AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: CA 33  (Read 2737 times)

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 9854
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 06:53:06 PM
    • Gribblenation
CA 33
« on: July 24, 2018, 11:59:13 PM »

I drove CA 33 from CA 198 in Coalinga all the way north to the split on CA 152 near Pacheco Pass.  Turns out that I actually had a bunch of photo stock from the last three years that I was able to cobble into a photo album of CA 33 from US 101 north to the Original CA 207 alignment.  There are quite a few alignment shifts in the Central Valley I'll make maps for the blog post but for now the photos can be seen here:

https://www.flickr.com/gp/151828809@N08/890h0i

Obviously my photo quality has greatly increased since 2016.  I'm not sure when I'll get back out to the section of 33 between 119 and 269 for some updates...
« Last Edit: June 23, 2019, 02:22:09 PM by Max Rockatansky »
Logged

Quillz

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2513
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Los Angeles, CA
  • Last Login: July 24, 2019, 12:25:24 PM
Re: CA 33
« Reply #1 on: July 25, 2018, 09:27:57 AM »

Last time I was there, 269 was closed for some reason. Also 5 southbound puts you on a road to Coalinga a bit south of 198. But itís signed as ďTOĒ 198 until reaching 33/Coalinga.
Logged
US Highways: 1 / 2 / 6 / 12 / 14 / 16 / 18 / 20 / 26 / 30 / 50 / 64 / 66 / 84 / 85 / 87 / 91 / 93 / 95 / 97 / 99 / 101 / 189 / 191 / 201 / 285 / 287 / 385 / 395
Interstate Highways: 5 / 10 / 15 / 17 / 25 / 40 / 45 / 70 / 80 / 84 / 89 / 90 / 93 / 95

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 9854
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 06:53:06 PM
    • Gribblenation
Re: CA 33
« Reply #2 on: July 25, 2018, 11:00:16 AM »

Last time I was there, 269 was closed for some reason. Also 5 southbound puts you on a road to Coalinga a bit south of 198. But itís signed as ďTOĒ 198 until reaching 33/Coalinga.

Interestingly Iíve never driven 33 south from 5/145 to 198, so thatís a little strange to hear.  I thought the blue arrow placard pointing at I-5 rather than Coalinga-Mendota Road was fairly amusing.  33 on the whole is a weird route with a lot of long multiplexes. 

nexus73

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1828
  • Age: 64
  • Location: Coos Bay OR
  • Last Login: Today at 02:20:38 PM
Re: CA 33
« Reply #3 on: July 25, 2018, 11:19:50 AM »

Based on the map, 33 always struck me as the "back alley" for the San Joaquin Valley, which made the route of interest to me.  Sorry to say I have never driven 33, so thank you for the pix collection Max. 

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.

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6141
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 06:32:06 PM
Re: CA 33
« Reply #4 on: July 25, 2018, 05:55:07 PM »

CA 33 (and SSR 33 before it) is indeed one odd duck!  It was originally two separate LRN's:  138, from Taft to Coalinga (and which also encompassed the US 399 portion between Taft and Ventura that eventually was incorporated into post-'64 CA 33), and 41, which was 33 from Mendota all the way to its historic terminus east of Tracy plus all of SSR 180 (CA 180) east of Mendota, including the isolated segment between the two sections of Kings Canyon National Park.  Both of those were commissioned prior to WWII; the section between Coalinga and Mendota (using Derrick Ave.) remained a county road until about 1957, when it was brought into the system as an extension of LRN 138 and signed as SSR 33.  Much of the push for the route came from the large "agribusinesses" that dominate the west side of the San Joaquin Valley:  oil, cotton, and cattle along the southern reaches, and fruits/vegetables from Mendota north (Mendota to Los Banos is the center of CA's melon-growing region).  After WWII CA 33 multiplexed with CA 166 from Taft to US 99 near Wheeler Ridge; the rationale behind that was to position CA 33 as an alternate to US 99, particularly when the latter route was socked in with "tule fog" in winter months.  Of course, when the I-5 Westside alignment was selected for that route in late 1957, SSR/CA 33 would have been relegated to a secondary role in any case.  But since the land usage of the west valley hasn't abated, CA 33 remains useful as a regional server and connector. 
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 9854
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 06:53:06 PM
    • Gribblenation
Re: CA 33
« Reply #5 on: July 25, 2018, 10:35:28 PM »

