When was US Route 80 extended to Point Loma?

[Max Rockatansky]

Borrowing from my post on Gribblenation:

"One of the last great mysteries of the US Route System in California is highlighted by the cover of the November/December 1958 California Highways & Public Works (photo 1).  Said cover depicts the end of Legislative Route Number 12 at Cabrillo National Monument at Point Loma in the city of San Diego.  Intriguingly the cover photo insert (photo 2) notes Point Loma to also be the endpoint of US Route 80. 

From the beginning of the US Route System during November 1926 the western terminus of US Route 80 was in San Diego via Legislative Route Number 12.  Initially US Route 80 would have ended in downtown San Diego via 4th Street at US Route 101 at Broadway.  The terminus of US Route 80 at the major north/south aligned US Route 101 would seemingly make logical sense. 

During 1933 an extension of Legislative Route Number 12 was added to the State Highway System west of US Route 101 and Legislative Route Number 2 to Point Loma.  This extension of Legislative Route Number 12 was completed to Point Loma by July 1934 and was featured in the August 1934 California Highways & Public Works (photos 3 & 4).  Notably the August 1934 California Highways & Public Works makes no reference to US Route 80 being extended to Point Loma. 

At no point does any official map by the Division of Highways feature US Route 80 being extended to Point Loma via Legislative Route Number 12.  That said, US Route 80 does on occasion appear signed to Point Loma on some commercial maps such as the 1940 edition Gousha Map of California which can be viewed on usends.com.  Notably US Route 80 would have been realigned out of downtown San Diego in 1954 to directly reach US Route 101 via a new east/west freeway alignment. 

The State of California requested US Route 80 be truncated to the Arizona State Line during 1966 (photos 5-7).  The Division of Highways request to the AASHO notes a duplication of US Route 80 with Interstate 8 east of Interstate 5 to the Arizona State Line.  Interestingly the submission by the Division of Highways does feature US Route 80 ending west of Interstate 5 at Point Loma via what had been redefined legislatively as California State Route 209 in 1964. 

At this point there seems to be clear evidence that US Route 80 did end at Point Loma.  The question at hand is when was the extension of US Route 80 to Point Loma made?  Based off my own research I can find no reference to US Route 80 at Point Loma in the AASHO Database other than the 1966 citation above.  We ask of the community for your insight on this matter.  If you have photos of US Route 80 at Point Loma or are of aware of any citations of when it was extended from downtown San Diego, please share with us."

Photos 1-7 can be found at the link below:

https://www.facebook.com/72868503020/posts/pfbid0zWuvgjs7ANhHygdPt3a3QKe4fgBBBmLrSWkgy1sEyh2FJ8kyJyJdStrPUSJEq81el/?d=n

[bing101]

Some of this of US-80 became subsequently I-8 later on.

[Max Rockatansky]

I checked every California file in the AASHTO database pre-1966.  Strangely the western terminus of US 80 is only every vaguely defined as "San Diego."   USGS maps didn't reveal any results either.  About the only thing I can think to do is to manually search all the CHPWs for any reference to "80"  between 1928-1966 to see if Point Loma shows up somewhere I didn't find when I searched "Loma."

[bing101]

I checked every California file in the AASHTO database pre-1966.  Strangely the western terminus of US 80 is only every vaguely defined as "San Diego."   USGS maps didn't reveal any results either.  About the only thing I can think to do is to manually search all the CHPWs for any reference to "80"  between 1928-1966 to see if Point Loma shows up somewhere I didn't find when I searched "Loma."

Was Point Loma a the western end originally a local road?
I seen old stories showing how US-101 was the original western end for US-80 before I-8 took over the California portion of US-80.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Route_80_in_California

[Mapmikey]

The extension was pushed by San Diego interests in Oct 1931 - see pgs. 39-40 here - http://libraryarchives.metro.net/DPGTL/Californiahighways/chpw_1931_nov.pdf

A photo of the new US 101 interchange with Rosecrans from late 1943 shows no US 80 signage, see pg. 4 - http://libraryarchives.metro.net/DPGTL/Californiahighways/chpw_1943_novdec.pdf
This is circumstantial as the Gousha map shows Barnett as US 80's path off 101 heading for Pt. Loma.

