![]() www.cahighways.org |
California HighwaysRoutes 241 through 248 |
|||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
Click here for a key to the symbols used. "LRN" refers to the Pre-1964 Legislative Route Number. "US" refers to a US Shield signed route. "I" refers to an Eisenhower Interstate signed route. "Route" usually indicates a state shield signed route, but said route may be signed as US or I. Previous Federal Aid (pre-1992) categories: Federal Aid Interstate (FAI); Federal Aid Primary (FAP); Federal Aid Urban (FAU); and Federal Aid Secondary (FAS). Current Functional Classifications (used for aid purposes): Principal Arterial (PA); Minor Arterial (MA); Collector (Col); Rural Minor Collector/Local Road (RMC/LR). Note that ISTEA repealed the previous Federal-Aid System, effective in 1992, and established the functional classification system for all public roads.
|
|
||||||||||||
|
In 1965, Chapter 1372 repealed this routing.
In 1972, Chapter 1216 deleted this definition of Route 241.
In 1996, Chapter 1154 extended the route by transfer from former Route 231:
“Route 5 south of San Clemente to Route 91 in the City of Anaheim
Route 241 consists of three transporation corridors: Eastern, Foothill North, and Foothill South:
|
||||||||||||
|
The 1964-1965 incarnation of Route 241 (from 1964 Route 11 near Adams Street to 1964 Route 11 near Elysian Park) was a proposed LRN 222 that would have sliced through the heart of downtown Los Angeles running E of Main Street. It was never constructed, and is no longer part of the state highway system. The 1968-1972 incarnation of Route 241 (from Route 1 to Route 101 near Oak and Fell Streets in San Francisco) was LRN 223, defined in 1947. The post-1988 routing of Route 241 was not defined in 1963.
|
||||||||||||
|
In the early 2000s, the Foothill South alignment had two possibilities under consideration: a locally preferred alignment east of the City of San Clemente and traversing the undeveloped San Onofre State Beach Park portion of the Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base, or an alternative alignment generally 2½ miles westerly of the locally preferred alignment (near La Pata and Avendia Pico). Future interchanges include Oso Parkway, Crown Valley Parkway, Ortega Highway, Avenida Pico and Christianitos Road. It terminates at Interstate 5 in San Diego County just south of Basilone Road. The SAFETEA-LU act, enacted in August 2005 as the reauthorization of TEA-21, provided the following expenditures on or near this route:
In late February 2006, the TCA selected the routing that traverses San Onofre State Beach. This created even more controversy, with bills being introduced in the state legislature to prohibit construction of toll roads in state parks. Specifically, in April 2007, AB 1457 (Huffman), which would ban a proposed toll road through San Onofre, was scheduled for a hearing before the Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee, was put on a two-year track in order to provide time to grow support to get it through the Legislature. Supporters of the road include such groups as the Associated General Contractors of California, the Orange County Business Council, the Los Angeles-Orange County Building and Construction Trades Council and local elected officials. There is some controversy on this routing. a coalition of environmental groups opposed to the project has released a pair of studies that question the accuracy of study. Several environmental groups have rallied to support the California Department of Parks in its opposition to the proposed route through two federally-owned parklands . Each possible route was judged by the number of homes and businesses to be seized by eminent domain. The also compared construction of the route to widening I-5. In November 2006, the LA Times reported that new traffic studies contradict optimistic predictions that a proposed tollway through San Onofre State Beach would eliminate much of the congestion on I-5 in South Orange County. Most of I-5 in South Orange County will be "consistently congested" at rush hour by 2030 even if the controversial Foothill South toll road extension is built, according to the Orange County Transportation Authority's long-range transportation plan for 2006. The forecasts assume construction of the tollway, a carpool lane each way on the I-5 and some interchange improvements. If only the tollway is built, the study suggests, the situation will be even worse, with motorists on the interstate seeing "severely congested" conditions. In May 2007, efforts to extend the route were dealt a setback when a congressional committee voted to eliminate legislation designed to expedite the highway’s construction--specifically, approved a defense bill amendment related to Route 241 that would overrule a 1999 decision by Congress that gave the Navy the power to grant tollway operators a 40-acre easement inside San Onofre (as the park is on leased land within USMC Pendleton). The amendment would also dismantle other federal legislation freeing Route 241 from regulations in the federal Transportation Act requiring road builders to exhaust all "feasible and prudent" alternatives before parkland can be used for a highway. During