CA 33 (and SSR 33 before it) is indeed one odd duck!  It was originally two separate LRN's:  138, from Taft to Coalinga (and which also encompassed the US 399 portion between Taft and Ventura that eventually was incorporated into post-'64 CA 33), and 41, which was 33 from Mendota all the way to its historic terminus east of Tracy plus all of SSR 180 (CA 180) east of Mendota, including the isolated segment between the two sections of Kings Canyon National Park.  Both of those were commissioned prior to WWII; the section between Coalinga and Mendota (using Derrick Ave.) remained a county road until about 1957, when it was brought into the system as an extension of LRN 138 and signed as SSR 33.  Much of the push for the route came from the large "agribusinesses" that dominate the west side of the San Joaquin Valley:  oil, cotton, and cattle along the southern reaches, and fruits/vegetables from Mendota north (Mendota to Los Banos is the center of CA's melon-growing region).  After WWII CA 33 multiplexed with CA 166 from Taft to US 99 near Wheeler Ridge; the rationale behind that was to position CA 33 as an alternate to US 99, particularly when the latter route was socked in with "tule fog" in winter months.  Of course, when the I-5 Westside alignment was selected for that route in late 1957, SSR/CA 33 would have been relegated to a secondary role in any case.  But since the land usage of the west valley hasn't abated, CA 33 remains useful as a regional server and connector.

Interestingly CA 33 was one of the few early Signed Highway era highways that was signed along county routes before 1940.  In the case of 33 it was on county roads between Mendota and the oilfields of Coalinga:

https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239588~5511892: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=69&trs=86

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6141
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 06:32:06 PM
Re: CA 33
« Reply #6 on: July 26, 2018, 01:46:06 AM »

The old Division of Highways was a bit more flexible about signage than the current Caltrans;  a few county roads, including Derrick Avenue, got signage pre-state-adoption or maintenance; they tended to be receptive to state and/or local power brokers regarding this practice.  According to a number of accounts, Getty Oil, which had several small fields in and around Coalinga but was not satisfied with the frequency of service Southern Pacific was supplying to that area to move loaded tank cars out from the loading areas outside of town along SSR 198 and wanted to supplement it with tanker trucks, somewhere around 1945 pressed the state senator representing much of western Kings and Fresno Counties to ask the Division of Highways to deploy a state highway north from Coalinga to Merced, where there was an oil loading facility along competing Santa Fe; they wanted a facility on which to "convoy" several tank trucks at a time to make it worthwhile for Santa Fe to handle the loads.  The Division already had much of the pathway covered by LRN 41/SSR 33 from Mendota to Dos Palos Wye, LRN 32/SSR 152 east for several miles from there, and LRN 123 the rest of the way into Merced (it wasn't signed as SSR 59 until at least 1960).  But the Division was reluctant to take on the most direct route from Coalinga to Mendota, Derrick Road (named as such because it passed through Getty oilfields in the hills north of Coalinga, featuring numerous oil derricks), primarily because the oiled-earth facility was a county maintenance nightmare due to consistent rutting by the small but stout oilfield trucks with exceptionally heavy per-axle loading.  But politics prevailed, and the Division worked out deals with Fresno County to split the maintenance costs -- and the road was signed as SSR 33 by mid-1946.  Eventually an asphalt overlay was done on the road, and the state assumed maintenance and ownership in 1957.   This section of SSR 33 wasn't the only county road to receive state signage -- another infamous gap, that of SSR 39 between La Habra and Covina, was signed in 1955 (when the San Bernardino/US 60-70-99 freeway was completed through the San Gabriel Valley); that signage persisted until 1972 -- even though almost all the reassurance shields remained the 1950's spec larger white porcelain design with button copy on the digits (the first one sans bear!) even after the green shield version was introduced in 1964.       
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 9854
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 06:53:06 PM
    • Gribblenation
Re: CA 33
« Reply #7 on: July 26, 2018, 08:15:30 AM »

