Headlines About California Highways – July 2025

[cahwyguy]

It's a new month, and you know what that means ... time to talk about something other than Alanland (whatever that is), and route is on the Golden Gate Bridge. Here are some headlines to perhaps start some other discussions related to California Highways.

Headline Post: https://cahighways.org/wordpress/?p=17350

[Max Rockatansky]

Heh, there is enough lore on Alanland that we probably could do a bonus podcast episode on it.  I'll fill you on the gist of what is going tomorrow. 

Regarding CA 37, climate change or not there is too much demand for the highway to go unaddressed.  The Bay Area news outlets tend to be sparse on long term proposals like an elevated viaduct over San Pablo Bay.  Likewise things have constantly been done to the Last Chance Slide area on US 101 because the highway is similarly necessary.  Thing is the Last Chance Tunnel is finally nearing reality just recently.

Regarding the MSN article I tend to disqualify numbered State Routes as "true backroads."

All the articles on the Traffic Way Bridge in Arroyo Grande keeping missing that "it was" US 101 prior to the freeway opening.  I took a bunch of pictures a couple years back after I heard it would be replaced.

Hopefully nobody gets bright ideas about paving the dirt segment of 173.  Closed or not the oddity makes that highway infinitely more interesting.  More so given it was the original alignment of 2.

[pderocco]

Regarding the MSN article I tend to disqualify numbered State Routes as "true backroads."

Someone can't count. The headline advertises six back roads, but I only count five.

I agree that state highways don't feel quite like "back roads". If I had to advertise six, I might pick Sherman Pass, Nacimiento Fergusson, Figueroa Mountain, Mendocino Pass, San Antonio Valley/Del Puerto Canyon, and Sunrise Highway. All easy to drive (even the graded Mendocino Pass), all fairly long, all thru-routes, and all with plenty of variety.

Hopefully nobody gets bright ideas about paving the dirt segment of 173.  Closed or not the oddity makes that highway infinitely more interesting.  More so given it was the original alignment of 2.

I recall reading that it was closed because some hiker fell to his death along it, which suggests that they don't allow hiking on it either. So it's only interesting as a line on a map. I'm happy to say that I got to drive it in both directions back in the aughts, and the second time was quite challenging.

[Max Rockatansky]

If I were to offer another six backroads which can be accomplished by the everyman:

-  Sierra Vista Scenic Byway
-  Mineral King Road
-  Breckenridge Road
-  Caliente-Bodfish Road
-  Parkfield Grade Road/Parkfield Coalinga Road
-  Wards Ferry Road

The last time I was out on any part of 173 was on the Hesperia side.  There wasn't any indication the gate there that said the road couldn't be hiked.  The Deep Creek Trailhead actually provided a convenient launch point to hike the closed highway.

[SeriesE]

CA-99 S - CA-58 W: I thought I read that the original reason that connection wasn't built was because they didn't project enough traffic to make that connection worthwhile? From this month's article, it ended up being not enough funding?

New LAX ramps: so are they going to open up the metro station for passenger drop offs? (this article also reminds me of my annoyance with many infrastructure related news reports: they never put in a map of the planned route on the page)

[cahwyguy]

New LAX ramps: so are they going to open up the metro station for passenger drop offs? (this article also reminds me of my annoyance with many infrastructure related news reports: they never put in a map of the planned route on the page)

They opened the LAX/Metro Transit Connector Station on June 6 (see https://www.metro.net/lax-metro-transit-center/ ) that will eventually connect to the people mover into LAX. So, yes, you should be able to do passenger drop offs there.

And, before folks ask: Metro will not go directly INTO the airport, and for good reason: If you are a commuter using metro, you don't want to have a stop ever minute at a different terminal. Further, if the line was supporting commuters, it couldn't have the frequency that the airport passengers would want. Having a separate airport system allows increased frequency and the terminal stops.

[SeriesE]

They opened the LAX/Metro Transit Connector Station on June 6 (see https://www.metro.net/lax-metro-transit-center/ ) that will eventually connect to the people mover into LAX. So, yes, you should be able to do passenger drop offs there.

