Routes 25 through 32
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 Note that ISTEA repealed the previous Federal-Aid System, effective in 1992, and established the functional classification system for all public roads.
25 · 26 · 27 · 28 · 29 · 30 · 31 · 32
(b) (1) Upon a determination by the commission that it is in the best interests of the state to do so, the commission may, upon terms and conditions approved by it, relinquish to the City of Hollister the portion of Route 25 that is located within the city’s jurisdiction between Sunnyslope Road and San Felipe Road prior to the relocation of that portion of Route 25 through adoption of the proposed new easterly bypass alignment of Route 25, if the department and the city enter into an agreement providing for that relinquishment.
(2) The terms and conditions imposed pursuant to paragraph (1) shall include a requirement for the City of Hollister to maintain within its jurisdiction signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 25 until such time as the new easterly bypass alignment is adopted and opens to traffic.
(3) A relinquishment under this subdivision shall become effective immediately following the recording by the county recorder of the relinquishment resolution containing the commission’s approval of the terms and conditions of the relinquishment.
(4) On and after the effective date of the relinquishment, both of the following shall apply:
(A) The relinquished former portion of Route 25 shall cease to be a state highway.
(B) The relinquished former portion of Route 25 may not be considered for future adoption under Section 81.
(5) Upon a determination by the commission that it is in the best interests of the state to do so, the commission shall, upon terms and conditions approved by it, adopt into the state highway system the proposed easterly bypass alignment for Route 25 that is located between Sunnyslope Road and San Felipe Road in the City of Hollister. The adoption may occur at any time after the effective date of the relinquishment pursuant to paragraph (3).
In January 2014, the CTC authorized relinquishment of right of way in the city of Hollister on Route 25 (Tres Pinos Road, Nash Road, San Benito Street, and San Felipe Road) between Sunnyslope Road and Bolsa Road, under terms and conditions stated in the letter dated December 18, 2013, determined to be in the best interests of the State. Authorized by Chapter 523, Statutes of 2013, which amended Section 325 of the Streets and Highways Code.
In 1984, the route was divided into two segments, "(a) Route 198 to Route 156 in Hollister. (b) Route 156 in Hollister to Route 101 near Gilroy." The portion from Route 25 in Paicines to Route 101 near Gilroy was transferred from Route 180. Originally, Route 180 was to have been much longer, and would have continued from its present terminus to Route 5, and had a segment from Route 5 to Route 25, and the Route 180 would have continued on into Gilroy. This routing for Route 180 was deleted in 1984. There is some discussion of Route 180 being signed as Route 25 (and vice-versa) on the Route 180 pages.
In 2001, the discontinuity in Hollister was removed by SB 290, Chapter 825, 10/12/2001.
In 2013, SB 788 (Chapter 525, 10/9/13) added the language permitting relinquishment to the City of Hollister of the portion of Route 25 that is located within the city’s jurisdiction between Sunnyslope Road and San Felipe Road prior to the relocation of that portion of Route 25 through adoption of the proposed new easterly bypass alignment of Route 25.
This segment was originally LRN 119, and had the same routing. It was defined in 1933. In 1934, Route 25 was signed along the route from Jct. Route 198 near Priest Valley to Jct. US 101 near Gilroy, via Hollister.
It appears that Lewis Creek Road was part of Route 25 until 1956, when the
modern alignment of the highway adopted. The change can be seen on from the 1955 to 1956 state map. At the time Lewis Creek
Road was shown as a completely dirt section of Route 25.
(Ref: Max R @ AARoads, 11/28/2016)
Route 198 to Pinnacles National Park
In August 2017, the CTC approved the following SHOPP addition: 05-SBt-25 18.8/19.1 Route 25: Near Pinnacles National Park, from 0.7 miles north of San Benito Lateral/Old Hernandez Road to 2.4 miles south of Route 146. Improve curve and flatten slope. $363K (R/W) $4,265K (C) $4,788K (Support) PA&ED: 11/13/2018 R/W: 02/19/2020 RTL: 04/06/2020 BC: 10/28/2020. The project was also included in the final adopted 2018 SHOPP in March 2018.
In March 2016, it was reported that a cave-in of a $2.1 million realignment
of Route 25 could keep the new portion of the road closed for two years. The
plan was to address safety issues along Airline Highway/Route 25 (officially
part of the State Highway Scenic System), just below the Route 146 entrance
into Pinnacles National Park (approx SBT 21.159), at a hard left turn that a
five-year Highway Patrol study supposedly identified as a site of numerous
fatal crashes. When Caltrans began designing a cut across land that was the
designated habitat of the California Tiger Salamander, as well as numerous blue
oaks, the agency was determined to do the job to protect human lives while
doing as little damage to wildlife habitat as possible. A few months later, the
new road is closed, and could stay that way for two years or more; the old road
is now the new road again; and the California Tiger Salamander will surely lose
more of its habitat. After Caltrans engineers designed the new, flatter, slower
turn, the $2.1 million contract went to the John Madonna and Company out of San
Luis Obispo. The construction company followed Caltrans’ engineering plan
to the letter. The only problem was those plans were wrong regarding soil
conditions, and soon after the road was completed in December 2015, the slopes
began to give way and landslides continually blocked the new road. Caltrans has
since instituted an emergency project to open up the old highway again and the
(Source: BenitoLink, 3/30/2016)
Pinnacles Naional Park to the S limits of Hollister
In March 2017, the CTC approved for future consideration of funding a project located near Hollister in San Benito County (well, not really, 05-SBt-25, PM 25.9/26.3, which puts it between Pinnacle National Park and Paicines) proposes to correct deficiencies on Route 25. To improve safety and reduce collisions, the proposed project will correct deficiencies in the non-standard curve radius, realign the highway, widen shoulders, construct rumble strips and extend one culvert. This project is programmed in the 2016 SHOPP for $7,069,000 in Construction (capital and support) and Right of Way (capital and support). Construction is estimated to beginning in Fiscal Year 2017-18. The scope, as described for the preferred alternative, is consistent with the project scope programmed by the Commission in the 2016 State Highway Operation and Protection Program.
In October 2013, the CTC considered for future approval of funding a project in San Benito County that will realign and straighten a portion of Route 25 near the town of Paicines (approx SBT 39.496). The project is programmed in the 2012 State Highway Operation and Protection Program. The total estimated cost is $4,205,000 for capital and support. Construction is estimated to begin in Fiscal Year 2014-15. The scope, as described for the preferred alternative, is consistent with the project scope programmed by the Commission in the 2012 State Highway Operation and Protection Program.
Vicinity of Hollister
This project constructed a 2.7 mil urban arterial with 6 lanes from Sunnyslope Road (approx SBT R49.918) to East Park Street, and a 4 lanes from East Park Street to Bolsa Road. It included grading, paving, traffic signals, bike lanes, signing, striping, and sound walls. The total cost was $43.3 million. Environmental work started in December 2004, and the project was opened in November 2008.
Route 25 Rerouting in Hollister (~ SBT R49.937 to SBT R52.275)
In March 2014, the CTC considered a route adoption in the city of Hollister. The purpose of the route adoption was to restore the connectivity of Route 25 by establishing a new alignment for a portion of Route 25 east of downtown city of Hollister. A portion of Route 25 through the City was relinquished by the California Transportation Commission (Commission) on January 29, 2014. Senate Bill 788, approved by the Governor on October 3, 2013, allowed the relinquishment to precede the bypass route adoption by amending Section 325 of the Streets and Highways Code. Route 25 traverses the entire north-south length of San Benito County.
From the southern county boundary at the junction of Route 198 near King City, Route 25 extends north through the unincorporated communities of Paicines and Tres Pinos, and through the City to the northern county boundary near Gilroy where it connects to US 101. This route is classified as a minor arterial, and it is primarily a rural facility. Within the City, the relinquished portion of Route 25 is a two-lane facility with no shoulders except for a section through downtown Hollister. The one-mile long section along San Benito Street and San Felipe Road between 7th Street and Bolsa Road is four lanes wide and the shoulders are used for parking. Speed limits range from 25 mph to 40 mph and increases to 55 mph when Route 25 connects to Bolsa Road north of downtown.
The City, through the Council of San Benito County Governments (SBtCOG), initiated and built a bypass and requested that the Department adopt the bypass as the new location of Route 25. Additionally, the City desired to control the existing Route 25 within the city limits and accept relinquishment of the route through downtown Hollister (per City Council of City of Hollister Resolution No. 2013-180). In 2006, the Department and SBtCOG entered into a cooperative agreement for the construction of the Route 25 City of Hollister bypass with the intention of transferring it to the Department through a future Transfer of Highway Location Commission action item. The agreement indicated that SBtCOG would design and construct the bypass in accordance with state highway standards, policies and practices.
The route transfer would consist of two actions: 1) the adoption of the newly constructed bypass facility as the new Route 25 and 2) the relinquishment of the existing Route 25 within the city of Hollister to the City. The bypass project construction was completed, and the roadway opened to travel in February 2009. The bypass was constructed as an urban arterial 2.63 miles long with five at-grade intersections. It begins at the intersection of Sunnyslope/Tres Pinos Roads and Airline Highway (Route 25) and extends north as a six-lane facility with signalized intersections at Sunnyslope/Tres Pinos Roads and East Park Street. North of East Park Street, the bypass continues as a four-lane facility with signalized intersections at Hillcrest Road, Meridian Street, and Santa Ana Road. North of Santa Ana Road, the four-lane facility turns westward to intersect with San Felipe Road and connect to the two-lane Bolsa Road (Route 25). The bypass provides an improved level of service and better serves regional traffic than the existing Route 25, which is located in a congested downtown and commercial area.
However, this facility presents a number of deficiencies that do not comply with Department standards. The Route Transfer Report (RTR) approved on April 2, 2012, identified these deficiencies and did not recommend the route transfer until corrective action was taken. The bypass non-standard features included deficiencies with the hydraulic-drainage systems (improper construction of drainage inlets, type of dike used, etc.), roadway geometrics (super-elevation rate is insufficient for the posted speed), storm water management (the project did not comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit), roadway pavement (longitudinal cracks in the shoulder section and concrete dikes), soundwall (separation along the expansion joints), and signal loops (advance loops at the signals are at the wrong locations).
With the proposal from the Department to program a SHOPP project to address the deficiencies, the City agreed to accept relinquishment of the existing Route 25 within the city limits at no cost to the Department. The City pursued enabling legislation to allow the Commission to approve the relinquishment of Route 25 to the City. In June 2013, the Project Study Report (PSR) was approved to allow the Department to program the SHOPP project and address the deficiencies identified in the RTR. The estimated cost of the project is approximately $ 9,235,000, which includes construction and Right of Way costs escalated to the year of construction. The project is scheduled to begin construction in Fiscal Year 2017-18.
