CA RxR 4.13: Route 14: The Antelope Valley Freeway

[cahwyguy]

Episode 4.13 continues our exploration of Route 14, picking up from the end of the first segment at I-5, and continuing to the junction with US 395 near Inyokern. As usual, along the way, we explore the history of the route, the conversion to freeway, major projects on the route, and naming along the route. This includes a detailed exploration of the start of the route in the Newhall Pass and Solemint area. It also includes an exploration of the "Aerospace Highway" name, and all the firsts that occurred at Edwards AFB and the test center next to the highway. Ep. 4.13 marks the end of the main episodes of Season 4, although we do have a couple of bonus episodes planned for the season break to tide you over. The first bonus episode, 4.14, covers New Idria Road and Hites Cove Road, which are mining roads in San Benito and Mariposa counties.

Note: As I'm posting this, I'm about to do a talk to the Austin Perl mongers group about the history of Perl -- a comment I did on that subject to a computer history FB group received over 200 likes! For those that don't know, I still use perl to help generate the California Highways site. [If folks want that talk, drop me a note.]

Link to Episode on CARouteByRoute: https://caroutebyroute.org/2026/07/04/ca-rxr-4-13-route-14-the-antelope-valley-freeway/
Link to Episode on Spotify: https://creators.spotify.com/pod/profile/caroutebyroute/episodes/CA-RxR-4-13-Route-14-The-Antelope-Valley-Freeway-e3lle1s/a-acogb2f

[The Ghostbuster]

Was the CA 14 freeway ever proposed to go beyond Mojave? I know 14 was to continue beyond Interstate 5 to connect with CA 1.

[cahwyguy]

Was the CA 14 freeway ever proposed to go beyond Mojave? I know 14 was to continue beyond Interstate 5 to connect with CA 1.

As a freeway. As a freeway, it doesn't even make it as far as Mojave. I'd guess that beyond Mojave, it wasn't going to be more of an expressway, unless there was traffic to justify it (although I'm sure the California City folks tried, but there's not much between Mojave and Inyokern). At least for Mojave and points south, you have the truck traffic using former US 466, today's Route 58.

[pderocco]

Was the CA 14 freeway ever proposed to go beyond Mojave? I know 14 was to continue beyond Interstate 5 to connect with CA 1.

As a freeway. As a freeway, it doesn't even make it as far as Mojave. I'd guess that beyond Mojave, it wasn't going to be more of an expressway, unless there was traffic to justify it (although I'm sure the California City folks tried, but there's not much between Mojave and Inyokern). At least for Mojave and points south, you have the truck traffic using former US 466, today's Route 58.

Except for Mammoth traffic Friday and Sunday evenings during the winter. Not exactly heavy traffic, but enough to be dangerous through the 2-lane Freeman Gulch area, when people try to pass. The state doesn't appear too eager to upgrade it to a 4-lane expressway, though.

[cahwyguy]

Was the CA 14 freeway ever proposed to go beyond Mojave? I know 14 was to continue beyond Interstate 5 to connect with CA 1.

As a freeway. As a freeway, it doesn't even make it as far as Mojave. I'd guess that beyond Mojave, it wasn't going to be more of an expressway, unless there was traffic to justify it (although I'm sure the California City folks tried, but there's not much between Mojave and Inyokern). At least for Mojave and points south, you have the truck traffic using former US 466, today's Route 58.

Except for Mammoth traffic Friday and Sunday evenings during the winter. Not exactly heavy traffic, but enough to be dangerous through the 2-lane Freeman Gulch area, when people try to pass. The state doesn't appear too eager to upgrade it to a 4-lane expressway, though.

Actually, Segment 1 of the conversion to a 4-lane expressway is done, and there was a bunch of stuff about the Segment 2 conversion in the March 2026 CTC Meeting. The project is in the 2026 STIP. Here's what I have on my website:

In June 2018, it was reported that a year of construction, four miles of moving dirt and asphalt, and decades of planning came to fruition when transportation officials cut the ribbon on the new four-lane expressway on Route 14. The Freedom Gulch four-lane project breaks down into three segments in an attempt to turn Route 14 into a four-lane expressway over 16.4 miles. The collaborative $28 million project received funding from Caltrans, Kern Council of Governments (KernCOG), and the counties of Inyo and Mono. Forty percent of the funding came from each KernCOG and Caltrans, and 10 percent each from Inyo and Mono counties. The first segment (which just opened) goes from a half mile north of the Route 178 west/Route 14 intersection to 1.7 miles north of Route 178 east/Route 14 intersection. Senate Bill 1, the transportation package that included the state gas tax, will help fund the next two segments. The first segment was already programmed through construction prior to SB 1′s passage in 2017. About 600,000 cubic yards of dirt have been moved, or about 50,000 truckloads, flattened out hills and involved 100,000 tons of aggregate base underneath the 100,000 tons of asphalt, all of which was transported from Lancaster. A mile and a half of pipe help improve the water runoff during storms. Despite the wind and brutal heat, the project was finished ahead of schedule and below budget. This was done thanks to the help of Caltrans' partners, namely ones like KernCOG and Kern County, Mono and Inyo counties, the Caltrans team and construction companies like Granite Construction, who worked on the Freeman Gulch program in record time and under budget.
(Source: Ridgecrest Daily Independent, 6/13/2018)

The Winter 2019 Mile Marker provided more information on this project. It noted that Segment 2 will upgrade 6.2 miles of two-lane conventional highway to four-lane expressway. This segment is currently in design, with construction expected to begin in 2020. Segment 3 will close the final gap and upgrade the last 7.1 miles of conventional highway to four-lane expressway, completing the long anticipated vision for an Eastern Sierra Corridor
(Source: Winter 2019 Mile Marker)

In January 2019, the CTC authorized relinquishment of right of way in the county of Kern (County) along Route 14, from 1.4 miles south of and 0.5 mile north of the junction with Route 178 (4 segments, 09-Ker-14-PM 59.0/61.2), consisting of collateral facilities. The County, by controlled access highway agreement dated April 23, 2013, agreed to accept title upon relinquishment by the State. The 90-day notice period expires January 8, 2019.
(Source: January 2019 CTC Minutes, Agenda Item 2.3c)

In March 2020, the CTC approved the 2020 STIP, which appeared to deallocate the remaining programmed closeout funding for the Inyo County portion of PPNO 8042A "Freeman Gulch wideng, Seg 1 (w/Mono)(CCA 6-19)", and corresponding Kern County funding. It does include the programmed, prior year, Kern County funding for PPNO 8042B "Freeman Gulch widening-Segment 2 (RIP 40%) ". Mono County is also contributing a share of its STIP funds, with its prior year closing funding continued. It also included PPNO 8042A, Freeman Gulch widening - Sgmt 1 (IIP 40%)(CCA 6-19) c, in the Interregional portion of the STIP with no change in programming: $3,974K in prior year funding for closeout; as well as PPNO 8042B Freeman Gulch widening - Segment 2 (IIP 40%), with $1,481K in prior year programming.
(Source: March 2020 CTC Agenda, Item 4.7, 2020 STIP Adopted 3/25/2020)

In March 2026, the CTC adopted the 2026 STIP, which included the following as continued programming from 2024 (Kern Cty): PPNO 09-8042B, "Freeman Gulch widening-Segment 2 (RIP 40%)". Prior years programming ($ × 1000): $1,960 ($1,960 PS&E). 2026 and Future Programming ($ × 1000): None
(Source: March 2026 CTC Agenda, Agenda Item 4.4; 2026 STIP Staff Recommendations Adopted 2/27/2026)

In March 2026, the CTC adopted the 2026 STIP, which included the following as continued programming from 2024 (Mono Cty): PPNO 09-8042B, "Kern, Freeman Gulch widening, Seg 2 (RIP 30%)". Total Programmed ($ × 1000): $260. Prior years programming ($ × 1000): $260. 2026 and Future Programming ($ × 1000): $0. Breakdown ($ × 1000): $260 (PS&E).
(Source: March 2026 CTC Agenda, Agenda Item 4.4; 2026 STIP Staff Recommendations Adopted 2/27/2026)

In March 2026, the CTC adopted the 2026 STIP, which included the following as continued programming from 2024: PPNO 09-8042B (Interregional), "Freeman Gulch widening - Segment 2 (IIP 40%)". Total Programmed ($×1000): $1,481. Prior years programming ($×1000): $1,481. 2026 and Future Programming ($×1000): $0. Programming Breakdown ($×1000): $0 (PA&ED), $1,481 (PS&E), $0 (Const), $0 (Con Sup), $0 (R/W), $0 (R/W Sup).
(Source: March 2026 CTC Agenda, Agenda Item 4.4; 2026 STIP Staff Recommendations Adopted 2/27/2026)

[FredAkbar]

In June 2018, it was reported that a year of construction, four miles of moving dirt and asphalt, and decades of planning came to fruition when transportation officials cut the ribbon on the new four-lane expressway on Route 14. The Freedom Gulch four-lane project

Typo here, should say Freeman Gulch. The link to the Ridgecrest Daily Independent news article on your website gives a 404, and I can't find the article on their website—it seems they pruned everything before Sep 2, 2021—but I found it on The Wayback Machine. You are vindicated:  the typo exists in the source material.

