Graham Hill Road

[Max Rockatansky]

Graham Hill Road is an approximately six-mile highway corridor located in the Santa Cruz Mountains.  The Graham Hill corridor begins at Ocean Street in the city of Santa Cruz and terminates at California State Route 9 near the San Lorenzo River in Felton. 

Graham Hill Road is one of the oldest highways in Santa Cruz County.  The highway was constructed in the 1840s to access Issac Graham/s water-fed sawmill located at what is now Felton.  Graham Hill Road is mostly associated with the Felton Covered Bridge which served as part of the roadway from 1892-1937.  This structure is often claimed to be the tallest covered bridge ever constructed in the United States and is now part of Covered Bridge Park

https://www.gribblenation.org/2026/02/graham-hill-road.html?m=1

[pderocco]

What I don't understand is why that isn't route 9. The actual route 9 is winding and has almost nothing on it but redwoods. The first time I drove through there, in 2015, it was closed for major repairs, and I had to drive the much easier Graham Hill Rd instead.

Maybe it's because it goes through a State Park, so it needs a number, but GHR is a better through route, so it should be CA-9 and the park road could be CA-234, to echo CA-236 which is another tortuous road that is bypassed by CA-9 further north.

[cahwyguy]

What I don't understand is why that isn't route 9. The actual route 9 is winding and has almost nothing on it but redwoods. The first time I drove through there, in 2015, it was closed for major repairs, and I had to drive the much easier Graham Hill Rd instead.

Maybe it's because it goes through a State Park, so it needs a number, but GHR is a better through route, so it should be CA-9 and the park road could be CA-234, to echo CA-236 which is another tortuous road that is bypassed by CA-9 further north.

You're looking at things now, now how things were in the 1920s when the underlying legislative routes were established. Give a listen to our podcast on that segment of Route 9: https://caroutebyroute.org/2025/11/28/ca-rxr-4-03-route-9-santa-cruz-and-saratoga/ . The park is likely the reason why the legislative route was established, and what you know as Route 236 was part of the original Route 9; it was bypassed by a later legislative route. Route 236 wasn't resigned until 1964.

[Max Rockatansky]

Crossing over the San Lorenzo River via a narrow Covered Bridge likely wasn't ideal in 1933 when LRN 116 was added between Santa Cruz and Waterman Gap.  But this is why I like looking into these earlier mountain roads from a historic sense.  You can really see the progression of how modern automotive highways evolved.

That aside, wait until I get to Mountain Charlie Road.  That functionally was the predecessor highway to what became CA 17 north of Scotts Valley.  Early 17 was carried on Glenwood Drive and was considered a huge improvement to the Mountain Charlie grade.

[pderocco]

What I don't understand is why that isn't route 9. The actual route 9 is winding and has almost nothing on it but redwoods. The first time I drove through there, in 2015, it was closed for major repairs, and I had to drive the much easier Graham Hill Rd instead.

Maybe it's because it goes through a State Park, so it needs a number, but GHR is a better through route, so it should be CA-9 and the park road could be CA-234, to echo CA-236 which is another tortuous road that is bypassed by CA-9 further north.

You're looking at things now, now how things were in the 1920s when the underlying legislative routes were established. Give a listen to our podcast on that segment of Route 9: https://caroutebyroute.org/2025/11/28/ca-rxr-4-03-route-9-santa-cruz-and-saratoga/ . The park is likely the reason why the legislative route was established, and what you know as Route 236 was part of the original Route 9; it was bypassed by a later legislative route. Route 236 wasn't resigned until 1964.

Yes, exactly, I'm looking at things now. It would be nice if the state took over GHR and moved 9 onto it, and gave the current name a different number. Perhaps they should have done that in 1964. The current alignment is a nice tour through the redwoods, but if I lived there, I'd be driving GHR most of the time.

[cahwyguy]

What I don't understand is why that isn't route 9. The actual route 9 is winding and has almost nothing on it but redwoods. The first time I drove through there, in 2015, it was closed for major repairs, and I had to drive the much easier Graham Hill Rd instead.

Maybe it's because it goes through a State Park, so it needs a number, but GHR is a better through route, so it should be CA-9 and the park road could be CA-234, to echo CA-236 which is another tortuous road that is bypassed by CA-9 further north.