The old Division of Highways was a bit more flexible about signage than the current Caltrans;  a few county roads, including Derrick Avenue, got signage pre-state-adoption or maintenance; they tended to be receptive to state and/or local power brokers regarding this practice.  According to a number of accounts, Getty Oil, which had several small fields in and around Coalinga but was not satisfied with the frequency of service Southern Pacific was supplying to that area to move loaded tank cars out from the loading areas outside of town along SSR 198 and wanted to supplement it with tanker trucks, somewhere around 1945 pressed the state senator representing much of western Kings and Fresno Counties to ask the Division of Highways to deploy a state highway north from Coalinga to Merced, where there was an oil loading facility along competing Santa Fe; they wanted a facility on which to "convoy" several tank trucks at a time to make it worthwhile for Santa Fe to handle the loads.  The Division already had much of the pathway covered by LRN 41/SSR 33 from Mendota to Dos Palos Wye, LRN 32/SSR 152 east for several miles from there, and LRN 123 the rest of the way into Merced (it wasn't signed as SSR 59 until at least 1960).  But the Division was reluctant to take on the most direct route from Coalinga to Mendota, Derrick Road (named as such because it passed through Getty oilfields in the hills north of Coalinga, featuring numerous oil derricks), primarily because the oiled-earth facility was a county maintenance nightmare due to consistent rutting by the small but stout oilfield trucks with exceptionally heavy per-axle loading.  But politics prevailed, and the Division worked out deals with Fresno County to split the maintenance costs -- and the road was signed as SSR 33 by mid-1946.  Eventually an asphalt overlay was done on the road, and the state assumed maintenance and ownership in 1957.   This section of SSR 33 wasn't the only county road to receive state signage -- another infamous gap, that of SSR 39 between La Habra and Covina, was signed in 1955 (when the San Bernardino/US 60-70-99 freeway was completed through the San Gabriel Valley); that signage persisted until 1972 -- even though almost all the reassurance shields remained the 1950's spec larger white porcelain design with button copy on the digits (the first one sans bear!) even after the green shield version was introduced in 1964.       

Either way the practice of singing non-state maintained highways appeared to have ended by 1940.  It seems that some of the evidence suggests that the Division of Highways allowed such signage to go up on county routes that appeared to be part of their long term adoption goals that wasn't met in 1933.  On that map above you can see State Highway Spades appear over certain routes like Panoche Road for 180 and the LRN 233 section of 49.  I know about a year ago NE2 posted a link to a picture showing a CA 12 shield displaying "County" instead of "California."  Really its intriguing to me that such a practice was allowed, but for the time it made complete sense given that it would have been impossible to sign a good through route in some instances on state-only maintained roadway...33 probably was the prime example.  If I recall correctly the City of San Francisco even signed/maintained the Hyde Street Pier alignment of US 101 through the City until the Division of Highways picked up maintenance when the Golden Gate in addition to Bay Bridges were being built.

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6141
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 06:32:06 PM
Re: CA 33
« Reply #8 on: July 26, 2018, 03:42:29 PM »

It does seem like the county/local road signage practice continued post-1940, probably on a case-by-case basis.  Obviously, the Coalinga-Mendota section signed as SSR 33 was obviously going to end up a state highway, whether on the Derrick Road alignment or something paralleling it.  But the SSR 39 signage in Los Angeles and Orange counties didn't occur until 1955, when the development of the San Bernardino Freeway and the corresponding private development of the adjacent West Covina Mall resulted in the northern extension of Hacienda Blvd., which became part of the county-route SSR 39 signage.  Prior to that a relatively convoluted path involving Francisquito Avenue and South Azusa Avenue was necessary to complete the connection.  Interestingly, the South Garvey Avenue frontage road alongside the San Bernardino Freeway was part of the county/signed SSR 39, as Hacienda Blvd. terminated at that frontage road at the east end of the mall parking lot; the segment between Azusa and Hacienda, a little under a mile in length, comprised the SSR-signed frontage road, clearly visible from the freeway (which got its I-10 signage back in 1959). 