[cahwyguy]

In June 2018, it was reported that a year of construction, four miles of moving dirt and asphalt, and decades of planning came to fruition when transportation officials cut the ribbon on the new four-lane expressway on Route 14. The Freedom Gulch four-lane project

Typo here, should say Freeman Gulch. The link to the Ridgecrest Daily Independent news article on your website gives a 404, and I can't find the article on their website—it seems they pruned everything before Sep 2, 2021—but I found it on The Wayback Machine. You are vindicated:  the typo exists in the source material.

And I'll go fix it on my page. Typos don't deserve to live.

[pderocco]

Was the CA 14 freeway ever proposed to go beyond Mojave? I know 14 was to continue beyond Interstate 5 to connect with CA 1.

As a freeway. As a freeway, it doesn't even make it as far as Mojave. I'd guess that beyond Mojave, it wasn't going to be more of an expressway, unless there was traffic to justify it (although I'm sure the California City folks tried, but there's not much between Mojave and Inyokern). At least for Mojave and points south, you have the truck traffic using former US 466, today's Route 58.

Except for Mammoth traffic Friday and Sunday evenings during the winter. Not exactly heavy traffic, but enough to be dangerous through the 2-lane Freeman Gulch area, when people try to pass. The state doesn't appear too eager to upgrade it to a 4-lane expressway, though.

Actually, Segment 1 of the conversion to a 4-lane expressway is done, and there was a bunch of stuff about the Segment 2 conversion in the March 2026 CTC Meeting. The project is in the 2026 STIP. Here's what I have on my website:

In June 2018, it was reported that a year of construction, four miles of moving dirt and asphalt, and decades of planning came to fruition when transportation officials cut the ribbon on the new four-lane expressway on Route 14. The Freedom Gulch four-lane project breaks down into three segments in an attempt to turn Route 14 into a four-lane expressway over 16.4 miles. The collaborative $28 million project received funding from Caltrans, Kern Council of Governments (KernCOG), and the counties of Inyo and Mono. Forty percent of the funding came from each KernCOG and Caltrans, and 10 percent each from Inyo and Mono counties. The first segment (which just opened) goes from a half mile north of the Route 178 west/Route 14 intersection to 1.7 miles north of Route 178 east/Route 14 intersection. Senate Bill 1, the transportation package that included the state gas tax, will help fund the next two segments. The first segment was already programmed through construction prior to SB 1′s passage in 2017. About 600,000 cubic yards of dirt have been moved, or about 50,000 truckloads, flattened out hills and involved 100,000 tons of aggregate base underneath the 100,000 tons of asphalt, all of which was transported from Lancaster. A mile and a half of pipe help improve the water runoff during storms. Despite the wind and brutal heat, the project was finished ahead of schedule and below budget. This was done thanks to the help of Caltrans' partners, namely ones like KernCOG and Kern County, Mono and Inyo counties, the Caltrans team and construction companies like Granite Construction, who worked on the Freeman Gulch program in record time and under budget.
(Source: Ridgecrest Daily Independent, 6/13/2018)

The Winter 2019 Mile Marker provided more information on this project. It noted that Segment 2 will upgrade 6.2 miles of two-lane conventional highway to four-lane expressway. This segment is currently in design, with construction expected to begin in 2020. Segment 3 will close the final gap and upgrade the last 7.1 miles of conventional highway to four-lane expressway, completing the long anticipated vision for an Eastern Sierra Corridor
(Source: Winter 2019 Mile Marker)

In January 2019, the CTC authorized relinquishment of right of way in the county of Kern (County) along Route 14, from 1.4 miles south of and 0.5 mile north of the junction with Route 178 (4 segments, 09-Ker-14-PM 59.0/61.2), consisting of collateral facilities. The County, by controlled access highway agreement dated April 23, 2013, agreed to accept title upon relinquishment by the State. The 90-day notice period expires January 8, 2019.
(Source: January 2019 CTC Minutes, Agenda Item 2.3c)