Thanks for the link! The FAQ listed there says no dropoffs, but close enough based on the address they are suggesting. There is a cutoff path (kind of like the loops at some schools for drop offs) at that address

Can passengers be picked up or dropped off at the LAX/Metro Transit Center by private vehicles or ride shares like Uber or Lyft?

There is no passenger pick-up or drop-off area within the LAX/Metro Transit Center bus bay area for private vehicles, ride shares, taxis, or any other commercial vehicles. This policy is in place to minimize traffic disruptions for buses and maintain smooth operations at the transit center. Riders can be dropped off right outside of the station at 9225 Aviation Blvd.

[Max Rockatansky]

CA-99 S - CA-58 W: I thought I read that the original reason that connection wasn't built was because they didn't project enough traffic to make that connection worthwhile? From this month's article, it ended up being not enough funding?

Interestingly Rosedale Highway between 99 and Mohawk hasn't been relinquished yet due to this missing connection.  I has fairly substantial signage indicating as WB routing of 58.

[pderocco]

CA-99 S - CA-58 W: I thought I read that the original reason that connection wasn't built was because they didn't project enough traffic to make that connection worthwhile? From this month's article, it ended up being not enough funding?

If 99S to 58W is going to finish the project, why are they leaving out 58E to 99N? Wouldn't that have similar traffic levels?

[pderocco]

If I were to offer another six backroads which can be accomplished by the everyman:

-  Sierra Vista Scenic Byway
-  Mineral King Road
-  Breckenridge Road
-  Caliente-Bodfish Road
-  Parkfield Grade Road/Parkfield Coalinga Road
-  Wards Ferry Road

I think most people would find Wards Ferry Rd stressful, because it sometimes requires backing up to let someone else by. Once, I spent five minutes squeezing by a bus full of bungee jumpers, a la Worlds Most Dangerous Roads.

[Max Rockatansky]

If I were to offer another six backroads which can be accomplished by the everyman:

-  Sierra Vista Scenic Byway
-  Mineral King Road
-  Breckenridge Road
-  Caliente-Bodfish Road
-  Parkfield Grade Road/Parkfield Coalinga Road
-  Wards Ferry Road

I think most people would find Wards Ferry Rd stressful, because it sometimes requires backing up to let someone else by. Once, I spent five minutes squeezing by a bus full of bungee jumpers, a la Worlds Most Dangerous Roads.

While I don't disagree, I'm reminded of a conversation with a person I once had on Nacimiento-Ferugson Road.  I was at the summit parked just off on the Coast Ridge Road looking at the detour signs that were put up to reach CA 1 after the Mud Creek Slide.  Someone pulls up and asks me if they are heading the right way to Big Sur.  I affirmed that they were heading the correct way (heading west) but asked if they knew how to shift to lower gears, they didn't.  I explained how to down shift an automatic transmission and why it would be important over the 2,700-something-foot descent over the next seven miles.  That was a normal person who was in an unfamiliar situation, but they made it to the end even though they had an unexpected challenge probably had anxiety having to contend with.

[pderocco]

While I don't disagree, I'm reminded of a conversation with a person I once had on Nacimiento-Ferugson Road.  I was at the summit parked just off on the Coast Ridge Road looking at the detour signs that were put up to reach CA 1 after the Mud Creek Slide.  Someone pulls up and asks me if they are heading the right way to Big Sur.  I affirmed that they were heading the correct way (heading west) but asked if they knew how to shift to lower gears, they didn't.  I explained how to down shift an automatic transmission and why it would be important over the 2,700-something-foot descent over the next seven miles.  That was a normal person who was in an unfamiliar situation, but they made it to the end even though they had an unexpected challenge probably had anxiety having to contend with.

True. I've inhaled my share of brake smoke following someone down a steep mountain road. I wonder if any modern high-tech cars can warn the driver to downshift if the brakes are getting hot on a long down slope.

[SeriesE]

If 99S to 58W is going to finish the project, why are they leaving out 58E to 99N? Wouldn't that have similar traffic levels?

At least that seems simple since there is enough space to put a loop ramp on the lower right quadrant

[cahwyguy]

If we're talking about backroads, don't just think the central coast or sierras. I was just looking into Imperial Highway, and it looks like San Diego and Imperial County have some impressive backroads, particularly S2, S22, and S3.

