When was CA 9 moved off of Big Basin Way at Waterman Gap?

[Max Rockatansky]

When the Sign State Routes were announced in the August 1934 CHPW CA 9 was one of the original corridors designated.  The definition given for CA 9 was:

"Santa Cruz to Milpitas via Redwood Park"

"Redwood Park" is the original name for what is now Big Basin State Park.  Big Basin became the first California State Park in 1902.  The name was changed officially in 1927 to Big Basin State Park.  It appears "California Redwood Park" was used by other state agencies through much of the early 1930s.

Essentially CA 9 followed Legislative Route Numbers 42 and 44.  Both State Highways comprise portions of Big Basin Way from Saratoga Gap to Boulder Creek.  LRN 42 was defined in 1913 as running between Saratoga Gap to the State Park headquarters via Waterman Gap.  LRN 42 was completed in 1915 and is now the one-lane segment of CA 236.   LRN 44 was defined in 1917 and annexed the existing Santa Cruz County owned portion of southern Big Basin Way from the State Park to Boulder Creek. 

The original definition for CA 9 can be seen here on document scan page 287:

https://archive.org/details/californiahighwa193436calirich/page/n287/mode/2up

I know of at least one commercial map which displayed CA 9 using Big Basin Way.  Said map is the 1937 edition from Gousha:

https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~325741~90094662:1937-road-map-of-California?sort=Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No&mi=7&trs=163&qvq=q:california%20road%201937;sort:Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No;lc:RUMSEY~8~1

No official Division of Highways map ever displayed overtly clear detail where CA 9 was in the Santa Cruz Mountains during the 1930s.  The first commercial map I can find displaying CA 9 cutting south from Waterman Gap directly to Boulder Creek via LRN 116 is the 1939 Rand McNally map of California:

https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~258600~5522093:Rand-McNally-Road-map--California?sort=Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No&mi=6&trs=17&qvq=q:california%20road%201939;sort:Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No;lc:RUMSEY~8~1

No CHPW issue from 1934-1944 seem to provide clear detail on why CA 9 was moved onto a bypass of Big Basin State Park and directly onto towards Boulder Creek via LRN 116.  It seems pretty clear to me that that the original intent for 9 was to pass through Big Basin.  Somehow, I doubt this was actually field signed as even by 1930s standards following Big Basin Way didn't make a lot of sense for thru traffic.  I've known that this shift in CA 9 has been a thing for years, but I've never been able to find a satisfactory answer about the corridor movement (much to my frustration). 

Big Basin Way, LRN 42 and LRN 44 of course would become CA 236 in 1964.  The LRN 42 segment of CA 236 is one of the last remaining one-lane State Highway segments in California:

IMG_5062 by Max Rockatansky, on Flickr

I've known that this shift in CA 9 has been a thing for years, but I've never been able to find a satisfactory answer about the corridor movement (much to my frustration).  I usually get motivated to try to find an answer again when the occasion has me passing through Big Basin State Park.  The damage from the CZU Lightning Complex Fires completely changed the character of CA 236.  Prior to the fire the whole area had a huge amount of overgrowth which is now gone.  Way more old growth Coastal Redwoods survived than I was expecting, but many do have burn damage.

[Mapmikey]

I know of at least one commercial map which displayed CA 9 using Big Basin Way.  Said map is the 1937 edition from Gousha:

https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~325741~90094662:1937-road-map-of-California?sort=Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No&mi=7&trs=163&qvq=q:california%20road%201937;sort:Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No;lc:RUMSEY~8~1

1935 Gousha also shows this: https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~333491~90101622:Shell-Official-Road-Map-California-?sort=pub_list_no%2Cpub_list_no_initialsort%2Cpub_list_no_initialsort%2Cpub_list_no_initialsort&mi=2&trs=5&qvq=q:1935%20california%20shell;sort:pub_list_no%2Cpub_list_no_initialsort%2Cpub_list_no_initialsort%2Cpub_list_no_initialsort;lc:RUMSEY~8~1

This May 1935 DPW map appears to show it as well.  This is from the AASHO database, Other_CA_1936__ (2), pg. 5:


Here is a March 28, 1935 article complaining that CA 9 is routed through the park:
https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=d&d=SCEN19350328.1.5&srpos=51&e=------193-en--20-SCEN-41--txt-txIN-%22big+basin%22----1935---

Still that way on April 6, 1936:
https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=d&d=SCEN19360406.1.8&srpos=33&e=------193-en--20-SCEN-21--txt-txIN-%22big+basin%22----1936---

This Nov 30, 1938 article has CA 9 on the San Lorenzo River route:
https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=d&d=SCEN19381130.1.28&srpos=9&e=------193-en--20-SCEN-1--txt-txIN-%22No.+9%22-------

I could not find a specific reference to the actual rerouting of CA 9...