Note the 1937 and late 1940s San Diego County maps do not show US 80 west of US 101.

This document - https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/dsdhrb_20180611_policyagenda.pdf (search "route 80") talks about endpoints and does not mentino Pt. Loma, though does include that same Gousha map.

Of course, that 1966 map also showed US 80 using CA 94, so that may not be the most carefully laid out graphic...

I am officially skeptical this was a thing.

[Max Rockatansky]

My thought is the only logical time an extension to Point Loma could have happened was post 1954 when US 80 was directly connected west from La Mesa via Camino Del Rio.  During the decades the DOH was shifting a lot of US Routes to freeways, but usually they asked for older alignments as business routes.  The DOH certainly didn't ask to swap the terminus of US 80, even if it was just out downtown to US 101.  The whole situation is weird and I didn't expect to ever see one much less two references in DOH documents. 

[Max Rockatansky]

The July 1940 CHPW (page 607) references Point Loma as the western terminus of Legislative Route 12 but not US 80:

https://archive.org/details/california193940highwacalirich/page/n607/mode/2up?q=Loma&view=theater

An article on the Montgomery Freeway in the Jan/Feb 1951 CHPW (Page 540) doesn't show a sign route on LRN 12 to Point Loma:

https://archive.org/details/californiahighwa195051calirich/page/n539/mode/2up

The JUL/AUG 1955 CHPW (page 672) does refer to Rosecrans/LRN 12 between Lytton and Pacific Highway as US 80:

https://archive.org/details/californiahighwa195455calirich/page/n671/mode/2up?q=80

The May/June 1961 CHPW (page 660) takes about the US 80 construction ending at US 101 but is vague if it continues to Point Loma:

https://archive.org/details/cavol3940liforniahigh6061wa00calirich/page/n659/mode/2up?q=Cabrillo&view=theater

The Sep/Oct 1961 CHPW (page 862) references to US 101 being the terminus of I-8 but not US 80:

https://archive.org/details/cavol3940liforniahigh6061wa00calirich/page/n861/mode/2up?q=80&view=theater

Really all the above is the best I think is possible to find in the CHPWs and AASHTO database.  The narrative seems to leave the post-1954 window open for Point Loma.  What I don't get is why there would be only one small overt CHPW reference given Point Loma-Tybee Island would have been pretty notable ending at water at both terminus points.

[The Ghostbuster]

For all of US 80's western terminuses in the San Diego area, check this page at usends.com: https://www.usends.com/san-diego.html.

[Max Rockatansky]

For all of US 80's western terminuses in the San Diego area, check this page at usends.com: https://www.usends.com/san-diego.html.

That's the thing, all the above is new info from the CHPW and AASHTO database.  All usends had on Point Loma was a 1940 Gousha map (which I mentioned also above).  Suffice to say that there is a much richer narrative about end points that has emerged since the AASHTO database has come to light.  US 80 is the only endpoint in California that still doesn't have somewhat full narrative (US 66 in Los Angeles kind of does now).

[Max Rockatansky]

Put this to blog format:

https://www.gribblenation.org/2022/07/us-route-80-to-point-loma.html

[Mapmikey]

A different place to research what happened is through Gousha itself.

The 1939 Gousha map of San Diego can be found here - socalregion.com/highways/historic-us-395/ - does not show US 80 west of US 101.

Gousha archives do exist, but evidently only in hard copy at the Newberry Library in Chicago.  this link suggests there could be documentation on why US 80 was added or later removed - I can't find another Gousha San Diego map in the early 1940s to see when US 80 was taken off.

I am still searching and yet to locate any other map of any kind to show US 80 west of US 101.

[Mapmikey]

Sorry to resurrect a thread.  Found new information on this...