the summer this amendment stalled, but as of December 2007, it had passed all procedural challenges and made it into the defense authorization bill. Note that the project can't be built unless the state Coastal Commission grants a permit for its construction, and a commission staff report issued in September 2007 already has recommended that the permit be denied. In February 2008, the California Coastal Commission denied the construction permit, and the OCTA began consideration of a new route. In December 2008, the U.S. Commerce Department announced it would uphold the state Coastal Commission's rejection of the plan. Federal officials could only override the state's decision if the project had no alternatives or was necessary to national security, and the announcement said neither of those criteria was met. The California Coastal Commission rejected plans for the road earlier in 2008, saying that the six-lane road -- which would run from Rancho Santa Margarita to Basilone Road at Camp Pendleton -- violated the state's coastal management program. The toll road agency backing the plan "may pursue another route" consistent with coastal zone protections, according to the Commerce Department announcement. In June 2009, it was reported that the toll road agency still wants to complete the connection to I-5, and is considering other routes. The agency has budgeted $11.9 million for "241 completion" in its fiscal year that begins July 1. The rejected route would have extended Route 241 by 16.9 miles, from its current terminus in the Rancho Santa Margarita area through San Onofre State Beach park to join I-5. Since the U.S. Commerce Department rejected the proposed route in December, the toll road agency's staff has reached out to supporters and opponents in dozens of meetings to see if agreement can be reached on an alternate route. While opponents say planners should look at options besides extending the toll road, the toll road agency feels a failure to extend Route 241 would force a "massive widening" of I-5 from the San Diego County line north to Laguna Hills. In December 2009, San Clemente city council members said they expect to vote in January on a resolution opposing a toll road into San Clemente. This came about due to discussions that TCA had with federal officials about alternative routes that would cut through San Clemente. There are two potential routes of concern to the city: the Commerce Department's option, which would end at Avenida La Pata and Avenida Vista Hermosa, dumping traffic there, and a longer route that would connect with I-5 beside Avenida Pico. The TCA has declared the Commerce Department's option unfeasible, and with respect to alternative routes within Camp Pendleton, the Marines are on record as far back as 1990 stating that the route through the state park was the only one acceptable to the Marine Corps. In May 2011, it was reported that TCA was attempting again to rally public opinion for construction of the route. The TCA is trying to re-establish a Route 241 proposal three years after the California Coastal Commission rejected a previous plan and the U.S. secretary of commerce rejected the TCA's appeal. TCA has run advertisements appealing for public support. The specifics of their alternate route have not been released. In October 2011, the TCA voted to conduct a $3.9-million feasibility study for an addition that would run from Oso Parkway in Rancho Santa Margarita to the vicinity of Ortega Highway. If approved, construction could begin in early 2013. The study is expected to take a year, and will consider environmental effects, finances and engineering. In November 2012, it was reported that the OCTA had approved more work on the extension of Route 241. Although there is still no movement regarding completing the extension to I-5, TCA is planning an addition that would bring the road's southern end to just north of Ortega Highway. The Tesoro extension is estimated to cost around $195 million, and TCA is working on attaining right-of-ways with Rancho Mission Viejo, which owns the land and is developing homes on the property. The project will go to a regional water board hearing in February 2013 and a community forum in March before a TCA board vote.
|
||||||||||||
|
The following segments are designated as Classified Landscaped Freeway:
|
||||||||||||
|
There are plans for Route 241 to have HOV lanes.
|
||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
|
There are regional transportation improvement plans to do further widening of this route between I-5 and Oso Parkway.
|
||||||||||||
|
This is the "Foothill Transportation Corridor" and the "Eastern Transportation Corridor".
|
||||||||||||
|
[SHC 253.1] Entire route.
|
||||||||||||
|
Overall statistics for Route 241:
|
||||||||||||
|
In 1959, Chapter 32 defined LRN 241 as “[LRN 2] near San Ysidro to [LRN 2] near the northwest boundary of the City of San Diego, easterly of existing [LRN 2]”. The urgency language noted that this was "north-south" belt-line route around the heavily populated portions of San Diego County, particularly the City of San Diego. This is present-day I-805. |
|
From Route 680 to Route 4 north of Concord.
|
||||||||
|
This route remains as defined in 1963.