In March 2020, the CTC approved the 2020 STIP, which appeared to deallocate the remaining programmed closeout funding for the Inyo County portion of PPNO 8042A "Freeman Gulch wideng, Seg 1 (w/Mono)(CCA 6-19)", and corresponding Kern County funding. It does include the programmed, prior year, Kern County funding for PPNO 8042B "Freeman Gulch widening-Segment 2 (RIP 40%) ". Mono County is also contributing a share of its STIP funds, with its prior year closing funding continued. It also included PPNO 8042A, Freeman Gulch widening - Sgmt 1 (IIP 40%)(CCA 6-19) c, in the Interregional portion of the STIP with no change in programming: $3,974K in prior year funding for closeout; as well as PPNO 8042B Freeman Gulch widening - Segment 2 (IIP 40%), with $1,481K in prior year programming.
(Source: March 2020 CTC Agenda, Item 4.7, 2020 STIP Adopted 3/25/2020)

In March 2026, the CTC adopted the 2026 STIP, which included the following as continued programming from 2024 (Kern Cty): PPNO 09-8042B, "Freeman Gulch widening-Segment 2 (RIP 40%)". Prior years programming ($ × 1000): $1,960 ($1,960 PS&E). 2026 and Future Programming ($ × 1000): None
(Source: March 2026 CTC Agenda, Agenda Item 4.4; 2026 STIP Staff Recommendations Adopted 2/27/2026)

In March 2026, the CTC adopted the 2026 STIP, which included the following as continued programming from 2024 (Mono Cty): PPNO 09-8042B, "Kern, Freeman Gulch widening, Seg 2 (RIP 30%)". Total Programmed ($ × 1000): $260. Prior years programming ($ × 1000): $260. 2026 and Future Programming ($ × 1000): $0. Breakdown ($ × 1000): $260 (PS&E).
(Source: March 2026 CTC Agenda, Agenda Item 4.4; 2026 STIP Staff Recommendations Adopted 2/27/2026)

In March 2026, the CTC adopted the 2026 STIP, which included the following as continued programming from 2024: PPNO 09-8042B (Interregional), "Freeman Gulch widening - Segment 2 (IIP 40%)". Total Programmed ($×1000): $1,481. Prior years programming ($×1000): $1,481. 2026 and Future Programming ($×1000): $0. Programming Breakdown ($×1000): $0 (PA&ED), $1,481 (PS&E), $0 (Const), $0 (Con Sup), $0 (R/W), $0 (R/W Sup).
(Source: March 2026 CTC Agenda, Agenda Item 4.4; 2026 STIP Staff Recommendations Adopted 2/27/2026)

Yes, I read that before I posted. I'm not sure what those last three things actually mean. But it still seems like breaking ground is a long way off. Am I wrong about that? I always thought there should be a minimum of four lanes from Los Angeles to Mono Lake.

[cahwyguy]

Basically, the last three items mean that construction is not imminent (that's is indicated by the fact there is no money programed to CON or R/W). They are probably still looking for funding sources for that.

The key number is $1,481 (x$1000) (PS&E). PS&E is Project Support and Engineering, so that means they are designing the project. That means not only figuring out the details for the additional lanes, but looking at where utilities will be relocated, how interchanges would work, and so on. The PA&ED, which is shown for previous fiscal years, is where the Environmental Documents (ED) were developed and submitted.

[jdbx]

Episode 4.13 continues our exploration of Route 14, picking up from the end of the first segment at I-5, and continuing to the junction with US 395 near Inyokern. As usual, along the way, we explore the history of the route, the conversion to freeway, major projects on the route, and naming along the route. This includes a detailed exploration of the start of the route in the Newhall Pass and Solemint area. It also includes an exploration of the "Aerospace Highway" name, and all the firsts that occurred at Edwards AFB and the test center next to the highway. Ep. 4.13 marks the end of the main episodes of Season 4, although we do have a couple of bonus episodes planned for the season break to tide you over. The first bonus episode, 4.14, covers New Idria Road and Hites Cove Road, which are mining roads in San Benito and Mariposa counties.

Note: As I'm posting this, I'm about to do a talk to the Austin Perl mongers group about the history of Perl -- a comment I did on that subject to a computer history FB group received over 200 likes! For those that don't know, I still use perl to help generate the California Highways site. [If folks want that talk, drop me a note.]

