 is indeed listed in this manner, with one section extending from CA 137 to CA 198 and the other from CA 198 to CA 180.

Interestingly I've noticed that 63 seems to exist on both on the 198 freeway for a short job and the Frontage Roads with Mineral King Avenue and Noble Avenue.  To continue on southbound 63 signage would seem to indicate you stay on westbound Mineral King Avenue to Mooney Avenue:

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.3273213,-119.2964274,3a,75y,239.58h,83.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2UPzsfEzT7bona2FSkktBQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

However if you jump onto 198 west you'll see 63 is also signed:

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.3273213,-119.2964274,3a,75y,239.58h,83.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2UPzsfEzT7bona2FSkktBQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

Northbound 63 on Noble seems to be more vague with signage:

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.3273213,-119.2964274,3a,75y,239.58h,83.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2UPzsfEzT7bona2FSkktBQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

But nonetheless 63 is co-signed on the 198 freeway northbound also:

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.3273213,-119.2964274,3a,75y,239.58h,83.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2UPzsfEzT7bona2FSkktBQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en


As for the Boyd Drive album in question, the link (that isn't broke) is right here:

https://flic.kr/s/aHskRudh1Z

All 4 of the Visalia pictures are the same -- WB on Mineral King alongside the 198 freeway.  The signage seems to indicate that CA 63 (at least SB) remains on the frontage road for the "multiplex", while traffic heading to WB 198 takes the freeway on-ramp. 

Next time I'm down that way I'll have to make a side trip to Visalia to see what gives, signage-wise!
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.