Getting back to CA 33 -- the '64 decision to reroute it over the Coast Range over former US 399 turned the route from a Valley agricultural server to an interregional artery (although the portion over the mountain is pretty questionable in regards to commercial traffic).  But past Taft it's doubtful that much of the traffic from Ventura and Ojai continues north on 33 (unless they're like us and want to clinch it!); the logical path would be to veer NE and east on CA 119, sticking with that route if Bakersfield and environs are the destination, but turning north on CA 43 to access NB I-5 (in fact, in the inverse direction the CA 43 exit has Taft as a control city).  Personally, I clinched all of CA 33 in a single day NB back around the spring of 1987; it was one of the better in-state trips I'd taken -- I actually kept going after the northern terminus at I-5 and continued on the historic route to Business Loop 205 east of Tracy (disclaimer: I wanted to hit the then-new In-N-Out in Tracy; the first one north of Fresno).   
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 9854
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 06:53:06 PM
    • Gribblenation
Re: CA 33
« Reply #9 on: July 26, 2018, 08:38:19 PM »

It does seem like the county/local road signage practice continued post-1940, probably on a case-by-case basis.  Obviously, the Coalinga-Mendota section signed as SSR 33 was obviously going to end up a state highway, whether on the Derrick Road alignment or something paralleling it.  But the SSR 39 signage in Los Angeles and Orange counties didn't occur until 1955, when the development of the San Bernardino Freeway and the corresponding private development of the adjacent West Covina Mall resulted in the northern extension of Hacienda Blvd., which became part of the county-route SSR 39 signage.  Prior to that a relatively convoluted path involving Francisquito Avenue and South Azusa Avenue was necessary to complete the connection.  Interestingly, the South Garvey Avenue frontage road alongside the San Bernardino Freeway was part of the county/signed SSR 39, as Hacienda Blvd. terminated at that frontage road at the east end of the mall parking lot; the segment between Azusa and Hacienda, a little under a mile in length, comprised the SSR-signed frontage road, clearly visible from the freeway (which got its I-10 signage back in 1959). 

Getting back to CA 33 -- the '64 decision to reroute it over the Coast Range over former US 399 turned the route from a Valley agricultural server to an interregional artery (although the portion over the mountain is pretty questionable in regards to commercial traffic).  But past Taft it's doubtful that much of the traffic from Ventura and Ojai continues north on 33 (unless they're like us and want to clinch it!); the logical path would be to veer NE and east on CA 119, sticking with that route if Bakersfield and environs are the destination, but turning north on CA 43 to access NB I-5 (in fact, in the inverse direction the CA 43 exit has Taft as a control city).  Personally, I clinched all of CA 33 in a single day NB back around the spring of 1987; it was one of the better in-state trips I'd taken -- I actually kept going after the northern terminus at I-5 and continued on the historic route to Business Loop 205 east of Tracy (disclaimer: I wanted to hit the then-new In-N-Out in Tracy; the first one north of Fresno).   

Weird, I never realized the gap in CA 39 was signed.  I'm assuming outside of relinquishment that likely was the last time that a state highway was allowed to be signed on City or County maintained roadways.

Really having driven the US 399 portion of CA 33 it is hard to see in a modern sense what the purpose of the route really was.  That said if you compare US 399 to US 99 over the Ridge Route or Ridge Route Alternate than the former becomes pretty a pretty damn reasonable way to get to the Central Valley.  While it wouldn't be likely a commercial trucker would ever want to take CA 33 over I-5 I would sure bet the former would be the favored route compared to the Ridge Route until Ridge Route Alternate started to modernize (suicide lanes). 