On October 3, 2013, the Governor approved Senate Bill 788, allowing the relinquishment to precede the bypass route adoption by amending Section 325 of the Streets and Highways Code. On January 29, 2014, the Commission approved relinquishment of a portion of Route 25 to the City. The relinquished alignment through downtown Hollister runs along Tres Pinos Road and San Benito Street, to the intersection of San Felipe Road and Bolsa Road (Route 25). The bypass benefits to the state include: a new facility with access control between intersections, no parking allowed, and a striped bike lane within the eight-foot wide shoulder. All bypass intersections are projected to be at Level of Service (LOS) C or better in 2025, with the exception of the intersection at San Felipe Road. It will be at LOS D, but improved from the existing condition of LOS F. In comparison, the relinquished Route 25 route serves local traffic at lower levels of service, allows parking, functions as a minor arterial with multiple access points between intersections, and does not provide for a bike lane. The expected ten-year bypass maintenance cost is comparable to the maintenance cost for the relinquished Route 25. The route adoption has the support of all local agencies. Resolutions requesting the Department to transfer Route 25 to the bypass have been passed by the City, the County of San Benito, and SBtCOG.
In June 2015, it was reported that Hollister Mayor
Ignacio Velazquez was fed up with the long-running standstill regarding a
planned Route 25 widening. He’s at the point where he’s willing to
consider a locally built alternative if Caltrans doesn’t find a way to
get the project moving soon. Velazquez suggested that building a county road
along the current highway route (with a truck ban), from Hollister to the
county line, might solve the problem. He hoped that local government leaders
could work with Caltrans to widen the two-lane commuter highway, a primary
gateway to and from Hollister where two Hollister men recently died in vehicle
accidents; but he was unsure whether the county could count on Caltrans to
provide the hundreds of millions of dollars needed to accomplish the widening
project, which has been discussed locally for more than a decade due to safety
issues and fatalities. The San Benito COG expressed some optimism and said
there had been “a lot of progress” on the widening issue in the
past six to eight months at the COG board level. Since September the agency and
its board have been taking steps needed to pursue an amendment to a regional
transportation plan to place Route 25 on a list of constrained projects, viewed
as a necessary precursor to receive significant state funds for the road. The
proposed plan to widen Route 25 to a four lanes from the San Benito County line
to Hollister would cost about $300 million. Santa Clara County is responsible
for the portion of the highway from the San Benito County line to US 101 and
its officials are examining possible solutions for that section in their plans
(Source: Free Lance, 6/23/2015)
Northern End of Hollister to Gilroy/US 101
Gilroy to Hollister Highway (05-SBt-25, PM 51.5/60.1, 04-SCl-25, PM 0.0/2.6)
In August 2016, the CTC approved for future consideration of funding the following project for which a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) has been completed: Route 25 (05-SBt-25, PM 51.5/60.1, 04-SCl-25, PM 0.0/2.6) in San Benito and Santa Clara Counties that will select a corridor for Route 25 near the cities of Hollister and Gilroy. This project in San Benito and Santa Clara counties is for route adoption only, for portions of Route 25 near the cities of Hollister and Gilroy. The project is locally funded for the Project Approval and Environmental Document phase only for approximately $7,000,000.
In October 2016, the CTC approved a resolution to adopt a new corridor for Route 25, to enhance interregional system connectivity and regional traffic operations. This new corridor will run from US 101 to San Felipe Road, where it will connect with the Hollister Bypass approved in 2014. The existing Route 25 will become a frontage road. The route adoption map makes it appear that an intersection with Route 156 will be removed; if the new route is freeway, there could be an interchange there. A California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) - Environmental Impact Report (EIR), which serves as a planning document, was signed on June 6, 2016. The Project Report recommending the route adoption was approved on July 8, 2016. The approved Project Report scoped constructing Route 25 on a new alignment that will be near parallel to the existing Route 25 alignment. Nearly all of the existing Route 25 conventional highway alignment witihin the project limits will be relinquished upon construction of the four-lane expressway, thereby separating terminal access (farmland, business and residential) trips from interregional trips. Relinquishment of the existing Route 25 would not occur until the pavement is brought to a state of good repair. The Project Report recommending the controlled access highway route adoption was approved on July 8, 2016. The environmental document for the Route Adoption Study was approved at the August 2016 Commission meeting with Resolution E-16-60. Controlled access highway agreements will be executed with the City of Hollister, San Benito and Santa Clara Counties.
In July 2017, Mr. Roadshow noted that the sales tax
approved by Santa Clara County voters last year will pay for new ramps at the
Route 25-US 101 interchange, which some day will be the start of a four-lane
freeway on Route 25 to that would hook north near Route 152 or Route 156. The
current two lanes of Route 152 from US 101 to Casa de Fruta would likely remain
as a frontage road. The cost of this isn’t known, but it’s not
going to be cheap. However, the gas and car fee hikes approved by Gov. Brown
and the state Legislature this year include $500 million annually for congested
corridors and truck routes.
(Source: Mercury News, 7/2/2017)
Safety Improvements (~ SBT R52.33 to SCL 2.413)
There have been a number of changes made to this route to improve safety. In 2000, a dozen people were killed on the flat, two-lane 11-mile stretch between Gilroy and Hollister. By 2003, Caltrans had installed a four-foot median rumble strip flanked by double yellow stripes; widened the shoulders with more rumble strips placed there; banned passing; and set the speed limit at 55 mph. This has made it safer: 97 people on the stretch from 2000 to 2002, 56 have been injured from 2003 to 2006. Crashes have fallen 39%.
The SAFETEA-LU act, enacted in August 2005 as the reauthorization of TEA-21, provided the following expenditures on or near this route:
In 2010, work continued on making Route 25 safer. The first phase of construction included work on the western side of Route 25 and the project area. The primary work that was completed includes paving the western roadway shoulders and construction of private driveway access roads. The second phase of construction included work on the eastern side of Route 25. Phase II work included excavation, grading, and shoulder widening. The net goal is driveway consolidation.
[SHC 263.3] Entire portion.
Portions of the route through Hollister are signed as Business Route 25.
This route is part of the De Anza National Historic Trail.
Overall statistics for Route 25:
The route that would become LRN 25 was first defined in the 1909 First Bond Act as running from Nevada City to Downieville. In 1933, it received two extensions: [LRN 37] near Colfax to [LRN 17] near Grass Valley, and [LRN 25] at Downieville to Blairsden-Truckee Road near Sattley. In 1935, it was codified into the state highway code as:
The portion from Nevada City to Downieville was considered a primary route. This definition remained unchanged until the great renumbering in 1963.
Signage on the route was as follows:
This signage of this segment pre-1964 is unclear, but it is currently signed as Route 174.
From Route 99 in Stockton to Route 12 at Valley Springs.
In 1963, this segment was defined as two segments: “(a) Route 4 to Route 99 near Stockton” and “(b) Route 99 near Stockton to Route 12”. In 1994, Chapter 1220 deleted segment (a), and changed this segment to be “Route 99 in Stockton to Route 12 at Valley Springs."
What happened in 1994 is that a portion of Charter Way west of Route 99 was designated as Route 26 (up to where Mariposa Road meets up with Charter Way). Charter Way west of that point is now signed as Business Route 99 and was US 99/Route 4, with Mariposa Road southwest to Farmington Road also a part of US 99/Route 4).
In September 2011 and October 2011, the CTC approved vacation of right of way in the county of San Joaquin along Route 26 at 0.4 mile north of North Escalon Bellota Road (near 26 SJ R15.46), consisting of superseded highway right of way no longer needed for State highway purposes. The County of San Joaquin was given a 90-day notice of intent to vacate, without protesting such action.
In April 2012, the CTC approved for future consideration of funding a project in San Joaquin County near the town of Linden that will realign two existing curves and replace the Sandstone Creek Bridge (26 SJ 18.78) with a triple box culvert. The project is programmed in the 2012 State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP). The total estimated project cost is $6,049,000 for capital and support. Construction is estimated to begin in Fiscal Year 2012-13. The scope, as described for the preferred alternative, is consistent with the project scope programmed by the Commission in the 2012 SHOPP.
In June 2007, the CTC considered a project in San Joaquin and Calaveras Counties that would make roadway improvements near Linden from Wimer Road/Ospital Road (26 SJ 20.316) to Savage Way (26 CAL 3.068). This project is fully funded in the 2006 State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP). The total estimated project cost is $21,008,000. Construction is estimated to begin in FY 2008-09. The project will involve construction activities in the environmentally sensitive habitat of the California tiger salamander and the Western spadefoot toad. Three archaeological sites that are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places are located within the project area. In addition, farmland and relocation issues resulted in a Mitigated Negative Declaration being completed for this project.
In December 2017, it was reported that Caltrans would be funding the Valley
Springs Complete Streets Capital Infrastructure Plan & Project
Prioritization. The Plan provides the community level planning needed to
develop conceptual complete streets transportation improvements that build upon
operational investments on Route 26 and the Route 12/Route 26 intersection
(approx. 26 CAL 10.228), incorporates community aesthetic, and provides safe
travel options for residents and students to schools and community centers. The
project is a collaborative partnership of the School, Caltrans, CHP, and
Calaveras Council of Governments, Calaveras County, and community.
(Source: My Mother Lode.Com, 12/9/2017)
[SHC 253.3] Entire portion (Stockton to Valley Springs). Added to the Freeway and Expressway system in 1965.
From Route 12 to Route 88 near Pioneer Station via Mokelumne Hill and West Point.
In 1963, this segment was first defined (by Chapter 385) as "Route 12 to Route 49 near Mokelumne Hill.". Before the year was out the routing was extended by Chapter 2155 to be "to West Point via Mokelumne Hill." In 1984, it was extended by Chapter 409 to terminate at "Route 88 near Pioneer Station via Mokelumne Hill and West Point" by a transfer of a segment from Route 104.
The remainder of this segment of Route 26 was originally Route 104. Route 104 was defined in 1970; the segment was transferred to Route 26 in 1986.
The segment between the community of Mokelumne Hill (approx 26 CAL 18.045) and West Point (approx 26 CAL 34.474) is named the "Stephen P. Teale" highway. Physician and California State Senator from 1953 to 1972, Stephen P. "Doc" Teale worked to establish the state legislature's first computer system. The Stephen P. Teale data center, a computer facility supporting California government, is also named for Doc Teale. Named by Senate Concurrant Resolution 43, Chapter 106, in 1997.