Link to Episode on CARouteByRoute: https://caroutebyroute.org/2026/07/04/ca-rxr-4-13-route-14-the-antelope-valley-freeway/
Link to Episode on Spotify: https://creators.spotify.com/pod/profile/caroutebyroute/episodes/CA-RxR-4-13-Route-14-The-Antelope-Valley-Freeway-e3lle1s/a-acogb2f

I have been enjoying this podcast a lot over the years, and it also pleases me to know that you are a fellow Perl nerd.  I have worked in Perl shops for the entirety of my career, going back to 1998.  I even had the privilege of calling Larry Wall a colleague for a few years.

[ClassicHasClass]

I even had the privilege of calling Larry Wall a colleague for a few years.

Where at? I only got to go to church with him a couple times (friend of a friend).

Perl nerd since 4.036.

[cahwyguy]

I have been enjoying this podcast a lot over the years, and it also pleases me to know that you are a fellow Perl nerd.  I have worked in Perl shops for the entirety of my career, going back to 1998.  I even had the privilege of calling Larry Wall a colleague for a few years.

As there are Perl nerds here, I'll share what I posted on FB. And I do use Perl to generate my highway site: Perl takes individual highway HTML files and generates the final project. It collects the names and builds the index to names. It also creates hotlinks for all highway references.

I should jump in here, being perl's paternal godparent. Larry Wall and I were sharing an office, carpooling to work at SDC with Mark Biggar (perl's maternal uncle, Larry's brother-in-law) and Jon Biggar (Larry's other B-I-L). We were working on BLACKER, a project to essentially build what would now be called a classified VPN on top of an unclassified network, built to TCSEC A1 standards. That required configuration management, and Larry decided to repurpose rn and netnews to do so, devising a way to synchronize articles across our offices in Santa Monica and Paoli PA. But sed and awk did not provide a way to march through files and produce reports, and so the first version of perl was born: To produce CM reports to meet the A1 requirements. I was the first user of perl, using it in combination with Qmenu (a tool developed at Quadratron when I was there) to take nroff files documentating data structures and turn them into Pascal include files used to develop the A1 OS we were working on. I wrote the history section in the Camel book (and am still friends with Larry and the family today). I still use perl today: it runs the underlying scripts I use to generate my California Highways site (www (dot) cahighways (dot) org).

... so don't say the Orange Book never gave you anything. The Orange Book (TCSEC) is the reason we have perl today.

[cahwyguy]

Where at? I only got to go to church with him a couple times (friend of a friend).

I'm curious which church: Was it ages ago when he was down here (it was one of the Nazarene churches here), or one in the bay area? His B-I-L is either the choir director or pastor at one of the churches in Thousand Oaks, IIRC (although it could be Moorpark).

[jdbx]

I even had the privilege of calling Larry Wall a colleague for a few years.

Where at? I only got to go to church with him a couple times (friend of a friend).

Perl nerd since 4.036.

He was on staff for awhile along with myself at a certain popular online classifieds site.  I can vouch for him being a very nice fellow, not driven by ego, always happy to answer questions.

Working in tech in the Bay Area and knowing many people who work in the same area, a lot more popular sites/services/apps are powered by Perl than folks realize.  It isn't new or exciting, and it can be very hard to get younger developers excited about working with it, but it gets the job done reliably and predictably, and IME the code doesn't rot nearly as much as many of the more popular modern languages.

[Scott5114]

It isn't new or exciting, and it can be very hard to get younger developers excited about working with it, but it gets the job done reliably and predictably, and IME the code doesn't rot nearly as much as many of the more popular modern languages.

This is one of the reasons I reach for Perl any time I have a say in the language used. Python code has the constitution of a racehorse at Santa Anita, and even PHP has done crummy stuff like break a bunch of my code by subtly redefining how true and false work. Meanwhile I get the impression Perl written when Bill Clinton was president would still run flawlessly.

Plus, you just have to smile at things like the unless statement and chomp function!

[cahwyguy]

Meanwhile I get the impression Perl written when Bill Clinton was president would still run flawlessly.

Well, I do think some of the first versions of the California Highway scripts were written around 1998, and Clinton was in office then. They've been modified a bit since then, but would still work.

[ClassicHasClass]

IME the code doesn't rot nearly as much as many of the more popular modern languages.

Oh, absolutely, another reason I prefer to write in Perl 5. I've had to make only minor changes to code over decades, and to be sure, these changes were in code for internals and sysdep stuff I should not have expected to stay constant (a change in signal handling comes to mind). We'll just not mention the whole Perl 6-Raku thing.