|
||||||||
|
This was LRN 75 (defined in 1931). It was originally part of Route 24, but became Route 242 after a bypass route between Walnut Creek at Pittsburg was defined. Until some point in the late 1980s, it was signed as Route 24; there are varying dates for the start of the Route 242 signage from 1989 to 1991. The bypass is LRN 256, defined in 1959. By 1955, this segment (as Route 24) was shown as complete between the Ohmer Hill1 area of Concord (near Port Chicago) south to Concord Avenue, and "proposed" between there and the current I-680 junction in Pleasant Hill. Between Route 21 and the ending of the now-Route 242 freeway, Route 24 took Monument Boulevard, Galindo Street, and Concord Avenue. 1: Locality Naming Note: Ohmer Hill is a current site of a BART station, and used to be a stop on the Sacramento Northern RR. The namesake of the hill, Ohmer Fare Register Company, was a Ohio company that had incorporated back in the 19th century and was in the business of making taxi fare meters as well as those on the Sacramento Northern. The company was merged into NCR.
|
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
The following segments are designated as Classified Landscaped Freeway:
|
||||||||
|
[SHC 253.1] Entire route. Added to the Freeway and Expressway system in 1959.
|
||||||||
|
Overall statistics for Route 242:
|
||||||||
|
In 1959, Chapter 1382 defined LRN 242 as “[LRN 6] between Harbor Boulevard and the Yolo Causeway west of Sacramento to [LRN 3] near Watt Avenue”. This route ran from US 40 (present-day I-80) between Harbor Blvd. and the Yolo Causeway W of Sacramento to US 40 (present-day I-80) near Watt Avenue. This is the present-day freeway routing of I-80 N of the city of Sacramento. |
|
From Route 74 near Mountain Center to Route 10 near Banning.
|
|
In 1968, Chapter 282 deleted this routing and transferred it to I-605. According to the September 1965 CalTrans planning map, Route 243 was to be freeway between I-10 and I-210 along what is now I-605.
|
|
The 1964-1968 incarnation of Route 243 was LRN 170. The post-1970 incarnation of Route 243 existed in 1963, but was not part of the state highway system. It was Banning-Idyllwild Road.
|
|
Route 243 is named the "Esperanza Firefighters Memorial Highway". It was named in memory of the five heroic firefighters of Engine Company #57, Mark Loutzenhiser, Daniel Hoover-Najera, Jason McKay, Jess McLean, and Pablo Cerda, who fought valorously to contain the fire while protecting lives and property fighting the wildfire known as the Esperanza Fire, which began at the Esperanza and San Gorgonio Wash in Riverside County on October 21, 2006, at 1:12 a.m., eventually consumed 40,200 acres. While unselfishly serving their community with great honor and dedication on October 26, 2006, these five firefighters were overrun by the flames of the Esperanza Fire. Named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution (ACR) 4, Resolution Chapter 99, on 7/12/2007.
|
|
[SHC 263.1] Entire route.
|
|
[SHC 164.19] Entire route.
|
|
|
|
Overall statistics for Route 243:
|
|
In 1959, Chapter 1062 defined LRN 243 as [LRN 89] south of Kelseyville to [LRN 49] near Lower Lake. This route runs from Route 29 S of Kelseyville to Route 53 near Lower Lake. This is part of present-day Route 29. |
|
From Route 80 to Auburn Boulevard in Carmichael.
|
||||||||
|
In 1963, Route 244 was defined as “Route 80 to Route 65 near Fair Oaks.” In 1965, Chapter 1371 extended the route from Route 65 to Route 50: “Route
80 to In 1975, Chapter 244 deleted the portion from Fair Oaks Boulevard near San
Juan Avenue to Route 50, leaving “Route 80 near Watt Avenue to
The 1975 act also noted:
In 1984, Chapter 409 relaxed the definition: “Route 80 In 1990, Chapter 1187 clarified the definition: “Route 80 to Fair Oaks Boulevard near San Juan Avenue in Carmichael.” In 1994, Chapter 1220 deleted the portion from Auburn Boulevard to Fair Oaks
Boulevard, giving: “Route 80 to Note that Route 244 could have formed the eastern half of a loop around Sacramento with present-day I-80 (former I-880).
|
||||||||
|
This was all originally part of LRN 288, defined in 1959.
|
||||||||
|
In August 2011, the CTC approved $7,000,000 in SHOPP funding for repairs near Sacramento, from Madison Avenue Overcrossing to Placer County Line; also on Route 244 from Route 80 to Auburn Boulevard, that will rehabilitate 61.2 lane miles of roadway to improve the ride quality, prevent further deterioration of the traveling surface, minimize costly roadway repairs and extend the pavement service life.