Bridge 30-0052 (26 CAL R033.65), crossing the Middle Fork of the Mokelumne River, near West Point, is named the "Tom Taylor Bridge". Tom Taylor, a lifetime resident of Calaveras County, served as a County Supervisor and was instrumental in securing funding for the construction of the bridge that bears his name. It was named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution 105, Chapter 107 in 1998.
Overall statistics for Route 26:
In 1934, Route 26 was signed along the route from Route 3 (US 101A, later Route 1) near Seal Beach to US 101 near Santa Ana along Bolsa Avenue. This was LRN 183, defined in 1933, and deleted by 1951. The Route 26 signage appears to have been dropped by the late 1930s.
Between sometime in the 1938 timeframe and July 1, 1964, LRN 173 (defined in
1933), the route originally signed as Route 6 was resigned as Route 26. The
original signed Route 6 ran from Santa Monica to Jct. Route 39 in Fullerton
along roughly Olympic and Whittier. In Los Angeles, it ran between US101A
(Lincoln Blvd) and US101 along 10th Street, later renamed Olympic Blvd (in
1939, the route ran along Pico between Lincoln and Robertson). Evidently, the
original plan was to call this Route 6, but that went away when US 6 was
assigned to a different route. It used the McClure Tunnel now used for I-10.
Olympic Boulevard was built (widened and realigned) in two stages. By 1938,
major improvements were completed. The jog at Figueroa Street was eliminated.
Near Alvarado Street, Hoover Street and Arlington Avenue, Olympic Boulevard was
realigned away from 10th Street to provide continuity. Westerly of Lucerne
Boulevard, Country Club Drive was renamed Olympic Boulevard, widened throughout
and extended through the 20th Century Fox movie studio property. Further
improvements were disrupted by World War II. In 1948, the final links of
Olympic Boulevard were constructed between Crenshaw Boulevard and Lucerne
Boulevard and between Centinela Avenue and Lincoln Boulevard. The latter
project was built as a landscaped divided parkway with no driveways through the
City of Santa Monica. Before the construction of the freeway in downtown LA,
the route continued along Olympic Blvd and 9th St. to Atlantic Blvd (Route 15;
LRN 167). A 1942
map shows that Route 26 was cosigned with Bypass US 101 from approximately
the Olympic/Telegraph junction to Route 19. A 1948 map shows the route running
along Olympic, 9th St, Anaheim, Telegraph, Los Nietos, Whittier Road, La Mirada
Road, and La Habra Road, terminating at the intersection of Manchester Blvd
(then Bypass US 101) and La Habra Road in Buena Park. It was later replaced by
I-10, the Santa Monica Freeway, but early plans show this as the
Olympic Freeway. The signage for Route 26 may have been down by
[Some historical information on 10th St/Olympic Blvd was derived from "Transportation Topics and Tales: Milestones in Transportation History in Southern California" by John E. Fisher, P.E. PTOE, available at http://ladot.lacity.org/pdf/PDF100.pdf]
The route that was to become LRN 26 was first defined in the 1916 Second Bond Issue, together with LRN 27. The wording was "an extension of the San Bernardino county state highway lateral to the Arizona State Line near the town of Yuma, Arizona, via the cities of Brawley and El Centro in Imperial County by the most direct and practical route...". Given that the "San Bernardino county state highway lateral" was LRN 9 (from LRN 4 (US 99) in San Fernando to San Bernardino, this means that LRN 26 initially started near former US 66 in San Bernardino. The 1944 map to the right shows the spur of LRN 26 into San Bernardino along E Street. From there, the route continued to Colton, then to Indio, down along the south shore of the Salton Sea to Heber and Brawley, where it met LRN 27 in El Centro. LRN 27 (US 80, later I-8) then continued easterly from El Centro to Yuma Arizona.
It was extended again on both ends in 1931. On the northwestern end, there was a significant extension west of Colton, adding a segment that ran from [LRN 26] near Colton via Pomona to Los Angeles. Specifically, segment (i) of Chapter 82 defined it as “[LRN 26] near Colton via Pomona to Los Angeles”. The April 1931 also discussed the proposal for the route, which referred to it as "a highway from Los Angeles to a connection with [LRN 26] E of Colton". The confusing part here is that the extension did not start in Los Angeles; rather, it started from the eastern border of Los Angeles (roughly the LA River, just E of Eastern Avenue), near Ramona and Garvey. The routing utilized Garvey (much of which was later subsumed by I-10) and Holt Avenue. The rationale for the extension was to provide a mid-point route between LRN 9 (US 66) to the north, and the eventual US 60 routing to the south.
The 1931 act also extended the route on the southeastern end, extending it from El Centro and the junction with LRN 27 (US 80) to the border at Calexico. The extension's norther end was near the junction of LRN 12 (US 80 - El Centro to San Diego), LRN 27 (El Centro to Yuma), and LRN 26 (El Centro to Los Angeles) in the center of the intensely cultivated irrigation district of the Imperial Valley. The southern terminus was the only important entrance to California from Mexico E of the Pacific Coast.
In 1933, the route was extended from "Los Angeles (Aliso Street) to [LRN 26] near Monterey Park via Ramona Blvd", which completed LRN 26 into downtown Los Angeles. This was the eventual Ramona Expressway that became the San Bernardino Freeway (I-10).
By 1935, LRN 26 was codified into the highway code as:
It was primary state highway from San Bernardino to El Centro.
In 1959, Chapter 1841 deleted the connection from Colton to San Bernardino from the route (which ran along E street). Chapter 1062 earlier that year had added LRN 275, which was a routing from LRN 26 to LRN 190 (Route 30), so the connection was effectively transferred from LRN 26 to LRN 275.
In 1961, Chapter 1146 relaxed the description of segment (a) to eliminate a
specific routing (and thus permitting the Interstate routing): "Los Angeles
(Aliso Street) to Calexico via Ramona
Boulevard, Monterey Park, Pomona, Colton, Brawley, and El Centro."
Signage along this route was as follows:
From LRN 2 in Los Angeles to Calexico via the vicinity of Montery Park, Pomona, Colton, Brawley, and El Centro. This segment was the eventual route of the San Bernardino Freeway (and ran along Ramona Blvd and Garvey Blvd before freeway construction). It was cosigned as US 99/US 60/US 70 from its junction with US 101 (LRN 2) in downtown LA (the present I-5/I-10 east junction) to the junction with CA 71 (LRN 77) near Pomona.
The connection into San Bernardino from Colton, which was part of this route until 1959, was signed as Route 18.
From Indio, LRN 26 diverged from US 60/US 70, and continued S along the present-day Route 86 to Brawley, and then to El Centro. It continued through El Centro to cross US 80 (LRN 12) to Route 111 (LRN 201) near Heber. This was signed as US 99.
In 1965, Chapter 2007 simplified the wording of the origin: "Route 1 near
north of the intersection of Sunset Boulevard and Route
1...". In 1981, Chapter 292 simplified the wording of the terminus:
"Route 118 at or near Chatsworth".
Topanga Canyon originally terminated at Santa Susana Pass Road (in fact, it was known as Santa Susana Road N of Devonshire). The extension N of Devonshire St. from just S of the SP Railroad "S" curve to the new freeway was completed in 1966; this extension climbs an 8% grade to an elevation of 1,232'. Topanga Canyon Blvd was rerouted sometime in the 1960s between Plummer and Marilla Street. The original routing was along what is now Topanga Canyon Place, and went first W of the current route, crossed the current route, and then looped E and back to the current route shortly N of Marilla Street. This was to avoid a hill that was later taken down. However, the Plummer to Topanga intersection was constructed in the 1980s or 1990s.
There also appears to be rerouting between Roscoe and Nordhoff, as well as slightly around Oxnard. The original terminus was Devonshire Street, where it met Route 118 and continued N and then W as Santa Susana Ave.
There is an "Old Topanga Canyon Road" that splits off Topanga Canyon Road in the community of Topanga, and continues on a more westerly and winding route, meeting Mullholland Drive near Valley Circle. It is unclear if this was an original routing of Route 27; if it was, it is unclear how the route continuted easterly to the present Route 27 once US 101 was reached.
In April 2013, it was reported that the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors has asked the state to designate the portion from Route 1 to the Ventura County line as a state scenic highway (essentially, the entire route).
In August 2016, the CTC approved $31,477,000 for Los Angeles 07-LA-118 R0.0/R14.4 Route 118 in the city and county of Los Angeles, from Ventura County line to Route 210; also on Route 27 (Topanga Canyon Boulevard) from Devonshire Street to Route 118. Outcome/Output: Rehabilitate 65.0 lane miles of roadway to extend pavement surface life and improve ride quality. Replace approach slabs and upgrade curb ramps to meet current ADA standards.
[SHC 263.3] From Route 1 to Mulholland Drive.
In June 2017, it was reported that Topanga Canyon Blvd
had received a state scenic highway designation: "Topanga Canyon State Scenic
Highway, a 2.5 mile (although another article says 3.5 mi) segment of Route 27,
runs through the county and city of Los Angeles in the Santa Monica Mountains
National Recreation Area near the Pacific coast." The LA Times clarified that
the designation is from Mile 1 to Mile 3.5 (near Old Topanga Blvd), putting it
within the SHC 263.3 designation. The new scenic highway runs parallel to
Topanga Creek, with views of massive rock formations, valleys, mountains, and a
diversity of plants and animals. California’s scenic state highway
program was implemented in 1963 in order to “add to the pleasure of state
residents,” and “encourage the growth of recreation and tourist
industries.” Designated scenic highways, along with adjacent scenic
corridors, require special conservation treatment. Scenic corridors consist of
land that can be seen from the scenic highway and is next to the highway, even
if it is outside the highway right-of-way. The legislation lets the state
assign responsibility for the regulation of land use and development along
scenic highways to the appropriate state, local and county agencies. “The
city or county must also adopt ordinances, zoning and/or planning policies to
preserve the scenic quality of the corridor or document such regulations that
already exist in various portions of local codes,” Caltrans specifies.
According to Westways magazine, this was the first LA County road to receive
the state scenic highway designation in 45 years. It was reported as the
culmination of a five-year effort by Topanga Chamber of Commerce members Joseph
Rosendo and Roger Pugliese, along with the Topanga Association for a Scenic
Community working with county and city officials to develop a scenic corridor
protection program. The new Topanga Canyon State Scenic Highway travels through
a portion of Topanga State Park, which features 36 miles of trails through open
grassland and live oaks, and spectacular views of the Pacific Ocean,” it
said. “The park is one of the world’s largest wildlands within the
boundaries of a major city.”