[Mapmikey]

Shown as moved on the June 1938 CPW map, from AASHO database, Other_CA_1939, pg. 9:



This Nov 30, 1937 article seems to suggest the move has been made by then -
https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=d&d=SCS19371130.1.7&srpos=76&e=------193-en--20-SCS-61--txt-txIN-%22lorenzo+river%22----1937---

This Sep 5, 1936 article complains about the route still through the park -
https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=d&d=SCS19371130.1.7&srpos=76&e=------193-en--20-SCS-61--txt-txIN-%22lorenzo+river%22----1937---

Highway Commission visited to review highway, July 19, 1936 -
https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=d&d=SCS19360719.1.7&srpos=4&e=------193-en--20-SCS-1--txt-txIN-%22waterman+gap%22----1936---

[Max Rockatansky]

The second link is accidentally showing the 1937 article.

[Mapmikey]

The second link is accidentally showing the 1937 article.

my bad...

it is upper right of page 3 here -
https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=d&d=SCS19360905.1.3&e=------193-en--20-SCS-1--txt-txIN-%22september+5%22----1936---

[pderocco]

The second link is accidentally showing the 1937 article.

my bad...

it is upper right of page 3 here -
https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=d&d=SCS19360905.1.3&e=------193-en--20-SCS-1--txt-txIN-%22september+5%22----1936---

Boy, that newswriter needed a remedial English course. The article is worse than a lot of the disposable online crap we put up with today. Yet here we are, reading it ninety years later, long after the writer became worm food.

But it does demonstrate that 9 hadn't been moved yet. Good find.

[cahwyguy]

The second link is accidentally showing the 1937 article.

my bad...

it is upper right of page 3 here -
https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=d&d=SCS19360905.1.3&e=------193-en--20-SCS-1--txt-txIN-%22september+5%22----1936---

Boy, that newswriter needed a remedial English course. The article is worse than a lot of the disposable online crap we put up with today. Yet here we are, reading it ninety years later, long after the writer became worm food.

But it does demonstrate that 9 hadn't been moved yet. Good find.

Actually, the text of the 1936 article seems to imply the road is there, but not well signed: "Even the new link from the San Lorenzo drive junction with Big Basin road will but partially eliminate this complaint. The real remedy lies at Boulder Creek. Signs are needed at that point to inform tourists that while the highway runs via Big Basin, the shortest route to the Skyline boulevard is to keep straight ahead. It is a beautiful road and a gem pavement over which to route tourists uninterested in the Big Basin drive."

This seems to imply that the straight line road already exists and is drivable, but just isn't signed well. The shorter route, LRN 116, was defined in 1933 and codified in 1935, so the adoption of the built route by 1936 is plausible. The 1936 state highway map (Rumsey 1936-1937) shows both routes as existing, and does not clarify which one is signed. The 1936 article doesn't mention route numbers; the 1937 article does, but only gives the destinations or the specific routes.

I think the route was open in 1936, but not well signed. This was the early days of CSAA signing route. If you're looking for a definitive answer, I'd suggest contacting the CSAA archivist who might have the mapping records from back then.

[pderocco]

The second link is accidentally showing the 1937 article.

my bad...

it is upper right of page 3 here -
https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=d&d=SCS19360905.1.3&e=------193-en--20-SCS-1--txt-txIN-%22september+5%22----1936---

Boy, that newswriter needed a remedial English course. The article is worse than a lot of the disposable online crap we put up with today. Yet here we are, reading it ninety years later, long after the writer became worm food.

But it does demonstrate that 9 hadn't been moved yet. Good find.

Actually, the text of the 1936 article seems to imply the road is there, but not well signed: "Even the new link from the San Lorenzo drive junction with Big Basin road will but partially eliminate this complaint. The real remedy lies at Boulder Creek. Signs are needed at that point to inform tourists that while the highway runs via Big Basin, the shortest route to the Skyline boulevard is to keep straight ahead. It is a beautiful road and a gem pavement over which to route tourists uninterested in the Big Basin drive."