The only segment of 33 I've never driven is north of Newman to I-5.  I occasionally travel to Newman so its not unlikely I'll probably get a full clinch of the route at some point.  I just finished my blog post on 33 which included a ton of previously written blog entries on other highways:

http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2018/07/california-state-route-33-us-101-north.html

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6141
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 06:32:06 PM
Re: CA 33
« Reply #10 on: July 26, 2018, 09:25:27 PM »

It certainly would be interesting to track the development of the original LRN 138/US 399 alignment over the mountains; I wouldn't at all be surprised if both ends of the Ojai-SSR 166 segment were functioning local facilies before the Division of Highways decided to connect them; at the south end is the Matilija Gorge, always a scenic recreational area, while the upper Cuyama Valley has plenty of ranches and small farms (mostly producing hay for the ranches).  In between is, in retrospect, something of an improbable alignment for a U.S. highway -- but the Ventura/Santa Barbara coastal area was the home of several prominent political figures (Earl Warren hailed from there; his family name adorns a large tract of seaside land -- today occupied by "high-end" homes -- between Santa Barbara and Goleta).  At one point someone from that area with clout likely suggested that it would be a nice thing to have a direct route to the Valley so deliveries of fruit, veggies, and other Valley staples could arrive more quickly.  Of course, the basic topography limited the efficiency of any such route; what's on the ground today is, absent extensive tunneling, about the best that the Division -- or anyone for that matter -- could do. 
Logged

Quillz

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2513
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Los Angeles, CA
  • Last Login: July 24, 2019, 12:25:24 PM
Re: CA 33
« Reply #11 on: July 27, 2018, 05:31:27 AM »

Last time I was there, 269 was closed for some reason. Also 5 southbound puts you on a road to Coalinga a bit south of 198. But itís signed as ďTOĒ 198 until reaching 33/Coalinga.

Interestingly Iíve never driven 33 south from 5/145 to 198, so thatís a little strange to hear.  I thought the blue arrow placard pointing at I-5 rather than Coalinga-Mendota Road was fairly amusing.  33 on the whole is a weird route with a lot of long multiplexes. 
And still lacks exit numbers on its freeway alignment between 101/150.
Logged
US Highways: 1 / 2 / 6 / 12 / 14 / 16 / 18 / 20 / 26 / 30 / 50 / 64 / 66 / 84 / 85 / 87 / 91 / 93 / 95 / 97 / 99 / 101 / 189 / 191 / 201 / 285 / 287 / 385 / 395
Interstate Highways: 5 / 10 / 15 / 17 / 25 / 40 / 45 / 70 / 80 / 84 / 89 / 90 / 93 / 95

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 9854
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 06:53:06 PM
    • Gribblenation
Re: CA 33
« Reply #12 on: July 27, 2018, 03:15:40 PM »

Last time I was there, 269 was closed for some reason. Also 5 southbound puts you on a road to Coalinga a bit south of 198. But itís signed as ďTOĒ 198 until reaching 33/Coalinga.

Interestingly Iíve never driven 33 south from 5/145 to 198, so thatís a little strange to hear.  I thought the blue arrow placard pointing at I-5 rather than Coalinga-Mendota Road was fairly amusing.  33 on the whole is a weird route with a lot of long multiplexes. 
And still lacks exit numbers on its freeway alignment between 101/150.

On such a small freeway Iíd give that a pass.  All those exits are clumped so closely together anyways.