You're looking at things now, now how things were in the 1920s when the underlying legislative routes were established. Give a listen to our podcast on that segment of Route 9: https://caroutebyroute.org/2025/11/28/ca-rxr-4-03-route-9-santa-cruz-and-saratoga/ . The park is likely the reason why the legislative route was established, and what you know as Route 236 was part of the original Route 9; it was bypassed by a later legislative route. Route 236 wasn't resigned until 1964.

Yes, exactly, I'm looking at things now. It would be nice if the state took over GHR and moved 9 onto it, and gave the current name a different number. Perhaps they should have done that in 1964. The current alignment is a nice tour through the redwoods, but if I lived there, I'd be driving GHR most of the time.

Ask yourself: What is in it for the state, other than maintenance costs? More likely, they would be eager to get rid of such roads as they are maintenance headaches, but the county won't take them without large payments of money.

It is very important, when we say the state should do this or that, be it renumbering or taking over a road or re-signing a road, to think about it from the state's point of view. What's the benefit to the state? What's the reason to take it over? What are the costs? What are the benefits? The state doesn't just do things to make roadgeeks happy. There needs to be a clear benefit: VMT reduction. Collisions avoided. Lives saved.

[pderocco]

What I don't understand is why that isn't route 9. The actual route 9 is winding and has almost nothing on it but redwoods. The first time I drove through there, in 2015, it was closed for major repairs, and I had to drive the much easier Graham Hill Rd instead.

Maybe it's because it goes through a State Park, so it needs a number, but GHR is a better through route, so it should be CA-9 and the park road could be CA-234, to echo CA-236 which is another tortuous road that is bypassed by CA-9 further north.

You're looking at things now, now how things were in the 1920s when the underlying legislative routes were established. Give a listen to our podcast on that segment of Route 9: https://caroutebyroute.org/2025/11/28/ca-rxr-4-03-route-9-santa-cruz-and-saratoga/ . The park is likely the reason why the legislative route was established, and what you know as Route 236 was part of the original Route 9; it was bypassed by a later legislative route. Route 236 wasn't resigned until 1964.

Yes, exactly, I'm looking at things now. It would be nice if the state took over GHR and moved 9 onto it, and gave the current name a different number. Perhaps they should have done that in 1964. The current alignment is a nice tour through the redwoods, but if I lived there, I'd be driving GHR most of the time.

Ask yourself: What is in it for the state, other than maintenance costs? More likely, they would be eager to get rid of such roads as they are maintenance headaches, but the county won't take them without large payments of money.

It is very important, when we say the state should do this or that, be it renumbering or taking over a road or re-signing a road, to think about it from the state's point of view. What's the benefit to the state? What's the reason to take it over? What are the costs? What are the benefits? The state doesn't just do things to make roadgeeks happy. There needs to be a clear benefit: VMT reduction. Collisions avoided. Lives saved.

The state gets the gas tax money, and given how high that tax is, perhaps they should shoulder more of the responsibility for highways. As big as California is, it doesn't actually have that many state highways. It's the most populous state, has the third biggest land area, but it's ninth or tenth by state highway mileage.

As to the benefit, there might be some reduction in accidents by steering tourists onto the straighter road. Perhaps they could do a swap.

[cahwyguy]

The state gets the gas tax money, and given how high that tax is, perhaps they should shoulder more of the responsibility for highways. As big as California is, it doesn't actually have that many state highways. It's the most populous state, has the third biggest land area, but it's ninth or tenth by state highway mileage.

As to the benefit, there might be some reduction in accidents by steering tourists onto the straighter road. Perhaps they could do a swap.

What is the comparison in maintenance cost in the highways? Is the highway constructed to state standards, and if not, what would the construction cost be? Does it connect the same points? Does the jurisdiction want the maintenance costs back?

Remember: Some of the highways in the state are very expensive to maintain, especially those in coastal or mountainous areas, or fire prone areas. It isn't like a highway across Texas or Iowa.

[DTComposer]

It should also be noted that Graham Hill Road runs through/adjacent to several residential areas, including an elementary school, so I'm sure the idea of moving a state highway that receives a significant amount of non-local traffic (avoiding 17) off of its 90+ year routing onto a residential collector street would not sit well with the locals.