|
||||||||
|
This is usally referred to as the "Auburn Boulevard Connector". Note that, according to Calnexus, it would be signed as Route 244.
|
||||||||
|
The following segments are designated as Classified Landscaped Freeway:
|
||||||||
|
[SHC 253.8] From Route 80 to Auburn Boulevard. Added to the Freeway and Expressway system in 1959. In 1975, the freeway portion from Auburn to Fair Oaks was deleted.
|
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Overall statistics for Route 244:
|
||||||||
|
In 1959, Chapter 1062 defined LRN 244 as “[LRN 7] near Vacaville to [LRN 6] near Berryessa Reservoir”. This is present-day proposed Route 179. |
|
From Route 198 to Route 180 near the General Grant Grove section of Kings Canyon National Park.
|
|
In 1965, Chapter 1372 deleted that routing.
|
|
The 1964-1965 incarnation of Route 245 was part of LRN 166. The post-1972 incarnation of Route 245 was originally part of Route 65, and was renumbered as Route 69 when a new alignment was proposed for Route 65 in 1964. In 1972, it was renumbered again as Route 245. This was part of LRN 129, defined in 1933.
|
|
Caltrans is exploring creating a roundabout on this route at the intersection of Route 216/Route 245 in Woodlake. Other potential/planned roundabout locations in the San Joaquin Valley include Route 145/Jensen near Kerman, Route 168/Auberry Road in Prather, Route 43/Route 137 in Corcoran, Route 190/Road 152 east of Tipton, Route 190/Road 284 east of Porterville, and Route 155/Browning Road in Delano. A 2007 study of 55 roundabouts in the U.S. found a 35% reduction in accidents and a 90% reduction in fatal accidents when intersections with stop signs or signals were converted to roundabouts. It costs about the same to build a roundabout as to put up traffic signals, and they need significantly less maintenance than traffic signal intersections -- about 60% to 90% less, depending on how much landscaping work is required.
|
|
|
|
Overall statistics for Route 245:
|
|
In 1959, Chapter 1062 defined LRN 245 as [LRN 232] near Catlett to [LRN 87] near Tudor. This route runs from Route 24 (present-day Route 70) near Catlett to Alternate US 40 (present-day Route 99) near Tudor. This is part of present-day Route 99. |
|
| ||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
Overall statistics for Route 246:
|
||||||||||||||
|
In 1959, Chapter 1062 defined LRN 246 as “[LRN 238] near Elkhorn to [LRN 17] near Auburn”. This is present-day Route 102. It ran along Elkhorn Blvd and Greenback Lane to Folsom, and then N along Folsom Road into Auburn. |
|
| ||||||||||||||
|
[SHC 253.1] Entire route. Added to the Freeway and Expressway system in 1959.
|
||||||||||||||
|
[SHC 263.1] Entire route.
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
Overall statistics for Route 247:
|
||||||||||||||
|
In 1959, Chapter 1062 defined LRN 247 as [LRN 4] near Elk Grove to [LRN 246] near Antelope. This is Route 143, originally planned to run along Elk Grove Florin Road and Watt Avenue. |
|
No current routing.
|
|
In 1965, Chapter 1372 added a condition: This route will cease to be a state highway when Interstate Route 210 freeway is completed and the commission relinquishes that portion of present Route 210 in the County of Los Angeles and the Cities of Pasadena, Arcadia, and Monrovia. In 1986, Chapter 928 truncated the route: In 1992, the remainder of Route 248 was deleted by AB 3090, Chapter 1243.
|
|
This appears to have been the surface street routing of Colorado Blvd. It corresponded to LRN 161, defined in 1933.
|
|
The Caltrans bridge log indicates that this route was signed in its entirety as Route 66.
|
|
Former route 248 is signed as part of "Historic Highway Route 66", designated by Assembly Concurrent Resolution 6, Chapter 52, in 1991.
|
|
|
|
In 1959, Chapter 1062 defined LRN 248 as [LRN 238] near Sacramento to [LRN 247] south of [LRN 54]. This route ran from present-day I-5 near Sacramento to Elk Grove Florin Road south of Route 16. This is present-day Route 148 between I-5 and Route 143. |
![]() Highways 233-240 |
![]() Return to State Highway Routes |
![]() Highways 249-256 |