(Source: OneTopanga, 6/17/2017; LA Times, June 2017; Caltrans; Malibu Times, 10/20/2017)
This route is Topanga Canyon Blvd.. Topanga is an Indian name referring to "above place" or even sky or heaven. It may refer to Indian village site located above Topanga Creek.
Overall statistics for Route 27:
The route that was to become LRN 27 was first defined in the 1916 Second Bond Issue as part of the "extension of the San Bernardino county state highway lateral to the Arizona State Line near the town of Yuma, Arizona, via the cities of Brawley and El Centro in Imperial County by the most direct and practical route...". LRN 26 took the portion from the San Bernardino County lateral (LRN 9) down through Brawley and El Centro. LRN 27 then continued E-ly from El Centro to Yuma Arizona. (LRN 26 continued S to Calexico as part of LRN 26's 1931 extension)
In 1935, LRN 27 was codified into the highway code as running from El Centro to Yuma, and was all primary state highway. The definition remained unchanged until 1963 and the great renumbing. This route was signed as US 80, and is present-day I-8.
From Route 89 at Tahoe City along the northern boundary of Lake Tahoe to the Nevada state line at Crystal Bay.
The current definition of Route 28 is unchanged from the 1963 definition.
The present-day routing of Route 28 is not the original routing. In 1934, Route 28 was signed along the route from Jct. Route 1 near Albion to Jct. US 40 near Davis, vis Sage Canyon. This corresponded to the following routes:
In 1952, the original routing for Route 28 was renumbered as Route 128.
The present routing was LRN 39 (defined in 1915), and has been signed as Route 28 since 1952. Prior to 1952, the route was unsigned. The Route 28 designation permitted the route along the north shore of Lake Tahoe between Tahoe City and the California-Nevada boundary to join Nevada Sign Route 28 at the state line.
This route continues into Nevada as Nevada 28.
Kings Beach Commerical Core Project (~ PLA 9.366 to PLA 10.215)
In 2007, the CTC did not recommend using the Corridor Mobility Improvement Account to fund the Kings Beach commercial core.
In June 2012, the CTC approved for future consideration of funding the Kings Beach Commercial Core Improvement Project (project) in Placer County, which will include roadway improvements to Route 28 to accommodate anticipated future transit and pedestrian needs which will include installing sidewalks; constructing curbs, gutters, storm drains, and water quality facilities at specific locations; streetscaping; designating specific road sites as on-street parking; and construction of new, off-street parking lots at specific locations within the action area in Placer County.
[SHC 253.1] Entire route. Added to the Freeway and Expressway system in 1959.
[SHC 263.1] Entire route.
[SHC 164.11] Entire route.
Overall statistics for Route 28:
The route that would become LRN 28 was first defined in the 1909 First Bond Act as running from Redding to Alturas. It was also part of the "Lassen State Highway" established in 1911 by Chapter 498 as follows:
"That certain highway known as the county road and beginning on the boundary line between Shasta and Lassen Counties in the NE corner of T37N R6E and running and extending through T38N R6E, T38N R7E, T38N R8E, to the Modoc County Line...shall be designated and known as the Lassen State Highway"
It was seemingly extended in 1915 when Chapter 765 authorized the survey, location, and construction of a route "from Surprise valley, in Modoc county, to the Nevada state line." However, this authorization was rescinded in the 1935 act that created the state highway code.
In 1921, it was more directly extended with Chapter 888, which provided an appropriation “...for the survey, plans and estimates and for the construction of the highway from the town of Alturas in Modoc county to the Nevada-California state line by the most direct and practical route via Cedarville in connecting with the proposed Nevada state highway...”
By 1935, the route had been codified into the highway code as running "from Redding to the Nevada line via Alturas and Cedarville". It was primary state highway from Redding to Alturus. The 1935 definition remained unchanged until the great renumbering in 1963. The entire route was signed as US 299 between Redding and US 395. The signate E of US 395 to the Nevada border before 1964 was unclear.
In 1963, Route 29 was defined as “from Route 80 near the Carquinez Bridge to Route 20 near Upper Lake via the vicinity of Napa, via Calistoga, via Lower Lake, passing south of Kelseyville and via Lakeport.” In 1965, Chapter 1371 reworded the origin of the route to be "near Vallejo" instead of the Carquinez Bridge.
In the 1980s, the Napa River Bridge and the new freeway bypassed the segment of Route 29 near Napa from Route 29 near Soscol Road to Route 121 at Imola Avenue. The bypassed segments were transferred to Route 121 and Route 221, changing their definitions (Chapter 409, 1984), but no change was necessary in Route 29's definition.
Route 29 between Lakeport and Kelseyville was given an adopted freeway routing, which is now an expressway. The old route is now Soda Bay Road (Route 281), Big Valley Road to Kelsey Creek, Finley Road south to the Kelseyville city limit, and Main Street back to Route 29.
In 1909, the first bond act funded LRN 8, which included the portion of eventual Route 29 from 4 mi S of Napa (the present Route 12/Route 29 junction) to Napa (present-day Route 121). The future Route 29 was extended again in 1931, when the routing from LRN 8 (now Route 12) near Cordelia (which is 4 mi S of Napa) via American Canyon to LRN 14 (US 40, now I-80) was added to the state highway system. This later portion became part of LRN 74. The situation in 1931 was that traffic between the Sacramento Valley and the bay cities could not find the direct and most advantageous passage from LRN 8 to LRN 14 over connected state highways. LRN 7 (roughly today's I-580) was available via the Martinez Ferry, but a better road and bridge facility implied almost exclusive use of a county highway from the Napa Wye to the Carquinez Straits. It was felt that a state route should be established to service the through traffic which was forced onto county roads. The route proposed for LRN 74 was a favorable route from Cordelia south to LRN 14 by way of American Canyon. This route was 5 miles shorter than the route using the Napa Wye and 9 miles shorter than the routing through Martinez. The new route avoided the disadvantageous passage over steep intersecting streets in Vallejo. It was considered appropriate to add it to the state highway system as it would serve a very large volume of state traffic now carried over a county highway.
In 1931, the portion between Route 12 and I-80 was at one time signed as (temp) US 40. In 1934, Route 29 was signed along this route from Vallejo to Upper Lake, via Calistoga and Lakeport. The portion between I-80 near Vallejo to Curtola Parkway in Vallejo was defined in 1937, the remainder to 4 mi S of Napa in 1931.
From 4 mi S of Napa (present-day Route 12) to Napa (present-day Route 121), Route 29 was LRN 8. Portions of this were cosigned with Route 12; the cosigned portion is now present-day Route 221 (signed as Route 121). The small portion between Route 221 and Route 121 in Napa was not part of the highway system until 1984 when the Napa River Bridge and a freeway bypass were constructed.
Between Route 121 in Napa and Middletown, near Lower Lake, Route 29 was LRN 49. The portion between Napa and Calistoga was defined in 1993, from Calistoga to Middletown was defined in 1919. Before 1964, Route 29 ran from Middletown to Lower Lake through Whispering Pine and Cobb (present-day Route 175); this was LRN 89, defined in 1933. It rejoined the present-day Route 29 5 mi SE of Kelseyville.
The present-day Route 29 runs along what was Route 53 (LRN 49, defined in 1919) between Middletown and Lower Lake. The route continued as Route 29 (but was LRN 243, defined in 1959) between Lower Lake and the present-day Route 175 5 mi SE of Kelseyville. The Route 53 segment was renumbered as Route 29 in 1964.
Vallejo to Yountville, through the City of Napa
On the north end of Vallejo, Route 29 meets Route 37 (04-SOL-29, PM 4.869), which is a stub freeway from I-80 east to this intersection. Caltrans is building a freeway interchange here, where Route 37 will fly over Route 29.
In May 2011, the Napa County Board of Supervisors requested that Caltrans perform a corridor study on Route 29 between Route 37 in Vallejo and Napa Junction Road north of American Canyon (~ SOL 5.034 to NAP R2.053). The study would look for both long- and short-term solutions to the traffic problems on Route 29, a main thoroughfare clogged with morning and evening rush-hour traffic.
Highway 29 Gateway Corridor Improvement / American Canyon (~ NAP 0.685 to NAP 10.333)
In August 2011, it was reported that the CTC awarded $300,000 to the county’s transportation planners to study the Route 29, focussing on Route 29's southern segment from American Canyon (NAP 0.685) to the city of Napa (approx NAP 10.333). In 2010, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) awarded the American Canyon $540,000 for planning development along the Route 29 corridor.
In March 2013, it was reported that the first results from the first “visioning” phase of a Caltrans-funded Highway 29 Gateway Corridor Improvement Plan study were released. The study focuses on a 13-mile stretch of the state-owned road from the Solano County line north to Trancas Street in Napa (NAP 13.051), an often congested thoroughfare during morning and evening rush hours. The report recommended a multi-faceted road into the renowned Napa Valley that encourages walking, bicycling and public transit while providing access for local residences and businesses and smooth, uncongested traffic-flow for commuters. The goal of the study is to come to a consensus on ways to improve mobility and decrease congestion, while remaining sensitive to adjacent land uses and following the state’s “complete streets” guidelines.
In February 2014,the Napa County Transportation and
Planning Agency provided updated results from the study. The draft Route 29
Gateway Corridor Improvement Plan calls for expanding the highway from four to
six lanes from American Canyon Road to Route 12/Jameson Canyon, as well as new
interchanges at Route 12/Jameson Canyon and Route 221 and improvements to the
juncture of Route 29 and Route 12/Carneros Highway. In American Canyon, the two
new lanes would be built as frontage roads to siphon off local traffic from the
highway. The plan also adds miles of bicycle paths and sidewalks, and a link to
the future Vine Trail multi-use path that’s planned to run from Calistoga to
the Vallejo Ferry. The character of the 17-mile stretch of roadway (from the
Vallejo ferry to Trancas Street in Napa) would transition from landscaped
freeway to “boulevard” in American Canyon to rural highway further north to
align with the residential, commercial and undeveloped surroundings. The
complete draft is online at nctpa.net/sr-29-corridor–study.
(Source: American Canyon Eagle)
In October 2014, Napa County Transportation and
Planning Agency voted to accept the Gateway Corridor Improvement Plan -- a $349
million plan to improve Route 29 in south Napa County. This plan would include
having six lanes in American Canyon, building a Soscol flyover at Route 221 and
reconfiguring lanes at the Sonoma County turnoff. The plan also calls for
giving Route 29 a look and character in keeping with the areas it passes
through, be it rural or city. Out of the various projects included in the plan,
a $48 million Soscol flyover at Route 221 near the Butler Bridge is listed as a
priority. That’s because this proposal, which has been around for years,
is closest to having environmental work completed, the plan says. An elevated
ramp would take southbound Route 221 traffic to southbound Route 29 and a new
connector ramp would take southbound Route 221 traffic to northbound Route 29.