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6141
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 06:32:06 PM
Re: CA 33
« Reply #13 on: August 07, 2018, 04:11:46 PM »

Interestingly, except for the long-relinquished Volta segment between Santa Nella and Los Banos (done in early 1969) and the multiplex with CA 152, I've never driven on CA 33 southbound, always in the opposite direction.  Clinched it in pieces from 1978 through 1999, with the old "county" section between Coalinga and Mendota the last to fall. 
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 9854
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 06:53:06 PM
    • Gribblenation
Re: CA 33
« Reply #14 on: August 07, 2018, 05:45:35 PM »

Interestingly, except for the long-relinquished Volta segment between Santa Nella and Los Banos (done in early 1969) and the multiplex with CA 152, I've never driven on CA 33 southbound, always in the opposite direction.  Clinched it in pieces from 1978 through 1999, with the old "county" section between Coalinga and Mendota the last to fall.

The odd thing is thatís Iíve also almost exclusively taken 33 northbound.  The only times I can really going regularly south would be on the 198 multiplex and from Firebaugh down to 180.  Really going south from there is impractical unless you want a scenic drive or are headed somewhere weird off the grid. 

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6141
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 06:32:06 PM
Re: CA 33
« Reply #15 on: August 08, 2018, 12:37:04 AM »

Interestingly, except for the long-relinquished Volta segment between Santa Nella and Los Banos (done in early 1969) and the multiplex with CA 152, I've never driven on CA 33 southbound, always in the opposite direction.  Clinched it in pieces from 1978 through 1999, with the old "county" section between Coalinga and Mendota the last to fall.

The odd thing is thatís Iíve also almost exclusively taken 33 northbound.  The only times I can really going regularly south would be on the 198 multiplex and from Firebaugh down to 180.  Really going south from there is impractical unless you want a scenic drive or are headed somewhere weird off the grid. 

Yeah -- never heard anyone say "I've always wanted to see what McKittrick is like!" 
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 9854
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 06:53:06 PM
    • Gribblenation
Re: CA 33
« Reply #16 on: August 08, 2018, 01:28:59 AM »

Interestingly, except for the long-relinquished Volta segment between Santa Nella and Los Banos (done in early 1969) and the multiplex with CA 152, I've never driven on CA 33 southbound, always in the opposite direction.  Clinched it in pieces from 1978 through 1999, with the old "county" section between Coalinga and Mendota the last to fall.

The odd thing is thatís Iíve also almost exclusively taken 33 northbound.  The only times I can really going regularly south would be on the 198 multiplex and from Firebaugh down to 180.  Really going south from there is impractical unless you want a scenic drive or are headed somewhere weird off the grid. 

Yeah -- never heard anyone say "I've always wanted to see what McKittrick is like!"

Actually I kind of regret not taking pictures back in 2016.  I was hoping for more older structures but I was kind of disappointed by how little was left.  In particular I would like a couple pictures of the McKittrick Hotel at least.  I guess that I was hoping for something resembling Little Boston from There Will Be Blood.  The area looked the part but McKittrick certainly did not.  Really I thought Ludlow fit the bill out on 66 more as the derelict and dying rail siding in retrospect.
« Last Edit: August 08, 2018, 01:32:37 AM by Max Rockatansky »
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 9854
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 06:53:06 PM
    • Gribblenation
Re: CA 33
« Reply #17 on: October 27, 2018, 07:27:48 PM »

Took new picture from Sandra Nella to the North CA 33 terminus at I-5.  They are on the photo album I posted upthread. 

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 9854
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 06:53:06 PM
    • Gribblenation
Re: CA 33
« Reply #18 on: October 28, 2018, 12:29:22 AM »

Updated my CA 33 blog with the section north of Santa Nella to the terminus at I-5 in San Joaquin County which this a post on the entire highway.  I added information regarding the north terminus history of CA 33 which used to extend to US 48/50 near Tracy.  I also went back and added a section regarding the El Camino Viejo.

https://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2018/07/california-state-route-33-us-101-north.html

cahwyguy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 392
  • California Highway Guy

  • Age: 59
  • Location: Northridge, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 07:52:26 AM
    • California Highways
Re: CA 33
« Reply #19 on: November 23, 2018, 09:16:15 AM »

