CA RxR 4.13: Route 14: The Antelope Valley Freeway

[cahwyguy]

The Tioga Road was in the middle of being modernized during the mid-1960s. Why have US 6 keep going south when CA 167 and CA 120 were available for a jog west to I-5?  120 had a bunch of planned freeway stuff west of Yosemite that actively being planned in the era also.  Certainly would be less crazy than trying to extend I-70 over Minaret Summit.

Yeah, but there was no justification to extend 6 either, given the history of the terminus in Long Beach. I-70 really didn't make sense, because I've never seen any discussion about how the gap between I-15 and US 395 would have been closed. But rerouting US 6 across from Benton equally makes no sense, at least as US 6, because there's no justification for the drastic change in routing.

[Max Rockatansky]

The Tioga Road was in the middle of being modernized during the mid-1960s. Why have US 6 keep going south when CA 167 and CA 120 were available for a jog west to I-5?  120 had a bunch of planned freeway stuff west of Yosemite that actively being planned in the era also.  Certainly would be less crazy than trying to extend I-70 over Minaret Summit.

Yeah, but there was no justification to extend 6 either, given the history of the terminus in Long Beach. I-70 really didn't make sense, because I've never seen any discussion about how the gap between I-15 and US 395 would have been closed. But rerouting US 6 across from Benton equally makes no sense, at least as US 6, because there's no justification for the drastic change in routing.

Right, that's why I specified 167.  If I recall correctly isn't there considerable evidence which suggests that Pole Line Road was planned as a realignment of 120?

[ClassicHasClass]

(1) If you look at the original 1934 signage, the segment of US 395 S of Inyokern was to be Sign Route 95, with Sign Route 7 along the 395.

ITYM Sign Route 7 along US 6.

[cahwyguy]

(1) If you look at the original 1934 signage, the segment of US 395 S of Inyokern was to be Sign Route 95, with Sign Route 7 along the 395.

ITYM Sign Route 7 along US 6.

No. The original plan for Sign Route 95 was to sign it along the route from US 66 near Cajon to Route 7 (US 395) near Little Lake. The route was changed to US 395 a year later, in 1935, when US 395 was extended into California. That's also when Sign Route 7 was changed to US 395 between Inyokern and Nevada. In 1938, US 6 was extended into California, which is when Sign Route 7 between Inyokern and US 99 became US 6 (and US 6 was extended along US 99 into Downtown LA; and down Sign Route 11 to the Harbor, and along US 101A to end at Atlantic, Sign Route 15).

[SeriesE]

The Tioga Road was in the middle of being modernized during the mid-1960s. Why have US 6 keep going south when CA 167 and CA 120 were available for a jog west to I-5?  120 had a bunch of planned freeway stuff west of Yosemite that actively being planned in the era also.  Certainly would be less crazy than trying to extend I-70 over Minaret Summit.

Now that you mention it, having US 6 take over CA-120/I-205/I-580/I-238 corridor would work too.

[Max Rockatansky]

The Tioga Road was in the middle of being modernized during the mid-1960s. Why have US 6 keep going south when CA 167 and CA 120 were available for a jog west to I-5?  120 had a bunch of planned freeway stuff west of Yosemite that actively being planned in the era also.  Certainly would be less crazy than trying to extend I-70 over Minaret Summit.

Now that you mention it, having US 6 take over CA-120/I-205/I-580/I-238 corridor would work too.

I was trying to think of something that would avoid a lengthy multiple which is why I said I-5 near Tracy.  Back when US 6 was first proposed to be extended into California circa 1936-1937 it had two proposed routings.  The routing we got was Long Beach, but the alternate was Tioga Pass to the San Francisco Bay Area.  Likely the conditions west of Benton to Tioga Pass at the time shifted favor for the Long Beach terminus.

Getting US 6 to CA 167 would have to involve multiplexing US 95 to Hawthorne.  I tend to not really see that as a big deal given the easternmost section of CA 120 in the Mono Lake area is pretty winding.  US 6 between Coaldale in theory could be assigned as US X06 or X95 given it crosses a state line. 

Either way, it really doesn't matter.  By 1963 the Division of Highways was pretty much in disposal mode with the US Route System.  Modern Caltrans doesn't seem to have any interest either given there are some layup additions sitting around like CA/NV 88.  After 1996 and the rejection for the I-210 extension Caltrans doesn't seem to have much desire to deal with AASHTO in general.