This seems to imply that the straight line road already exists and is drivable, but just isn't signed well. The shorter route, LRN 116, was defined in 1933 and codified in 1935, so the adoption of the built route by 1936 is plausible. The 1936 state highway map (Rumsey 1936-1937) shows both routes as existing, and does not clarify which one is signed. The 1936 article doesn't mention route numbers; the 1937 article does, but only gives the destinations or the specific routes.

I think the route was open in 1936, but not well signed. This was the early days of CSAA signing route. If you're looking for a definitive answer, I'd suggest contacting the CSAA archivist who might have the mapping records from back then.

I imagine that "while the highway runs via Big Basin, the shortest route to the Skyline boulevard is to keep straight ahead" implies that Boulder Creek still had a sign saying that highway 9 turns left. Why else would they turn left if they just wanted to go to Skyline Blvd?

[cahwyguy]

The second link is accidentally showing the 1937 article.

my bad...

it is upper right of page 3 here -
https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=d&d=SCS19360905.1.3&e=------193-en--20-SCS-1--txt-txIN-%22september+5%22----1936---

Boy, that newswriter needed a remedial English course. The article is worse than a lot of the disposable online crap we put up with today. Yet here we are, reading it ninety years later, long after the writer became worm food.

But it does demonstrate that 9 hadn't been moved yet. Good find.

Actually, the text of the 1936 article seems to imply the road is there, but not well signed: "Even the new link from the San Lorenzo drive junction with Big Basin road will but partially eliminate this complaint. The real remedy lies at Boulder Creek. Signs are needed at that point to inform tourists that while the highway runs via Big Basin, the shortest route to the Skyline boulevard is to keep straight ahead. It is a beautiful road and a gem pavement over which to route tourists uninterested in the Big Basin drive."

This seems to imply that the straight line road already exists and is drivable, but just isn't signed well. The shorter route, LRN 116, was defined in 1933 and codified in 1935, so the adoption of the built route by 1936 is plausible. The 1936 state highway map (Rumsey 1936-1937) shows both routes as existing, and does not clarify which one is signed. The 1936 article doesn't mention route numbers; the 1937 article does, but only gives the destinations or the specific routes.

I think the route was open in 1936, but not well signed. This was the early days of CSAA signing route. If you're looking for a definitive answer, I'd suggest contacting the CSAA archivist who might have the mapping records from back then.

I imagine that "while the highway runs via Big Basin, the shortest route to the Skyline boulevard is to keep straight ahead" implies that Boulder Creek still had a sign saying that highway 9 turns left. Why else would they turn left if they just wanted to go to Skyline Blvd?

Imagination is not confirmation. They could have equally not had signage at that point. We're talking 1935 here. All we can really surmise at this point is that (a) LRN 116 was a state highway at that point; (b) the signage was indeterminate between 1936 and 1938.

[pderocco]

The second link is accidentally showing the 1937 article.

my bad...

it is upper right of page 3 here -
https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=d&d=SCS19360905.1.3&e=------193-en--20-SCS-1--txt-txIN-%22september+5%22----1936---

Boy, that newswriter needed a remedial English course. The article is worse than a lot of the disposable online crap we put up with today. Yet here we are, reading it ninety years later, long after the writer became worm food.

But it does demonstrate that 9 hadn't been moved yet. Good find.

Actually, the text of the 1936 article seems to imply the road is there, but not well signed: "Even the new link from the San Lorenzo drive junction with Big Basin road will but partially eliminate this complaint. The real remedy lies at Boulder Creek. Signs are needed at that point to inform tourists that while the highway runs via Big Basin, the shortest route to the Skyline boulevard is to keep straight ahead. It is a beautiful road and a gem pavement over which to route tourists uninterested in the Big Basin drive."

This seems to imply that the straight line road already exists and is drivable, but just isn't signed well. The shorter route, LRN 116, was defined in 1933 and codified in 1935, so the adoption of the built route by 1936 is plausible. The 1936 state highway map (Rumsey 1936-1937) shows both routes as existing, and does not clarify which one is signed. The 1936 article doesn't mention route numbers; the 1937 article does, but only gives the destinations or the specific routes.

I think the route was open in 1936, but not well signed. This was the early days of CSAA signing route. If you're looking for a definitive answer, I'd suggest contacting the CSAA archivist who might have the mapping records from back then.

I imagine that "while the highway runs via Big Basin, the shortest route to the Skyline boulevard is to keep straight ahead" implies that Boulder Creek still had a sign saying that highway 9 turns left. Why else would they turn left if they just wanted to go to Skyline Blvd?