I've been working on the highway pages, so a few corrections:

CA 33 (and SSR 33 before it) is indeed one odd duck!  It was originally two separate LRN's:  138, from Taft to Coalinga (and which also encompassed the US 399 portion between Taft and Ventura that eventually was incorporated into post-'64 CA 33), and 41, which was 33 from Mendota all the way to its historic terminus east of Tracy plus all of SSR 180 (CA 180) east of Mendota, including the isolated segment between the two sections of Kings Canyon National Park.  Both of those were commissioned prior to WWII; the section between Coalinga and Mendota (using Derrick Ave.) remained a county road until about 1957, when it was brought into the system as an extension of LRN 138 and signed as SSR 33.

To be precise, in 1955 what as added to LRN 138 was [LRN 41] near Mendota to [LRN 10] near Oilfields. So the segment from Coalinga to LRN 10 was part of the state system from 1933, when it was funded as [LRN 57] near Maricopa to [LRN 10] near Coalinga, and when it was added as LRN 138 in 1935 as [LRN 10] near Coalinga to [LRN 57] near Maricopa.

Further, it appears that the portion from Coalinga to Oilfields was part of LRN 10, which is mostly Route 198, but is also Route 33 between Coalinga and Oilfields.
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: 6141
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 06:32:06 PM
Re: CA 33
« Reply #20 on: November 23, 2018, 06:38:49 PM »

^^^^^^^^
In the old LRN days, no LRN number was legally multiplexed with another; for funding and maintenance purposes, a single number would prevail even if the SSR # was part of a signed multiplex.  The LRN list wasn't always consistent; sometimes the unused LRN on a multiplex was legally defined in separate segments emanating from the ends of the multiplex; but sometimes the "jog" over the other route was simply implied, while both LRN designations were legislatively defined as continuous.   
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 9854
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 06:53:06 PM
    • Gribblenation
Re: CA 33
« Reply #21 on: December 30, 2018, 09:59:27 PM »

Updated my photos for CA 33 between CA 166 north to CA 41.  This would largely be the swath of land flanking western San Joaquin Valley that has a heavy oil drilling industry.  I even managed to captured the odd stuff like Brown Material Road this time around:

https://flic.kr/s/aHsmtifFGw

This won't change a lot of the blog entry aside from photo updates, I should that up and ready later this week.

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 9854
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 06:53:06 PM
    • Gribblenation
Re: CA 33
« Reply #22 on: January 01, 2019, 09:30:54 PM »

Noticed today that up to the 1964 Renumbering CA 33 was multiplexed to US 99 on CA 166 East out of Taft. I havenít tracked down when the multiplex began but Iíll update my blog when I do. 

Edit:  Apparently the CA 166/CA 33 multiplex to US 99 started in 1950:

http://www.davidrumsey.com/ll/thumbnailView.html?startUrl=%2F%2Fwww.davidrumsey.com%2Fluna%2Fservlet%2Fas%2Fsearch%3Fos%3D0%26bs%3D10%26lc%3DRUMSEY~8~1%26q%3DCaltrans%25201950%26sort%3DPub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No#?c=0&m=0&s=0&cv=0&r=0&xywh=5326%2C9089%2C647%2C1336
« Last Edit: January 01, 2019, 09:38:18 PM by Max Rockatansky »
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 9854
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 06:53:06 PM
    • Gribblenation
Re: CA 33
« Reply #23 on: January 02, 2019, 12:12:34 AM »

Updated the CA 33 blog with the new CA 166 multiplex info and new highway photos from CA 166 north to CA 41:

https://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2018/07/california-state-route-33-us-101-north.html

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 9854
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 06:53:06 PM
    • Gribblenation
Re: CA 33
« Reply #24 on: February 04, 2019, 12:38:48 AM »

Drove old CA 33 on Coalinga-Mendota Road.  Suffice to say it is much more scenic than the I-5/CA 33 multiplex:

0 by Max Rockatansky, on Flickr

 


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.