The City of San Diego on 9/4/30 passed a resolution to specifically request extending US 80 from 4th/Broadway to Point Loma.  IMO this goes a bit further than the San Diego County advocate from October 1931.

See Pg. 81 - https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/legacy/digitalarchives/pdf/historicalocd/minutes/MinutesofCommonCouncil56.pdf

On 12/16/31 the City directed a survey on such an extension.

See Pg. 7 - https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/legacy/digitalarchives/pdf/historicalocd/minutes/MinutesofCommonCouncil57.pdf

On pg. 167 above, San Diego again passed a resolution to get US 80 extended on 7/18/32.

I found no other references to this up through May 1940.  San Diego passed a resolution on 7/7/33 to request US 80 be rerouted to meet US 101 north of downtown but they did not mention Point Loma.  See pp 364-365 - https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/legacy/digitalarchives/pdf/historicalocd/resolutions/resolutionbook57.pdf

[Max Rockatansky]

The same pre-1933 all those shenanigans was going with 66 in Los Angeles and Santa Monica.  Interesting this didn't really get an objection from AASHO (assuming it was actually signed).

[Max Rockatansky]

I incorporated all the information from Reply #11 into the blog I posted on Reply #9.

[Mapmikey]

The same pre-1933 all those shenanigans was going with 66 in Los Angeles and Santa Monica.  Interesting this didn't really get an objection from AASHO (assuming it was actually signed).

For the early 1930s attempts, San Diego seemed to realize they needed buy-in from the state whereas Santa Monica asked the county who didn't seem to think they needed further permission.

[andy3175]

Sorry to resurrect a thread.  Found new information on this...

The City of San Diego on 9/4/30 passed a resolution to specifically request extending US 80 from 4th/Broadway to Point Loma.  IMO this goes a bit further than the San Diego County advocate from October 1931.

See Pg. 81 - https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/legacy/digitalarchives/pdf/historicalocd/minutes/MinutesofCommonCouncil56.pdf

On 12/16/31 the City directed a survey on such an extension.

See Pg. 7 - https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/legacy/digitalarchives/pdf/historicalocd/minutes/MinutesofCommonCouncil57.pdf

On pg. 167 above, San Diego again passed a resolution to get US 80 extended on 7/18/32.

I found no other references to this up through May 1940.  San Diego passed a resolution on 7/7/33 to request US 80 be rerouted to meet US 101 north of downtown but they did not mention Point Loma.  See pp 364-365 - https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/legacy/digitalarchives/pdf/historicalocd/resolutions/resolutionbook57.pdf

The timing of these requests coincide with Cabrillo National Monument shifting to National Park Service control in 1933 (see https://www.nps.gov/articles/975450.htm) and the preparation of Balboa Park for the 1935 California Pacific International Exposition. Both actions were part of putting San Diego on the map, before the massive expansion of the City in post-World War II. Cabrillo National Monument is surrounded by military land, and the road leading through military land has restricted access in the evening and overnight.

The main entrance road (former CA 209) itself is noted to have been in place by the mid-1850s and improved around the turn of the century, as noted in Cabrillo - Shadows of the Past article (see https://www.npshistory.com/publications/cabr/shadows/chap1.htm, excerpted here):