[Max Rockatansky]

The state gets the gas tax money, and given how high that tax is, perhaps they should shoulder more of the responsibility for highways. As big as California is, it doesn't actually have that many state highways. It's the most populous state, has the third biggest land area, but it's ninth or tenth by state highway mileage.

As to the benefit, there might be some reduction in accidents by steering tourists onto the straighter road. Perhaps they could do a swap.

What is the comparison in maintenance cost in the highways? Is the highway constructed to state standards, and if not, what would the construction cost be? Does it connect the same points? Does the jurisdiction want the maintenance costs back?

Remember: Some of the highways in the state are very expensive to maintain, especially those in coastal or mountainous areas, or fire prone areas. It isn't like a highway across Texas or Iowa.

I was thinking about GHR at one point when we were recording the first Route 9 podcast.  If 9 was planned to be realigned down GHR it would certainly explain why it had a legislative endpoint at 17 (which was in the definition until 1981).  GHR is the superior alignment south of Felton in almost every way.

[cahwyguy]

The state gets the gas tax money, and given how high that tax is, perhaps they should shoulder more of the responsibility for highways. As big as California is, it doesn't actually have that many state highways. It's the most populous state, has the third biggest land area, but it's ninth or tenth by state highway mileage.

As to the benefit, there might be some reduction in accidents by steering tourists onto the straighter road. Perhaps they could do a swap.

What is the comparison in maintenance cost in the highways? Is the highway constructed to state standards, and if not, what would the construction cost be? Does it connect the same points? Does the jurisdiction want the maintenance costs back?

Remember: Some of the highways in the state are very expensive to maintain, especially those in coastal or mountainous areas, or fire prone areas. It isn't like a highway across Texas or Iowa.

I was thinking about GHR at one point when we were recording the first Route 9 podcast.  If 9 was planned to be realigned down GHR it would certainly explain why it had a legislative endpoint at 17 (which was in the definition until 1981).  GHR is the superior alignment south of Felton in almost every way.

Perhaps that was in the plans, and something stymied it (homeowners, land acquisition costs). It would likely require research in Sacramento, District 4 (or is it 5 there) HQ, and perhaps Santa Cruz County. Perhaps there is a Felton Historic society.

[DTComposer]

If there was a plan to put CA-9 onto Graham Hill, it would have gone out the window when they planned the Cabrillo Freeway extension from the Fishhook west to Mission Street.

It appears that Santa Cruz County (and city) didn't have a General Plan until the late 1950s, so I can't find anything earlier that would raise using Graham Hill as a possibility.

As for CA-9 ending at CA-17 instead of CA-1, I'm not finding anything in CHPW that would help support this. I also couldn't find any maps before the 1950s that would give any indication of the state highway routings in the city itself.

I did find this from 1917 (pre-state highways, but does give an indication of what would be considered the main routes in and out of town):

that would indicate that the Water/Mission/Pacific/River intersection would be the meeting of what would become 1, 9, and 17.

That's not canonical, of course, since the original LRN routing just used the vague "Santa Cruz" as the terminus.

This map is from 1954 and shows CA-9 ending at CA-1 (unless there's a concurrency):

Which shows CA-1 using the more logical Water Street to Mission Street routing.

The definition of LRN 116 (CA-9) kept the vague "Santa Cruz" terminus until 1961, when it was changed to LRN 5 (CA-17) - but by that point the freeway extension from the Fishhook to Mission Street was complete, so the LRN 116 (CA-9) terminus should have been LRN 56 (CA-1) at that point. So maybe it was just a clerical error?

[Quillz]

One thing I noted looking at both CA-9 and this road, is that it seems CA-9 is more of a bypass, out of the way. I can't say for sure, but one thing I've noticed is Caltrans does seem to like making state routes bypasses when possible. Some recent examples are the 101 Willits bypass, the 78/111 Brawley bypass, and the 25/156 Hollister bypass. I think it makes sense for long haul traffic, keep them out of the city centers and provide business spurs or loops.

If that's the case here, maybe unintentionally, I can see why CA-9 has the routing it does.