Closed Section of Route 39 - Update

[Plutonic Panda]

I'm very aware that California department of transportation has switched from levels of service consideration to vehicle miles traveled. And I'm sure you're aware that I think that's a very ridiculous ultimatum they have to put themselves in and I've been very outspoken on it. While I remain very pro Car and freeway, I am careful and cautious of our environment. I go backpacking in Yosemite all the time I'm hiking. I love the great outdoors. Kayaking Colorado through Moab. I get it.

The Los Angeles forest is a huge national forest. Their absolutely needs to be environmental considerations but at the same time there's just a handful of main roads that go through it and where is the evidence to show that reopening this road full-time is going to cause any significant harm to the forest? And if this short stretch of road will do that then heck while we're at it why not just close the entire crest highway while we're at it?

I mean after all, let's be honest is that highway really needed? It's almost certainly gonna have to have major repairs in the future due to landslides. It's gonna happen again. It's just a matter of when. So why not just get rid of the problem right now? That way we can close all of the campsites and all of the maintenance that comes with all of these overlooks that the Department of agriculture has to maintain.

And I think you could also make an argument that building a tunnel from the 2/210 interchange to Palmdale would help the forest as it would take more cars that use the Angeles Forest Highway to bypass congestion on CA-14(another spectacle that is to behold Metro is proposing an actual widening which I honestly don't think will ever happen or at least anytime soon). You could make several arguments for such a tunnel. A lot of people drive on those mountain roads and they get road rage because of slow drivers and there's a big safety issue that comes with people making illegal passes which happens regularly.

Well, at the end of the day, obviously that tunnel is very unlikely given the 710 tunnel didn't happen. The cost would be enormous. Well, you got people that are up in arms about the high speed rail segment going through the forest and you also have people that are questioning whether or not we should keep repairing state route one around the Big Sur area.

And I know we keep going in circles on this, but it's just frustrating to see news like this. All I can do is hope that maybe one day the tides will change. I'm not holding my breath though. In all actuality, I'm pretty happy with what we have. We're blessed to have pretty significant infrastructure here. And I do appreciate the improvements that Metro has made to their mass transportation system as I use it daily.

Mind you, my comment wasn't intended to convince you to agree. I don't expect folks here to agree. But what we should strive for is to at least understand the CTC/Caltrans reasoning.

Right I'm well aware of what their agenda is. And I think we've touched on this subject before although I can't remember exactly the dialogue, but it's interesting. How orange and Santa Clara counties seem to be an outlier who are willing to fund their own projects to greatly increase capacity on their freeways. But God forbid we reopen this short section of road. I'm not trying to argue with you. I'm just voice voicing my displeasure with this decision but again as I said, I'm not surprised.

[The Ghostbuster]

Are any more sections of CA 39 planned to be decommissioned in the future?

[cahwyguy]

Are any more sections of CA 39 planned to be decommissioned in the future?

Looking at the definition, there are no cities where relinquished has been authorized, but hasn't occurred yet. I don't recall seeing anything in the legislature about further changes to the definitions of Route 39. If there is, it would be on my legislation page, https://www.cahighways.org/links-legislation.html

[Max Rockatansky]

Are any more sections of CA 39 planned to be decommissioned in the future?

39 is weird in that a lot of the planning surface routing was never even adopted as State Highway in the first place.  The discontinuous segment was signed for a time because Sign Route designations because intertwined with denoting Caltrans maintenance.

[pderocco]

I'm not gonna lie late at night one night, I was driving up Mulholland and I went to the trailhead near Encino Hills. The gate was open and I may or may not have driven halfway down the dirt portion until I got scared and I said yeah, this is probably not a good idea and I turned around. I kind of wish I would've completed it but it my gut told me it was not a good idea. I suspect the Rangers were probably on that trail and they were further down the path than I was.

I drove it a couple times back in the early 80s, before it was closed. The turnoffs had great views of the SF Valley, but they were full of crushed beer cans and broken bottles.

[cahwyguy]

I'm not gonna lie late at night one night, I was driving up Mulholland and I went to the trailhead near Encino Hills. The gate was open and I may or may not have driven halfway down the dirt portion until I got scared and I said yeah, this is probably not a good idea and I turned around. I kind of wish I would've completed it but it my gut told me it was not a good idea. I suspect the Rangers were probably on that trail and they were further down the path than I was.

I drove it a couple times back in the early 80s, before it was closed. The turnoffs had great views of the SF Valley, but they were full of crushed beer cans and broken bottles.

Having grown up in the area (Palisades High), dirt Mulholland was a favorite "parking" spot. I'd imagine there's a lot of other ... debris.