In the 1850s, the promontory was recognized for strategic values by the United States. The southern portion was made a military reservation by Presidential Executive Order in February 1852, followed by a smaller land reservation established for a lighthouse in September 1852. Probably following a previous trail from Ballast Point to the ridge top and southward, an 18-man crew hired by lighthouse construction contractors built an access road during April to May 1854. But it was a difficult road to use because of a series of steep switchbacks, crossing the ridges just west of Ballast Point toward the crest. This road is depicted in an 1855 drawing of Point Loma and its new lighthouse by Major Hartman Bache, Lighthouse Inspector for the West Coast (Fig. 2). At Bache's urging, the first road was replaced only two years later with straighter route, gradually rising from the La Playa settlement rather than Ballast Point, toward the narrow ridge top which it followed for 2 miles to the lighthouse. This new route cost $1,500 to construct (Holland and Law 1981: 44). This road to La Playa settlement served as the major access route well into the 20th century but was a steep climb and took as long as two hours by buggy or wagon. ... In 1910, the entrance road received a decomposed granite gravel surface to improve it for military and visitors. ... Along the western ocean terraces of the peninsula, a road leading to the lower Point Loma lighthouse was in place and shown on a 1904 USGS map. This road, later known as Gatchell Road, was improved during World War I when Army coastal searchlights and a powerhouse were built. Thus, the western portion of the monument became more intensively utilized and altered for coastal defense and for lighthouse operation. The current descending Cabrillo Road connecting main ridge road (State Route 209) to the coastal terraces was constructed after 1936.

I am grateful for Mapmikey's work finding the San Diego City Council actions from the 1930s about rerouting US 80 toward Pt Loma and Cabrillo National Monument. There is likely more to this than what we have found thus far, and I will keep looking to see what else is available. There was clearly a local intent to realign/extend US 80, but what's missing is AASHO consideration of such a proposal and the difficulty of linking the legislative history of LRN 12 into the history of sign route US 80. It might be worthwhile to look at California State actions from that timeframe to see if there were any intentional actions taken to bring US 80 to Cabrillo National Monument ... or if the only advocacy was with the city of San Diego.

I would not be surprised if this effort was suspended and forgotten due to World War II, which massively changed everything about San Diego.

[Max Rockatansky]

The Division of Highways referred to US 80 as ending at Point Loma in a 1958 CHPW. It can be viewed on the link in Post #9.  I'm not saying that is absolute proof of an extension but that's the best we got for something post-World War II.

[usends]

Just a comment about the apparent lack of any attempt to get AASHO to approve this reroute of US 80.  All AASHO really cared about was keeping their route logs accurate; they expressly stated that the state DOTs didn't need to get their approval for intra-city reroutes.  Since Pt. Loma is within San Diego city limits, that wouldn't have changed the control points in AASHO's log, so DOH may have been aware that they had the discretion to make this change without involving AASHO.

[usends]

The following timeline attempts to fill in the gaps between the known anchor points (shown in regular text) with my own thoughts and speculations (shown in italics).  Obviously this is highly conjectural, but the idea is to provide possible answers to the questions that are raised, which may in turn suggest avenues for further research.  If anyone has something to add, or can disprove any of this, I will revise this post accordingly.  (I just used "Caltrans" throughout, even though presumably it was a predecessor agency.)

1933: Caltrans assumed control of the road to Pt. Loma, which they designated internally as LRN 12.

1934: Caltrans completes their work on LRN 12 to Pt. Loma.  During this timeframe the City of San Diego had made numerous requests to extend the US 80 designation out to Pt. Loma, but all evidence found so far suggests that Caltrans never approved it (at least not during these early years)...
 
...but somewhere in this timeframe, is it possible that LRN 12 was signed as US 80 not by Caltrans but rather by a local entity, such as the City of San Diego or the ACSC?  Maybe they gave up trying to work with Caltrans and just signed it unilaterally.  That would explain why it was never shown on Caltrans maps, and it might also explain why Gousha did include it on at least one of their maps (see 1940).

1939: Gousha map does not show US 80 to Pt. Loma.

1940: Gousha map shows US 80 to Pt. Loma.  No Caltrans map (that I'm aware of) ever showed US 80 extended out to Pt. Loma...

...but on the other hand, I doubt that a reputable commercial cartographer would illustrate it that way without good reason.  I wonder if their reason was a field-check which revealed that US 80 was indeed signposted along that route.  But if it was Caltrans that signed it, then why didn't Caltrans show it on their maps?  The only answer that I can think of is that maybe the US 80 extension was not signed by Caltrans, but instead by what I will call a local entity (see 1934).

