Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MrAndy1369]

I've been looking at old maps and kept seeing the dotted lines for the unconstructed portion of CA-65, between Roseville and Exeter. If CA-65 was ever constructed (in the past, or more doubtfully, in the future), do you think it'd be a twin of I-5?

Reason I ask is because I-5 is more on the "edge" of the foothills, so it traverses both flat farmland and gentle rolling hills. CA-99 traverses across flat farmland, is a bit narrower than I-5, and has more trees surrounding the freeway.

Based on the dotted lines, it looks like CA-65, if constructed, would appear more like I-5, traversing across rolling "edges" of the foothills, and some flat farmland.

Also, was CA-65 originally intended to be a full freeway all the way from Exeter to Roseville?

[Max Rockatansky]

All of 65 is part of the Freeway & Expressway System.  My guess is that it would have been built as an expressway and gradually closed off to freeway standards as need.  Essentially much of the unbuilt corridor of 65 is a close overlay for the Stockton-Los Angeles Road through the Sierra Foothills.  It certainly would have had value as an above the Tule Fog line Route compared to 99. 

[MrAndy1369]

All of 65 is part of the Freeway & Expressway System.  My guess is that it would have been built as an expressway and gradually closed off to freeway standards as need.  Essentially much of the unbuilt corridor of 65 is a close overlay for the Stockton-Los Angeles Road through the Sierra Foothills.  It certainly would have had value as an above the Tule Fog line Route compared to 99.

I tried looking for that specific road (Stockton-Los Angeles Road) on Google Maps, but could not see any roads named as that. Do you mind pointing me to the right area?

[Max Rockatansky]

All of 65 is part of the Freeway & Expressway System.  My guess is that it would have been built as an expressway and gradually closed off to freeway standards as need.  Essentially much of the unbuilt corridor of 65 is a close overlay for the Stockton-Los Angeles Road through the Sierra Foothills.  It certainly would have had value as an above the Tule Fog line Route compared to 99.

I tried looking for that specific road (Stockton-Los Angeles Road) on Google Maps, but could not see any roads named as that. Do you mind pointing me to the right area?

About the only vestige you’ll find on Google Maps is Old Millerton Road.  My site has more detail:

https://www.gribblenation.org/2018/09/ghost-town-tuesday-millerton-california.html?m=1

[MrAndy1369]

Thank you. Apologies in advance for asking so many questions, but it looks like Old Millerton Road is more of a curvy foothill road, not a straight farmland-style road that can easily be converted to an expressway/freeway like I-5 and 99 were. My vision of the unconstructed portion of CA-65 was that it would be straight and on more flat land, with some gentle slopes and rolling hills, similar to I-5. Is this vision wrong, and would CA-65 have been built as more of a true foothill/small mountain style road that curved back and forth?

Your website is awesome, by the way.

All of 65 is part of the Freeway & Expressway System.  My guess is that it would have been built as an expressway and gradually closed off to freeway standards as need.  Essentially much of the unbuilt corridor of 65 is a close overlay for the Stockton-Los Angeles Road through the Sierra Foothills.  It certainly would have had value as an above the Tule Fog line Route compared to 99.

I tried looking for that specific road (Stockton-Los Angeles Road) on Google Maps, but could not see any roads named as that. Do you mind pointing me to the right area?

About the only vestige you’ll find on Google Maps is Old Millerton Road.  My site has more detail:

https://www.gribblenation.org/2018/09/ghost-town-tuesday-millerton-california.html?m=1

[Max Rockatansky]

Thanks, given CA 65 is by definition part of the Freeway & Expressway System at minimum it would need to meet two lane expressway requirements similar to how CA 49/120 do between Chinese Camp-Moccasin. 

The utility to the Stockton-Los Angeles corridor historically was that it was above a San Joaquin Valley which lacked any measure of flood control and was very swampy in the Gold Rush era.  By the 1870s the Southern Pacific constructed frontage roads and flood control measures which would largely be inherited by US 99.  Thusly the main corridor of travel shifted into San Joaquin Valley and out of the Sierra Foothills. 

The untapped utility of building a modern road in the same Foothills corridor is a route which largely would be above the Tule Fog line.  I-5 and Westside Freeway if I recall correctly were deliberately constructed at the western rim of San Joaquin Valley to also get slightly above the Tule Fog line.

[Quillz]

I recall reading that one of the reasons CA-65 had its routing radically changed (as it originally utilized the current alignment + all of CA-245) was it was envisioned as the "East Side Highway." It was intended to be the exact eastern counterpart of CA-33. Then it was reimagined as a freeway. Seems like another one of those plans that will never come to be. It does explain why CA-59 abruptly turns into a county route, though: it was supposed to terminate at the extended CA-65.

I did not know the reasoning behind the location was due to tule fog. I don't live in the Central Valley so I've heard of it, but haven't experienced it much.

[Max Rockatansky]

I recall reading that one of the reasons CA-65 had its routing radically changed (as it originally utilized the current alignment + all of CA-245) was it was envisioned as the "East Side Highway." It was intended to be the exact eastern counterpart of CA-33. Then it was reimagined as a freeway. Seems like another one of those plans that will never come to be. It does explain why CA-59 abruptly turns into a county route, though: it was supposed to terminate at the extended CA-65.

I did not know the reasoning behind the location was due to tule fog. I don't live in the Central Valley so I've heard of it, but haven't experienced it much.

CA 59 ends where it does because of Snelling and the Yosemite Valley Railroad.  Both would have been far more prominent when LRN 123 was adopted during 1933.  A similar situation existed with CA 3 ending at Montague where there used to be a Southern Pacific Railroad depot.

[MrAndy1369]

Interesting! Seems like there were two versions of the unconstructed CA-65: a foothill curving/farmland road with 1-2 lanes per direction (similar to what CA-245 currently is), then later, an expressway/freeway that traverses straight through farmland/at the edge of the foothills (similar to I-5).

I recall reading that one of the reasons CA-65 had its routing radically changed (as it originally utilized the current alignment + all of CA-245) was it was envisioned as the "East Side Highway." It was intended to be the exact eastern counterpart of CA-33. Then it was reimagined as a freeway. Seems like another one of those plans that will never come to be. It does explain why CA-59 abruptly turns into a county route, though: it was supposed to terminate at the extended CA-65.

I did not know the reasoning behind the location was due to tule fog. I don't live in the Central Valley so I've heard of it, but haven't experienced it much.

[Max Rockatansky]

Originally CA 65 ended at CA 180 at Dunlap Road near Pine Hurst.  When the Kings Canyon Highway was opened it realigned CA 180 and CA 65 was extended to meet it.  CA 65 north of CA 198 was renumbered to CA 69 during the 1964 Renumbering.  The CA 69 shields were frequently stolen (see Sparker’s comments on why) and the designation was swapped to CA 245 in 1972.