Soscol Ferry Road would be limited to right turns in and right turns out. The
traffic signal would be eliminated. Another project would turn Route 29 from a
four-lane road to a six-lane road through central American Canyon. Landscaping,
a bike path and safety improvements for pedestrians would be added. The
estimated cost is $25.5 million. The plan also considers keeping Route 29 four
lanes through American Canyon and adding such improvements as lanes for local
traffic separated from the highway by a landscape strip. This concept
acknowledges that American Canyon uses the road as a Main Street, but that the
six-lane option does more to ease traffic congestion. The state Department of
Transportation plans to hold a meeting in December 2014 to open the 30-day
comment period on the draft environmental report. No money is available yet for
(Source: Napa Valley Register, 10/16/2014)
2016, it was reported that the proposed Soscol Junction flyover at Route 29
(NAP R6.168) and Route 221 southeast of the grape crusher statue might become
the proposed Soscol Junction roundabouts. Although the $40 million flyover
joining southbound Route 221 to southbound Route 29 remains the preferred
option to unsnarl the rush-hour backups caused by traffic signal red lights at
this key intersection, Caltrans will allow the Napa Valley Transportation
Authority and city of Napa to spend a few month exploring whether a
double-roundabout design could handle the traffic. The roundabouts would be on
either side of Route 29 and serve as the onramps and offramps. They would also
allow traffic to take a road passing under or above Route 29 as a link between
Route 221 and Soscol Ferry Road. NTVA will spend about $40,000 studying the
roundabouts option, with the city of Napa providing the engineering work.
(Source: Napa Valley Register, 4/23/2016)
In March 2017, it was reported that Napa County
transportation leaders are weighing whether adding Route 29 lanes in the south
county is a congestion-easing solution or an expensive way of running in place.
The NVTA in 2014 approved a $349 million vision for Route 29 in American Canyon
and Napa. Among other things, this plan calls for someday widening the highway
through American Canyon to the Route 12/Jameson Canyon entrance from four lanes
to six lanes, if the money can be found. NVTA Executive Director Kate Miller
broached the topic of rethinking that vision and sticking with today’s
four lanes, two going each direction. The lane-widening portion of the Route 29
plan could cost more than $80 million, not counting right-of-way purchases.
Miller said the Metropolitan Transportation Commission has restrictions on
funding road expansions. Plus, a new state environmental law requires taking a
look at how road expansion projects would increase vehicle miles traveled. With
all of these factors, she doesn’t foresee federal and state money flowing
to Napa County for the widening project. Miller also talked about self-driving
vehicles that can communicate with each other easing traffic congestion. These
vehicles will virtually eliminate the 25 percent of delays caused by accidents
and braking/acceleration decisions, she said. They will increase opportunities
for sharing vehicles. Another project in the 2014 Route 29 plan is to build an
interchange at the signalized, Route 12 entrance to Jameson Canyon leading to
Fairfield. But Miller said the $80 million design proposed by the state
Department of Transportation would only marginally ease the bad congestion at
this chokepoint. Transportation leaders need to rethink this project, she said.
The signal at Route 29 and Route 221 intersection is another chokepoint. The
NVTA for years has planned to build a $50 million flyover there, with
environmental studies well underway. A new, and possibly cheaper, version of
the project calls for ditching the flyover. Instead, Route 29 would cross over
Route 221/Soscol Ferry Road. Two roundabouts, one on each side of the overpass,
would route Route 221 and Soscol Ferry Road vehicles to their desired
destinations. The northernmost Route 29 chokepoint addressed in the 2014 vision
is the signalized, three-way Route 121 intersection, where Route 121 goes west
to Sonoma County. The NVTA has a $500,000 reconfiguration plan that would leave
traffic in Route 29 northbound lanes always flowing.
(Source: Napa Valley Register, 3/16/2017)
In June 2017, it was reported that — for the
second — a construction project in American Canyon has encountered delays
or higher costs because contractors were too busy with other work to bid. In
early June 2017, Public Works Director Jason Holley asked the City Council for
permission to reject bids for a project expanding the eastern portion of the
Route 29 and Napa Junction Road intersection. Holley’s reason for the
request: only one company submitted a bid. Ghilotti Brothers, Inc. said they
could do the work — adding turn lanes and widening curbs — for
$1.43 million. The Public Works Department felt the estimate was a little high,
citing an engineer’s calculation that pegged the construction cost at
(Source: Napa Valley Register, 6/4/2017)
In November 2016, it was reported that Caltrans will be out with cranes and
other equipment installing new, highly reflective signs along Route 29 in and
near the city of Napa. Locations includes stretches of Route 29 and various
ramps from Route 12 near Napa County airport (29 NAP 4.693) north to Trower
Avenue (29 NAP 13.848) nine miles away.
(Source: Napa Valley Register, 11/5/2016)
Carneros Junction Improvements (29 NAP R8.615)
In July 2017, a
new proposal emerged for the Carneros Junction (29 NAP R8.615): Where Route 29
meets Route 12/Route 121. No massive interchange is proposed to replace traffic
signals at the T-intersection for Napa and Sonoma flows. Instead, the
three-year-old idea is to add merge lanes, give some lanes a constant green
light and reap a little congestion relief. The NVTA took a close look at the
Carneros intersection in its 2014 Highway 29 Gateway plan. This study concluded
an interchange with on-ramps and off-ramps is the ultimate solution, but that
such a structure would be costly and could have big environmental impacts. One
alternative is building the Carneros interchange roundabout, either with or
without traffic signals. This wouldn’t make a big congestion-easing
difference in the long run, the plan concluded. That leaves the $1 million idea
to ease congestion on the (relative) cheap. Northbound Route 29 traffic
presently stops at a red light when Route 121 traffic coming from the Sonoma
direction turns left toward Napa. The proposed change – have northbound
traffic always flowing through the intersection. And what happens when the
Highway 121 traffic makes a left turn in front of it? A long merge lane would
be created so these divergent traffic streams have space to come together. The
same concept would be used so southbound Route 29 traffic turning right onto
Route 121 toward Sonoma could always have a green light. A long merge lane
would be the buffer when northbound Route 29 traffic makes a left turn onto
Route 121. This proposed project wouldn’t necessarily make Carneros
intersection a motorist’s paradise. There would still be a red light
during the southbound Route 29 morning commutes. The bigger, more expensive
project for the more congested Soscol Junction a few miles south along Route 29
remains the NVTA’s priority. The agency and Caltrans are working on that
project’s environmental impact report. Still, the smaller Carneros
intersection project is at least in the agency’s sights, even if there is
no timeline to build it and no state-required environmental report has yet been
launched. If all had gone as planned in the 1970s, both the Carneros and Soscol
Junction intersections would already be interchanges today. Caltrans during
that decade was figuring out the huge Southern Crossing project. Route 29 at
that point went north on Route 221 and then cut across the valley on Imola
Avenue. Route 29 then continued north up Napa Valley and Route 121 went west to
Sonoma. All of that led to congestion near Napa State Hospital and on Imola
Avenue. Caltrans and county officials wanted a Southern Crossing bridge –
today’s Butler Bridge – so Route 29 could bypass the city of Napa
several miles to the south. The Southern Crossing project approved in 1974
included interchanges at both entrances. But in 1975, state transportation
officials pleaded poverty and proposed installing traffic signals instead. The
state would return to build interchanges “when traffic warrants
them.” By 1977, the state didn’t even have money to connect Route
29 to the bridge it was already building over the Napa River. County officials
went from worrying about having interchanges to keeping the Southern Crossing
from becoming a bridge to nowhere. In 1981, the state finally opened the
several miles of connecting highway that made the Butler Bridge part of Route
29. But the interchanges had dropped from the plans, replaced by the traffic
(Source: Napa Valley Register, 7/15/2017)
Napa - First, Second, and California Street Connection Improvements (~ NAP 11.432)
In May 2016, it was reported that the City of Napa
was considering a conceptual plan to build three traffic circles joining
California Boulevard, First and Second Streets, and Route 29 (approx NAP
11.432). The roundabouts would control traffic flow from the freeway and
California onto the two major east-west routes into downtown, which also would
have their directions reversed; First would channel eastbound vehicles while
Second would carry drivers toward the highway. The plan combines improvements
earlier sought by the city and Caltrans, which agreed to use a rotary instead
of a traffic light for its redesign of the Route 29 interchange with First.
(Source: Napa Valley Register, 5/16/2016)
In June 2016, the CTC approved for future consideration of funding a project that will construct a roundabout at First Street/California Boulevard and Second Street/California Boulevard, and will reverse the one-way couplet of First and Second Streets. A second roundabout will be constructed at the Northbound Off-ramp of Route 29 and First Street. On May 17, 2016, the City adopted the final MND for the project and found that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment after mitigation. Impacts that require mitigation measures to be reduced to less than significant levels relate to biological resources, hazardous materials, cultural resources and noise abatement. Mitigation measures include, but are not limited to: require revegetation strategies to be included in the final specifications, conduct nesting surveys, require the consultation of a qualified archaeologist if cultural materials are unearthed and limit construction activities to reduce noise levels from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM. The project is estimated to cost $11,942,000 and is fully funded through construction with State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP) Funds ($5,454,000), Local Funds ($2,524,000), Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Funds ($2,463,000) and Regional Improvement Program (RIP) Funds ($1,501,000). Construction is estimated to begin in Fiscal Year 2016/17.
The following project was included in the final adopted 2018 SHOPP in March 2018: PPNO 1488P. 04-Napa-29 11.4. Route 29 In Napa, at northbound ramps and 1st Street. Construct roundabout. Begin Con: 2/22/2019. Total Project Cost: $6,950K.
In June 2015, it was reported that the City of Napa was moving ahead with a
project that would build a proper, paved path along Napa Creek, below the four
lanes of Route 29, at an estimated $600,000 cost (near 29 NAP 11.664). Skirting
the creek’s north bank in a U-shaped pattern, the 600-foot-long underpass
would connect the south end of Coffield Avenue west of Route 29 to a future
trail section planned to run east to California Boulevard and D Street.