1940-ish: someone with Caltrans may have informed Gousha that the extension out to Pt. Loma was signed by a local authority and unofficial, prompting Gousha to remove the US 80 shields from their maps (see 1956, 1959)...

...yet somewhere in this interim timeframe, it appears that Caltrans at least became willing to acknowledge that the extension was signposted as US 80, even though it wasn't official (see 1955, 1958).

1955: an issue of CHPW refers to Rosecrans as US 80.  Yet Caltrans maps from this timeframe still never showed the extension... 

...so if they never approved the extension, then why would they refer to it as a part of US 80?  Maybe by this time, Caltrans was just quietly recognizing the local entity's signposting, while still not making the extension official.

1956: Gousha map does not show US 80 to Pt. Loma.

1958: an issue of CHPW explicitly stated that US 80 ended at the lighthouse in Cabrillo N.M.

1959: Gousha map does not show US 80 to Pt. Loma.

1963: Caltrans commissioned CA 209 to run from US 101 out to Pt. Loma...

...but why was the 209 designation necessary all of a sudden, when LRN 12 had already existed for three decades with no official sign route?  I don't think it was a coincidence: 1963 was the year when Caltrans began requesting to truncate several of their US routes that were redundant with interstates, so by this time they were surely working on their plan to delete US 80.  If the above speculation is correct (that US 80 was signposted by a local entity), then Caltrans may have told them, "We're about to get rid of US 80, so you'll have to take those signs down."  But as a consolation prize they offered to give the route a state highway designation.  So in this scenario, the 209 signs would've replaced the US 80 signs on Pt. Loma (west of the US 101 / I-5 interchange).

1966: When Caltrans asked AASHO for permission to remove the US 80 designation from their state, the west terminus was explicitly described as I-5 (consistent with the point above).  Although the map accompanying the request raises a couple questions, I don't put much stock in the accuracy of that illustration.

[Max Rockatansky]

The above is the same assessment of known facts that I had.  The conjecture part isn't very dissimilar to my own thoughts.

[Scott5114]

It should be noted that Caltrans (or rather its predecessor agency the California Division of Highways) did not sign anything at all prior to the 1950s; this was one hundred percent delegated to the auto clubs (whom the state of California paid for these services). So I would guess that the theory that ACSC posted this without California being on board is probably on the right track. ACSC did not limit its sign posting to state highways (or even California; they posted signs as far east as Texas).

ACSC is still a going concern and has at least one historian on staff, so I'd suggest if you really want to dig up some answers to this they would be the ones to contact.

[Max Rockatansky]

The Auto Clubs weren't even necessarily limited to signing State Routes on State Highways.  There is plenty of precedent for that with State Routes like 21, 49, 33, 180 and a couple others that I can't think of right now.  Not that really applies to Point Loma since that was LRN 12. 

[usends]

The above is the same assessment of known facts that I had.  The conjecture part isn't very dissimilar to my own thoughts.

Yes, I should have been more clear about the fact that many of the anchor points were taken from your blog post.  It was basically an attempt to compile all the known facts, and then try to make sense of them all.

[cahwyguy]

The above is the same assessment of known facts that I had.  The conjecture part isn't very dissimilar to my own thoughts.

Yes, I should have been more clear about the fact that many of the anchor points were taken from your blog post.  It was basically an attempt to compile all the known facts, and then try to make sense of them all.

And it should agree with what is on my site as well (because I lifted, umm, borrowed with permission, from Tom's work, with credit).

Regarding Route 209: The more likely reason for that route is not US 80, but the fact they were getting ready for the Great Renumbering, and there were no plans to extend I-8 to the W of I-5 down to Pt. Loma (that had a different route planned). So the portion from I-5 to Point Loma got a new route number.

[Mapmikey]

Here is a 1948 article contemplating extending US 80 to North Island - https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=d&d=CJ19481008.2.6&srpos=2&e=------194-en--20--1--txt-txIN-%E2%80%9C+route+80%E2%80%9D-------

Implies it would replace the ferry and thus US 80 still downtown...?