Imagination is not confirmation. They could have equally not had signage at that point. We're talking 1935 here. All we can really surmise at this point is that (a) LRN 116 was a state highway at that point; (b) the signage was indeterminate between 1936 and 1938.

Yes, that's why I said "imagine".

[cahwyguy]

I'll also suggest diving into some of the historical map resources listed on my maps page: https://www.cahighways.org/maps.html . There's a lot there, especially in the other map sources and other research sources.

[Mapmikey]

The shorter road existed by 1915 - https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/13835569

1935 map showing CA 9 explicitly through Big Basin - http://cartweb.geography.ua.edu/lizardtech/iserv/calcrgn?cat=North%20America%20and%20United%20States&item=States/California/California1935b.sid&wid=1000&hei=900&rops=item(Name,Description),cat(Name,Description)&style=default/view.xsl&plugin=true

1937 Standard map shows it on older alignment -
https://www.etsy.com/il-en/listing/1558661101/vintage-california-road-map-antique

1938 map showing CA 9 on the shorter road -
http://cartweb.geography.ua.edu/lizardtech/iserv/calcrgn?cat=North%20America%20and%20United%20States&item=States/California/California1935b.sid&wid=1000&hei=900&rops=item(Name,Description),cat(Name,Description)&style=default/view.xsl&plugin=true

[Max Rockatansky]

Worth noting, there isn't any substantial geographic obstacles on modern 9 between Boulder Creek and Waterman Gap.  The current state highway has only a couple crossings of the San Lorenzo River between Boulder Creek and the Gap.  Interestingly the bridge over the river immediately north of downtown Boulder Creek was built in 1937.

Interestingly, the road north of Boulder Creek is shown to exist alongside the Boulder Creek Spur of the Southern Pacific on the 1902 USGS map.  The railroad spur ended what is now Waterman Gap and original roadway followed what is now the Saratoga Toll Road Trail to Saratoga Gap.  LRN 42 would have been constructed with the purpose of bypassing the Saratoga Toll Road grade.  Although the connection definitely is not present on the 1915-era map in Reply #11.  Now this has me wondering if the reason CA 9 originally went through Big Basin was to avoid Saratoga Toll Road grade until the link with LRN 116-Waterman Gap was ready?

LRN 116 clearly can be seen bypassing the Saratoga Toll Road grade and linking directly to Waterman Gap on the 1935 Division of Highways map of Santa Cruz County.  These maps were based off 1934 fiscal year surveys so the modern alignment of LRN 116 was there for August 1934 when the Sign Route System was created:

https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~247357~5515389:Santa-Cruz-County-?sort=Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No&mi=6&trs=7&qvq=q:santa%20cruz%20county%201935;sort:Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No;lc:RUMSEY~8~1

To that end a contract to construct a Division of Highways maintenance station at Saratoga Gap was awarded during July 1934 (Page 285):

https://archive.org/details/californiahighwa193436calirich/page/n285/mode/2up?q=Saratoga

The Saratoga Toll Road opened in 1871.  The idea was that it directly linked San Lorenzo Valley to the Pescadero area.  The corridor was proposed to be replaced in 1887 via an extension of China Grade Road directly northwest of Big Basin to Pescadero:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/SanJoseHistory/permalink/1117703058360927/

http://www.mobileranger.com/blog/highway-35-saratoga-gap-unwraped/

https://sanjoserealestatelosgatoshomes.com/congress-springs-road-saratogas-historic-toll-road-and-what-it-is-now/

If anyone finds themselves at the intersection of 9 and 35 at Saratoga Gap that parking lot is actually for the Saratoga Toll Road trail.  It worth hiking down a little bit if you are into old highway alignments.

[NE2]

Imagine there's no signage. It's easy if you try.

[Max Rockatansky]

The lack of signage on 35 and 9 in Santa Cruz County can be a problem.  I think 35 is intentionally omitted from the gantry on 17 approaching Summit Road.  The locals call the segment of 35 between 17 and 9 the "Goat Trail" due to the single lane segment on Skyline.  Using Summit Road and Bear Creek Road (both partially 35) is a handy way to get around bottlenecks at the summit of 17.  Likewise I've found Zayante/Upper Zayante along with Graham Hill Road to a solid away the morning commute departing Santa Cruz on 17.

Presently the 9/35 junction at Saratoga Gap is only signed from northbound 9.  There was a 9 shield on southbound 35 that was stolen a couple years ago.  There are guide signs indicating control cities through.  Both junctions for 9 and 236 are fully signed.