Retaining walls would strengthen the path and its slope would be kept below 8%
to meet federal standards for wheelchair access. The route of the bike path won
City Council approval in early June 2015. Two Caltrans grants totaling $97,000
will cover most of the $100,000 design and engineering cost, with construction
estimated to cost $500,000. Although a narrow dirt track currently connects the
two sides of the freeway, a fully finished hard-surface path would remove one
of the stiffest roadblocks to casual cycling.
(Source: Napa Valley Register 6/6/2015)
In September 2011, the CTC approved relinquishment of right of way in the city of Napa along Route 29 on Redwood Road, Trancas Street, California Boulevard, and Permanente Way, consisting of collateral facilities. (approx 29 NAP 13.033)
In December 2017, it was reported that frustrated motorists will potentially
see some traffic improvements along the Route 29 traffic signal gauntlet of
Salvador, Wine Country and Trower avenues (approx 29 NAP 13.852 to 29 NAP
14.61). Changes came earlier in 2017 with a new Napa Valley Vine Trail segment
sandwiched between Route 29 and adjacent Solano Avenue. Trail users cross
Salvador, Wine Country and Trower avenues and traffic lights were added to help
them do so safely. The result: drivers complained that the new signal timing
regime caused them more rush-hour delays on both Route 29 and Solano Avenue.
Noting that Caltrans controls the traffic signal timing along this highway
stretch, city officials agreed to work with Caltrans and a traffic consultant
to see if something could be done. Caltrans discovered some of the vehicle
detection loops in the pavement needed repairs, city Deputy Public Works
Director Eric Whan said. Those loops are being fixed. The next step is trying
out an adjusted timing pattern for the traffic signals based on simulations and
traffic modeling. The goal is to create the optimum traffic flow and avoid
undue delays for any one direction.
(Source: Napa Valley Register, 12/1/2017)
In July 2016, it was reported that a local permitted project was adding a
left-turn lane and other improvements N of the City of Napa to serve the
planned Ashes & Diamonds winery. When the project is finished, southbound
Route 29 drivers will have a left-turn lane onto Howard Lane (near 29 NAP
14.82). They’ll be able to use it to reach not only the winery-to-be, but
the existing Bistro Don Giovanni restaurant and Senza Hotel. Other changes will
include an expanded northbound Route 29 deceleration lane. Vintner Darioush
Khaledi, who applied for the Ashes & Diamonds Winery permit, said the Route
29 project will cost the winery more than $1 million.
(Source: Napa Valley Register, 7/6/2016)
Yountville through the vicinity of Calistoga (Route 128/Route 29 split near Woodleaf)
In May 2011, the CTC approved relinquishment of right of way in the city of St. Helena along Route 29, between Charter Oak Avenue and 0.1 mile west of Pratt Avenue, consisting of non-motorized transportation facilities, namely sidewalks. (approx 29 NAP 28.316)
Route 29 Channelization Project (~ NAP 25.507 to NAP 28.316)
It was also reported in June 2015 that Caltrans
launched a project to improve safety and shorten travel times in St Helena and
Napa County. This project will widen two-lane Route 29 between Mee Lane in Napa
County (approx 29 NAP 25.507) and Charter Oak Avenue (approx 29 NAP 28.316) in
St. Helena. Caltrans and its project partners, including the Napa County
Transportation and Planning Agency, Napa County, the city of St. Helena and the
Napa Valley Wine Train, broke ground on the project in early June 2015, expect
to complete it by early 2017. The road is used by about 22,000 drivers a day.
$19 million from the State Highway Operations and Protection Program is paying
for a major portion of the improvements. San Rafael-based construction
contractor Ghilotti Brothers is doing the work.
(Source: KRON, 6/10/2015)
In June 2016, it was reported that Caltrans and its
local stakeholders were continuing construction of the Route 29 Channelization
Project near St. Helena. This work included roadway excavation and storm drain
installation between Dowdell Lane and Charter Oak Avenue in the southbound
shoulder, as well as sidewalk and curb and gutter construction between
Inglewood Avenue and Charter Oak Avenue in the southbound shoulder; and
Infiltration trench construction in the southbound shoulder, with locations to
(Source: Napa Valley Register, 6/20/2016)
In September 2016, it was reported that local
dignitaries and Caltrans representatives gathered for a ceremonial ribbon
cutting celebrating improvements to Route 29. The project included a new center
turn lane to make left turns safer, wider shoulders, new railroad crossings,
new underground utility lines to replace unsightly power poles, a long-planned
traffic signal at Grayson Avenue, and safety improvements for cyclists. The
work took place along three miles at the southern entrance to St. Helena, from
Mee Lane to Charter Oak Avenue. The Route 29 Channelization Project was funded
by $16.7 million in federal money set aside for state highway improvements. The
project had been in the works since 1983, and a portion south of Rutherford was
completed in 1998. However, the northern stretch was delayed by right-of-way
issues that took years of negotiations to resolve. One of the most important
components of the project was putting utility lines underground. Pacific Gas
& Electric poles on the east side of Route 29 were replaced with
underground lines on the west side of the road.
(Source: Napa Valley Register, 9/1/2016)
In the December 2017 Caltrans Mile Marker, it was reported that, as part of the Napa State Route 12 Channelization Project, improvements were made to the railroad crossing at Route 29 and Whitehall Lane (~ NAP 26.143), and the bikeway realigned so that bicyclists cross the railroad tracks in a safer direction. Caltrans also incorporated green pavement marking, striping, raised medians or islands, markers and signs.
In May 2015, the CTC approved for future consideration of funding a project in Napa County that will replace the existing Napa River Bridge (Bridge 21-0018, 29 NAP 37.03, dating back to 1919, widened in 1952) in the City of Calistoga. The project is programmed in the 2014 State Highway Operation and Protection Program. The estimated cost is $15,918,000 for capital and support. Construction is estimated to begin in Fiscal Year 2015-16. The scope, as described for the preferred alternative, is consistent with the project scope programmed by the Commission in the 2014 State Highway Operation and Protection Program.
Garnett Creek Bridge (NAP 39.08)
In September 2012, it was reported that plans to
replace the decaying Garnett Creek Bridge (Bridge 21-0005, 29 NAP 39.08) on
Route 29 are on hold in the face of budget constraints and opposition from
Calistoga residents. The bridge, between Calistoga city limits and Tubbs Lane,
was built in 1902 and is one of a dwindling number of examples of stone arch
bridges built in Napa County in that period. It is a well-known landmark and is
on the National Register of Historic Places. Caltrans caused a stir in late
2011 when it published a preliminary study that suggested that the bridge
should be replaced. The agency said the bridge would either need to be
demolished to make way for a new one or else preserved by rerouting the highway
about 80 feet downstream to a new span. Either option would be controversial.
Preservationists don’t want to see the historic structure demolished, but
nearby landowners and agriculture groups don’t want to see the state
converting any of Napa Valley’s iconic vineyards into new roadways.
Caltrans noted that the bridge is close to the bottom of the scale in terms of
safety and structural integrity. On the 9-point scale the agency uses, a new
bridge in perfect condition would rate a 9, while a bridge that scored a 1
would be judged to be an immediate threat to public safety and would be closed.
The Garnett Creek Bridge now rates a 3, largely because the stream has been
steadily eroding the pillars and foundation, and heavy modern trucks are
causing cracking. The bridge is also dangerously narrow by modern standards:
just 19 feet wide, too narrow to safely accommodate two full-sized trucks at
highway speeds. Trucks account for about 9 percent of the 4,000 vehicles that
use the bridge daily, an unusually heavy concentration of big vehicles that is
putting enormous strain on the structure. The option of rerouting Route 29 up
Foothill Boulevard (Route 128) and across Tubbs Lane is not impossible, but
would require expensive upgrades to Tubbs Lane before the state could accept it
as a new highway route.
(Source: Weekly Calistogan, 9/29/2012)
Calistoga through Middletown (Route 175 Junction)
According to Robert Cruickshank, above Calistoga, Route 29 becomes a very winding road. The Calistoga Grade (approx 29 NAP 39.905) appears to have been cut quite a while ago, with a number of switchbacks up to the summit. This lasts for somewhere between 10 and 15 miles. Once you cross into Lake County the roadway straightens out as it descends into some of the area valleys.
Troutdale Creed Bridge (NAP 46.47)
In October 2013, the CTC considered for future consideration of funding a project in Napa County that will replace the existing Troutdale Creek Bridge (Bridges 21-0099 at 29 NAP 46.47, which dates to 1923, widened in 1986), on Route 29 near the city of Calistoga. The project is programmed in the 2012 State Highway Operation and Protection Program. The total estimated cost is $21,475,000 for capital and support. Construction is estimated to begin in Fiscal Year 2014-15. The scope, as described for the preferred alternative, is consistent with the project scope programmed by the Commission in the 2012 State Highway Operation and Protection Program.
In November 2015, it was reported that Caltrans has
completed construction of the new Route 29-Troutdale Creek Bridge (Bridge
21-0113 at 29 NAP 47.20) one year ahead of its late 2016 schedule. The bridge
is in northwest Napa County between Calistoga and Middletown. Caltrans started
construction of the new Troutdale Creek Bridge in May 2015. The new bridge has
wider northbound and southbound approaches. The existing bridge was replaced
because of years of wear at its base from the Troutdale Creek. The new
approaches have been realigned to improve sightlines for motorists, according
to a Caltrans press release.
(Source: Napa Valley Register, 11/24/2015)
In October 2013, the CTC relinquished right of way in the county of Lake on Route 29 in the unincorporated Town of Middletown at Wardlaw Street (approx 29 LAK 5.974), consisting of superseded highway right of way.
In January 2018, the CTC received an information report on a SHOPP project
on 01-Lak-29 9.6/10.3. Near Middletown, from Putah Lane to 0.3 mile north of
Spruce Road. Outcome/Output: Construct roundabout to reduce the number and
severity of traffic collisions. Funding was allocated 12/14/2017, and the
report was an increase in the construction engineering allocation to
(Source: CTC Agenda, Item 5.f(3), Jan/Feb 2018)
In June 2011, the CTC approved $6.1 million to repave stretches of Route 29 and Route 53 in Lake County. The Route 29 work will go from just south of the junction with Route 53 (approx 29 LAK 20.29) in Lower Lake to just north of it. For Route 53, the work will go from Route 29 to just north of 40th Avenue in Clearlake.
Kelseyville/Lower Lake Expressway (~ LAK 20.37 to LAK R35.466)
As of February 2000, the Route 20 corridor is a hot spot. Mendocino, Lake, and Colusa Counties have all agreed that they would like to see four lane road all along the corridor, which is considered a rural principal arterial. In Lake County, rather than upgrading Route 20 along the North shore of the lake, the principal arterials will be Route 29 and Route 53 along the South side of the lake. Project Study Reports in progress for the following:
The SAFETEA-LU act, enacted in August 2005 as the reauthorization of TEA-21, provided the following expenditures on or near this route: High Priority Project #3803: Expansion of Kelseyville/Lower Lake Expressway in Lake County. $5,000,000.