[pderocco]

I don't regard any Imperial County roads as particularly scenic--interesting perhaps, but not scenic. But San Diego County (my home) has lots of lovely back roads, and really interesting topography. However, I think only CR-S1, including the Sunrise Highway, would rate a spot in an article like that about back roads covering the entire state. It's certainly more spectacular than 79 from Julian to Temecula.

[Alex]

I completed the data entry for converting all of the California Highways route indexes from html into the new dynamically-driven page format. Finished the last of the routes (SR 103) yesterday. The URL changes are straight forward:

Old URL -> New URL
https://www.aaroads.com/california/us-060_ca.html -> https://www.aaroads.com/guides/us-060-ca
https://www.aaroads.com/california/us-466_ca.html -> https://www.aaroads.com/guides/us-466-ca
https://www.aaroads.com/california/ca-013.html -> https://www.aaroads.com/guides/ca-013
https://www.aaroads.com/california/ca-155.html -> https://www.aaroads.com/guides/ca-155

Note that there is no forward slash at the end of the URL's for the route pages. I did add a nginx rewrite rule that will allow URL's with the forward slash to work, but the canonical URL is without the slash.

[cahwyguy]

I completed the data entry for converting all of the California Highways route indexes from html into the new dynamically-driven page format. Finished the last of the routes (SR 103) yesterday. The URL changes are straight forward:

Old URL -> New URL
https://www.aaroads.com/california/us-060_ca.html -> https://www.aaroads.com/guides/us-060-ca
https://www.aaroads.com/california/us-466_ca.html -> https://www.aaroads.com/guides/us-466-ca
https://www.aaroads.com/california/ca-013.html -> https://www.aaroads.com/guides/ca-013
https://www.aaroads.com/california/ca-155.html -> https://www.aaroads.com/guides/ca-155

Note that there is no forward slash at the end of the URL's for the route pages. I did add a nginx rewrite rule that will allow URL's with the forward slash to work, but the canonical URL is without the slash.

@Alex : Are these all of them, or will I need to go through EVERY route page fixing the citations?

[Alex]

I completed the data entry for converting all of the California Highways route indexes from html into the new dynamically-driven page format. Finished the last of the routes (SR 103) yesterday. The URL changes are straight forward:

Old URL -> New URL
https://www.aaroads.com/california/us-060_ca.html -> https://www.aaroads.com/guides/us-060-ca
https://www.aaroads.com/california/us-466_ca.html -> https://www.aaroads.com/guides/us-466-ca
https://www.aaroads.com/california/ca-013.html -> https://www.aaroads.com/guides/ca-013
https://www.aaroads.com/california/ca-155.html -> https://www.aaroads.com/guides/ca-155

Note that there is no forward slash at the end of the URL's for the route pages. I did add a nginx rewrite rule that will allow URL's with the forward slash to work, but the canonical URL is without the slash.

@Alex : Are these all of them, or will I need to go through EVERY route page fixing the citations?

Those were just some examples.

I spent the last month converting all of the route indexes so that they will be indexed with the revised scripts, as the HTML based pages are ignored since I have everything dynamically generated. Unfortunately you will need to swap out any remaining html links.

So on https://cahighways.org/ROUTE040.html you'll want to replace https://www.aaroads.com/california/us-040_ca.html with https://www.aaroads.com/guides/us-040-ca
And you'll want to drop the forward slash from the end of the URL for existing guides links so that instead of https://www.aaroads.com/guides/i-040-ca/ the canonical URL is https://www.aaroads.com/guides/i-040-ca

All of the changes are compiled at https://www.aaroads.com/sitemap.xml

[cahwyguy]

All of the changes are compiled at https://www.aaroads.com/sitemap.xml

The XML doesn't help, as I can't really intepret it. I think the GIST is that I need to review every page. Sigh. Also, in doing this, I'm discovering all the business route links have changed as well.

And note that your still have old style links in the guides themselves. I just did my page on Route 73, which not only has the new guide-style link, but a directly link to https://www.aaroads.com/california/ca-073sa.html , which comes straight from within the page.