[cahwyguy]

We'll just not mention the whole Perl 6-Raku thing.

The Perl Community is of the opinion that is Raku that is responsible for the decline in Perl usage and teaching today. I generally agree, but it should never have been called Perl in the first place (for those not knowing, Raku was Perl 6). It is more like the relationship between Pascal and Algol 60, or even PL/I and Algol. Distantly related, and they might look a little alike, not that close.

Someone needs to make a parody of my favorite cartoon (which I'd love a copy of) that shows a 1950s engineer labeled FORTRAN, a 1950s housewife labeled COBOL, and a milkman walking down the garden path labeled ALGOL. The baby in front of the couple is labeled PL/I, and the caption is: "Funny dear, he doesn't look a thing like me."

You could do something similar with the Engineer labeled Perl 5, and the baby labeled Perl 6/Raku. Not sure what to label the wife or the milkman. Probably some object oriented languages.

[Plutonic Panda]

I wonder if they will actually succeed in widening this highway. I hope they do.

[ClassicHasClass]

Where at? I only got to go to church with him a couple times (friend of a friend).

I'm curious which church: Was it ages ago when he was down here (it was one of the Nazarene churches here), or one in the bay area? His B-I-L is either the choir director or pastor at one of the churches in Thousand Oaks, IIRC (although it could be Moorpark).

New Life in Cupertino, which is indeed Nazarene (it's on McClellan).

[dbz77]

Inm hindsight, US 6 shouldn have only been retracted ton the Newhall Unterchange, not all the way toi Bishop.

[pderocco]

Inm hindsight, US 6 shouldn have only been retracted ton the Newhall Unterchange, not all the way toi Bishop.

120 mile concurrencies was what they were trying to eliminate. Perhaps it would have been better to keep US-6 from Sylmar, cut back US-395 to Bishop, and call everything from Inyokern down to San Diego route 14. After all, they knew that I-15 would replace it all south of Hesperia in a few years, and they should have known that Inyokern to Hesperia would have had lower traffic counts than Inyokern to Sylmar. 14 would have been 20 miles shorter, and US-6 would still be the longest route in the country.

[SeriesE]

Inm hindsight, US 6 shouldn have only been retracted ton the Newhall Unterchange, not all the way toi Bishop.

120 mile concurrencies was what they were trying to eliminate. Perhaps it would have been better to keep US-6 from Sylmar, cut back US-395 to Bishop, and call everything from Inyokern down to San Diego route 14. After all, they knew that I-15 would replace it all south of Hesperia in a few years, and they should have known that Inyokern to Hesperia would have had lower traffic counts than Inyokern to Sylmar. 14 would have been 20 miles shorter, and US-6 would still be the longest route in the country.

Maybe US-395 was chosen because the corridor is north-south and US-6 is an even US route.

[cahwyguy]

Inm hindsight, US 6 shouldn have only been retracted ton the Newhall Unterchange, not all the way toi Bishop.

120 mile concurrencies was what they were trying to eliminate. Perhaps it would have been better to keep US-6 from Sylmar, cut back US-395 to Bishop, and call everything from Inyokern down to San Diego route 14. After all, they knew that I-15 would replace it all south of Hesperia in a few years, and they should have known that Inyokern to Hesperia would have had lower traffic counts than Inyokern to Sylmar. 14 would have been 20 miles shorter, and US-6 would still be the longest route in the country.

Well, actually...

(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.

(2) They didn't know that I-15 would be extended to San Diego. The original plan was for I-15 to end at I-10. It wasn't until 1969 that I-15 was extended to I-8. Originally, US 395 was to remain between San Bernardino and San Diego. We'll cover all of this in our first season 5 episodes on Route 15. Look for them in September (they are written, but we have two bonus episodes before them)

(3) If one wanted to retain US 6 in the great renumbering down to the junction with I-5, a better option would have been to renumber the southern segments of US 395 as something like CA 495 or CA 595 (and 1964 would have been a good time to do that, as routes were being renumbered everywhere).

But I think US 395 was one of those routes with a strong historical connection, esp. in the San Diego and Riverside area that renumbering it was a non-starter, and there was a strong connection for the northern segment of the route N of Nevada into Oregon.

Perhaps a better solution, in 1964, if we're blue-skying, would have been to renumber former US 6/Sign Route 7 as CA 695 all the way to the coast (remember, Route 14 from Route 1 to Route 5 was never constructed), as a tribute to Route 6 and Route 395. But back then, history wasn't all that important.

[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.