The upgrading of the route near Kelseyville was the subject of a draft EIR at the November 2007 CTC meeting. The basic issue is how to adjust the centerline of the widened route.
In 2007, the CTC considered a request for funding from the Corridor Mobility Improvement Account (CMIA), which was not recommended for funding. This request was to construct an expressway from Diener Dr. (LAK 23.676) to Route 175 near Lakeport (LAK 30.964).
On AAroads, it was noted that the freeway bypass of
Lakeport was more to provide a section of improved Route 29 between Lower Lake
and Route 20 to serve as a through commercial route to bypass the section of
Route 20 that follows the north shore of Clear Lake. That segment of Route 20
would be difficult and impractical to expand because of both physical
limitations (it's on a narrow ledge wedged in between the lake and the mountain
along much of that stretch). Using Route 29 along the south shore and the
previously enhanced Route 53 to return to Route 20 provides an alternative
that's not significantly longer than Route 20 itself -- and is much more
conducive to capacity enlargement -- hence the 4-laning project under
discussion. There may note be any feasible way to effectively increase capacity
on Route 29 from Calistoga to at least Middletown because of the topology
around Mt. St. Helens.
(Source: Sparker at AAroads, 7/4/2016)
In May 2016, it was reported that CalTrans is
planning to widen a section of Route 29 to four lanes. The proposal presented
at a public meeting in early June discussed a widening that would extend eight
miles, the Kit’s Corner intersection in Kelseyville all the way to Diener
Drive in Lower Lake. There is some concern the project would infringe upon
wetlands areas. It will also require new right-of-ways. It was reported that an
environmental impact report had been drafted and was available for public
review. If approved, the project is planned to begin construction in summer
(Record Bee Community News, 5/31/2016)
In January 2017, the CTC approved adoption of a portion of Route 29 as a freeway to be able to construct an expressway project in the State highway system. This project will reconfigure a portion of the existing two-lane conventional highway to a four-lane divided expressway with access control. The project will improve east-west connectivity, relieve congestion, reduce delays and improve safety for interregional traffic on Route 29. A final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment and De Minimis Section 4(f) were prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and the National Environmental Policy Act on November 23, 2016, and a project report was prepared by the Department and approved on November 30, 2016. In August 2016, the CTC approved $459K for right of way acquisition and $5,646K in construction for various locations along Route 29 near Lower Lake to widen the route for truck lanes and shoulders. Route 29 from the community of Lower Lake to 3.5 miles north of Route 175, near Kelseyville, was adopted as a State Highway by Resolution of the California Highway Commission (CHC) in July 1956 and November 1959. The segment north of this location was adopted as a freeway by CHC on July 24, 1956. From Lower Lake to Kelseyville, Route 29 is primarily a mix of open space scenic corridor with some low to moderate density residential land use. Property adjacent to the project is primarily zoned as Rural Lands and Agriculture under the Lake County General Plan and it traverses rolling to semi-mountainous terrain. Within the project limits, Route 29 is a traversable two-lane conventional highway with narrow shoulders, generally only two-feet wide. There are many at-grade intersections and road approaches within the project limits. The majority of the project length is currently barrier striped, which restricts passing. Consequently, there are long queues of cars following slowermoving vehicles or trucks, creating congestion and unstable traffic flow. The lack of passing opportunities is expected to create greater congestion and increase delays as traffic volumes increase. This project proposes to convert an eight-mile segment of two-lane conventional highway between the communities of Lower Lake and Kelseyville, to a four-lane expressway with access control. The alignment generally follows the existing highway corridor. The design improves the horizontal and vertical alignment, adds lanes to create safer passing opportunities, widens the shoulders, and provides a 46-foot wide median. Safety benefits include increases to sight distances, enhancement of recovery areas, separation from opposing traffic, and minimization of exposure to fixed objects. Additionally, many existing at-grade road approaches to Route 29 will be consolidated and portions of the realigned existing highway will be used as frontage roads. These frontage roads will eventually be relinquished to Lake County. The proposed four-lane expressway will significantly improve overall safety to motorists and provide a modern four-lane facility that meets current design standards. In 1988, the Department approved two Project Study Reports (PSR) to upgrade this facility in two segments. Both PSRs recommended proceeding with an expressway alternative. In 1999, a supplemental PSR was prepared to study additional improvements and alternatives. Stakeholder meetings were held with the Federal Highway Administration, where it was agreed that the two Route 29 improvement projects would be combined for environmental study purposes and include the study of a freeway alternative. In 2001, after two years of studies on various highway, expressway, and freeway alternatives on varying alignments with differing median widths, the freeway alternatives were eliminated from further study due to funding constraints, as construction cost for a four-lane freeway was estimated to be nearly twice the cost of the expressway alternatives. In 2002, the two projects were officially combined in the 2002 STIP, the project description and post miles were updated, and environmental studies for the combined segments were initiated. In March 2003 the NEPA/404 process was initiated. Due to funding constraints, the project will be constructed in two phases. It is proposed to first construct the three-mile segment of four-lane expressway beginning approximately 0.6 mile north of the Route 281/Route 29 intersection. As funding becomes available, the remaining portion of the project will be programmed and constructed. The total cost for construction of the first phase is estimated at $76.3 million. SHOPP funding is from the Highway Safety Improvement Program, and STIP funding is by the Regional Improvement Program, the Interregional Improvement Program, and by Demonstration Funds from Transportation Equity Act-21 and Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users. Shortly after the Commission’s approval of the Route 29 freeway route adoption, the Department will approve the denomination of Route 29 freeway as a controlled access highway, within the project limits. The Department will then execute a Controlled Access Highway Agreement (CAHA) with the County of Lake following the Commission’s approval of this route adoption. Portions of the existing Route 29 alignment serving as frontage roads for the new alignment will be relinquished to the County of Lake after construction completion.
The approval for future consideration of funding noted: This project in Lake County will widen the existing two-lane highway to a four-lane divided highway with access control. The project will begin near Diener Drive and end just west of the Route 29/Route 175 Intersection. The project is programmed in the 2016 State Highway Operation Program for $46,200,000 in capital and support. In addition, the project is programmed in the 2016 State Transportation Improvement Program for $70,527,000 for capital and support. Construction is estimated to begin in Fiscal Year 2018-19. The scope, as described for the preferred alternative, is consistent with the project scope programmed by the Commission in the 2016 State Highway Operation and Protection Program and the 2016 State Transportation Improvement Program.
The 2018 STIP, approved at the CTC March 2018 meeting, appears to increase the funding for PPNO 3100 (Widen to 4 lanes, Rt 281-Rt 175, Seg 2C) [LAK 28.5/31.6] from $14,767K to $15,087K, which appears to be construction in FY18-19. This segment is described as "In Lake County near Kelseyville from 0.6 mile north of the Junction of Route 29/Route 281 to 0.6 mile north of the Junction of Route 29/Route 175. Construct Segment 2-C, an approximately 3.1 mile portion of the 8-mile long, 4-lane Expressway Project. It also provided $900K for PS&E for PPNO 3122, Segment 2A, and $118K for PS&E for PPNO 3121, Segment 2B. Segment 2B also gets $792K in Advance Project Development Element (APDE) funds. The project report notes: The project would likely be constructed in phases (segments) as full funding sources have not been identified. The recommended sequence of construction will be to construct the 8.0 miles in three segments, proceeding from west to east. It is proposed to first construct the segment from approximately PM 28.5 to 31.6, then the segment from PM 26.1 to 29.1, and lastly the segment from PM 23.6 to 26.9. These segments are referred to herein as Segments 2C, 2B and 2A, respectively.
Lakeport (Route 175) to Upper Lake (Route 20)
There is a movement afoot to name ports of Route 29 after Robert Mondavi. The Napa News reported in December 2004 that the plan is to put the legendary 91-year-old vintner's name on Highway 29 through Napa County (~ NAP 0.000 to NAP 48.557). Sen. Wes Chesbro is sounding out local cities and wine industry groups to find out if they would support dedicating this wine highway to the Napa Valley's most famous winemaker. The Napa County Board of Supervisors has unanimously supported the idea, has have elected city leaders serving on the Napa County Transportation Planning Agency, as long as the wine industry goes along.
The portion of this route in Lake County that is between the Napa county line and Route 175 (~ NAP 0.0 to LAK 5.749) is named the "Earle W. Wrieden Memorial Highway". Earle W. Wrieden was born in Middletown, California on February 8, 1910, and, except for one year in Berkeley, lived most of his life in Middletown. He was appointed to the Lake County Board of Supervisors in 1949, where he served for 24 years and where he was instrumental in many changes, advances, and improvements for the people of Middletown, Lake County, and northern California. He was heavily involved in water issues in Lake County, especially relating to Cache Creek and Putah Creek. However, his prime interest was in roads, including securing funds for the construction and maintenance of county roads and facilitating the adoption of highly traveled county roads into the state highway system. Named by Senate Concurrent Resolution 18; Resolution Chapter 80, 7/1/2001.
The interchange of Route 29 and Trancas Road in Napa County (~NAP 13.051) is named the John Castro Memorial Interchange. It was named in memory of John Castro, a life-long resident of the City of Martinez. John Castro contributed to the City of Martinez in many ways, including raising cattle and goats, farming corn and hay, and by helping the less fortunate people. He served two duties in Vietnam, returning home to work serving the public by constructing bridges. In particular, he helped many individual's commute time by working on Route 4 improvements between the City of Martinez and the City of Hercules. He also worked on the Route 29/Trancas Road Project in Napa County in order to tunnel the highway under the wine train in order to avoid traffic delays. It was while completing the overcrossing and railroad transferring on July 3, 2003, that a fatal accident took the life of John Castro at the age of 54. Named by Senate Concurrent Resolution 68, July 16, 2004, Chapter 119.
The portion of Route 29 from NAP 37.9 to NAP 39.5 in Napa County is named the "Robert Louis Stevenson's Historic Trail to Silverado. " This segment was named to commemorate the history of "Silverado". In the 1850s, volunteers built the Old Bull Trail from what is today the City of Calistoga over Mount St. Helena in Napa County to what is today Middletown in Lake County. Due to grades exceeding 35% along the Old Bull Trail, which prevented wagon travel, the Legislature, in 1866, authorized John Lawley to construct a private toll road to replace most of the Old Bull Trail starting approximately 1.5 miles north of the City of Calistoga. The toll road over Mount St. Helena was completed in 1868 with grades of just 12%. This toll road is still in use today as a public road and is known both as the "Old Toll Road" and as "Lawley Road". In 1872, John Lawley, along with William Montgomery and William Patterson, founded the Monitor Ledge Mine on Mount St. Helena just off the Old Toll Road and later renamed that mine and the surrounding community "Silverado". During one point in its short three-year life, the mining town of Silverado housed over 1,000 people. Many more people came and went during that time in search of fortunes, every one of whom traveled the toll road and the 1.5 mile remnant of the Old Bull Trail that connected that toll road to Calistoga and to the rest of the Napa Valley. In the summer of 1880, a young author, running low on cash, and his new bride left their honeymoon suite in the resort town of Calistoga to become squatters in the mining town of Silverado, which had been abandoned five years earlier. One hundred twenty-five years ago, Robert Louis Stevenson's The Silverado Squatters, a travelogue detailing the young author's trip to Napa Valley, was published for the first time. In The Silverado Squatters, the best-selling author of Treasure Island and Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde introduced the world to the beauty of the Napa Valley and the quality of its wine, famously describing it as "bottled poetry". In a chapter of The Silverado Squatters entitled "Starry Drive," Robert Louis Stevenson recounted the brilliant night sky above the 1.5 mile remnant of the Old Bull Trail as he rambled back to his honeymoon perch one summer evening. Few roads have ever been described so vividly. In 1921, a local farm bureau successfully petitioned the County of Napa to name a series of rough roads and trails running along the eastern spine of the Napa Valley, known collectively as the "Old Back Road," the Silverado Trail after the mining town Robert Louis Stevenson made famous. Although that collection of roads running along Napa Valley's eastern spine ended at Tubbs Lane just north of the Old Toll Road, the County of Napa ended the newly named Silverado Trail 1.5 miles short of the Old Toll Road because the county was making arrangements to turn that 1.5 mile stretch of road over to the state to incorporate it into a new modern highway to be built by Lake County. As a result of Napa County's decision to incorporate this stretch of historic road into a modern highway, the history of this pioneer pathway, Robert Louis Stevenson's "Starry Drive" and the last leg of the trail to Silverado, has been lost until now. That stretch of road predates John Lawley's Old Toll Road, was originally built by California pioneers in the 1850s, shortly after California's statehood, as part of the Old Bull Trail, and is now memorialized by a historical marker in Middletown, Lake County. That stretch of road also predates the City of Calistoga, which was formed in 1867, and Lake County, which was carved out of Napa County in 1861. Named by Senate Concurrent Resolution (SCR) 37, Resolution Chapter 93, on 8/20/2010.
Portions of this are "Lower Lake" Road. (~ LAK 20.349 to LAK 31.034)
Bridge 21-0049, at the Napa River in Napa county (NAP R006.99), is named the "George F. Butler Memorial Bridge". It was built in 1977, and was named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution 23, Chapter 48, in 1991. George F. Butler was a CHP officer who was killed in the line of duty at the age of 52. He was flying as an observer in a CHP helicopter that was taking aerial photographs of a double traffic fatality on Interstate 80 near Dixon. After finishing the photographs, the helicopter then set down a short distance from the accident scene in an open field adjacent to an irrigation canal. Butler exited the left side of the aircraft and proceeded to walk up the edge of the canal’s raised berm when he was struck by the helicopter's main rotor and hurled into the empty irrigation canal. The 21-year veteran of the CHP was killed instantly.
Bridge No. 21-0047 on Route 29 at the City of Yountville (NAP 019.04) is officially designated the "Veterans' Home Memorial Bridge". It was built in 1959, and was named by Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 30, Chapter 127, in 1994. It was named after the Veterans Home of California in Yountville CA, which is a community of and for veterans located in the heart of scenic Napa Valley. The home provides residential accommodations and a wealth of recreational, social and therapeutic activities for independent living; plus the added security of five levels of nursing and medical care. Some 1,200 Veterans (both men and women) live at the Home. Veterans desiring to be considered for membership must be residents of California, age 62 or older (or younger if disabled), and have served honorably.
Bridge 14-0016, the St. Helena Bridge (LAK 006.31), is the "Robert H. "Bob" Weatherwax Memorial. Robert H. "Bob" Weatherwax (d. 1996), a lifelong supporter of the Middletown Unified School District in Lake County, donated land for the treatment plant now used by the Callayomi Water District. It was named by Senate Concurrent Resolution 34, Chapter 71 in1997.
The bridge located on Route 29 six miles north of Middletown, is named the "Frank and Elly Hartmann Bridge" (Bridge 14-0014, over Putah Creek, LAK 009.74). Named in honor of Frank and Elly Hartmann, who were pioneers in Middletown and the Coyote Valley area. They established and operated the Hartmann Ranch and many significant contributions to Middletown and the Coyote Valley area. Named by Senate Concurrent Resolution 45, Chapter 52, May 5, 2004.
The following segments are designated as Classified Landscaped Freeway:
|County||Route||Starting PM||Ending PM|
According to an article in April 2017, the portion of Route 29
through American Canyon near I-80 was part of the "Lincoln Highway". The
somewhat tangled tale of how Napa County belatedly secured a section of the
Lincoln Highway has its roots a century ago with a bespectacled man in Indiana
named Carl Fisher. Fisher owned the Prest-O-Lite headlight company and helped
establish the Indianapolis Motor Speedway. In 1912, he and other auto
enthusiasts plotted a transcontinental route from New York’s Times Square
to San Francisco’s Lincoln Park. This original, Napa-less coast-to-coast
route for the most part stitched together existing roads. A 1916 Lincoln
Highway guidebook said motorists should be able to make an enjoyable
cross-country trip in 20 to 30 days, as long as rain didn’t bog them down
on the unpaved sections. The westernmost section of the original Lincoln
Highway went from Sacramento to San Francisco by way of Stockton and the
Altamont Pass to avoid water barriers (i.e., former US 50). But in 1916, the
completion of the Yolo Causeway west of Sacramento removed one of those
barriers. Napans began hoping a more direct route might pass through the city
of Napa, where tourists would stop and spend money. By 1923, efforts to create
an alternate Lincoln Highway route focused on Vallejo, taking the city of Napa
out of the picture. That alternative route became a reality after the Carquinez
Bridge was completed in 1927 to take motorists over the Carquinez Strait. This
alternative Lincoln Highway segment extends west from Sacramento using the same
route as long-gone US 40. It goes through Davis, Vacaville and Fairfield, and
then through Jameson Canyon on today’s Route 12, where it enters south
Napa County. Until a few years ago, most of this Jameson Canyon section was two
lanes and narrow and still had the ambiance of the old Lincoln Highway. Safety
and traffic congestion concerns led to the road being widened to a four lanes
in 2014. From Jameson Canyon, the Lincoln Highway heads south along what is now
Route 29 past the county industrial center and city of American Canyon. Then,
at American Canyon Road, it swings up to Broadway Street and heads past
today’s Veterans Memorial Park to enter Vallejo and Solano County. Some
in the Lincoln Highway Associate dispute that the alternate Lincoln Highway
route through Yolo, Solano and Napa counties is legitimate. But Kinst said Gail
Hoag, an official with the Lincoln Highway Association, in 1928 authorized Boy
Scouts to erect markers along it. Napa County’s moment of Lincoln Highway
sun soon faded, for all practical purposes. The state in 1933 began building a
new US 40 route that went through the hills between Fairfield and Vallejo,
creating a much more direct route than the local Lincoln Highway. That route
became today’s I-80.
(Source: Napa Valley Register, 4/1/2017)
[SHC 253.3] From Route 80 near Vallejo to Oak Knoll Avenue north of the City of Napa; and from the Napa-Lake county line to Route 20. The portion from Route 121 to north of Napa and from Route 175 to north of Lakeport is constructed to freeway standards.
As for the timing of the additions to the F&E system, the 1959 statutes used the older route numbers, so it is harder to follow given a route as disjointed as this. It is clear that the 1959 Chapter 1062 defined the portion between Vallejo and Route 221 S of Napa, and the portion from Napa to Upper Lake as part of the F&E system. By 1963, all of the original definition of Route 29 was considered Freeway and Expressway. Chapter 998 in 1971 deleted the segment from Oak Knoll Avenue to the Napa-Lake County Line from the Freeway and Expressway system.
On 7/18/1974, the freeway routing between Yountville and Calistoga was rescinced, per CHC Resolution HRU 74.3:
WHEREAS, the California Highway Commission, by resolutions dated September 20, 1955, September 27, 1960 and July 22, 1953 established a freeway location on State Highway Route 29 in Napa County from 1 mile south of Yountville to Calistoga and;
WHEREAS, the Legislature at its 1971 Session deleted from the California Freeway and Expressway System the unconstructed portion of Route 29 from 1 mile north of' Yountville to 3 miles south of Calistoga; now, therefore
BE IT RESOLVED, that the California Highway Commission declares that the presently maintained location between 1 mile north of Yountville and 3 miles south of Calistoga shall be the only established location for Route 29; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Department of Transportation is directed and authorized to dispose of rights of way previously acquired for freeway purposes on said segment of Route 29 from 1 mile north of Yountville to 3 miles south of Calistoga.
In 1984, a new freeway bypass was created in Napa, and with the changes involved with the redefinition of Route 121 and Route 221, the portion from Route 221 S of Napa to Route 121 in Napa was added (Chapter 409).
[SHC 164.11] Entire route.
Overall statistics for Route 29:
The route that would become LRN 29 was originally defined in the 1909 First Bond Act running from Red Bluff to Susanville. In 1919, the Third Bond Act extended the route from Susanville to the Nevada State Line. In 1933, it was extended further, from [LRN 35] to [LRN 3] near Red Bluff. It was codified in the 1935 state highway code as:
This was primary state highway from Red Bluff to Susanville.
This definition remained until the 1964 signed/legislative route alignment. Signage was as follows:
From Red Bluff to the Nevada line via Susanville.
This was signed as Route 36 between Red Bluff and Susanville.
No current routing. At one point, portions of the former routing were signed as Route 30, but upon the connection of Route 210 from San Dimas to Route 215, the Route 30 portion was finally renumbered as Route 210.
In 1972, the portion from the junction with former Route 106 to Route 18 was renumbered as Route 330, and what remained of former Route 106, from the Route 106/Route 30 junction to I-10 became part of Route 30, changing the definition to "Route 210 near San Dimas via the vicinity of Highland to Route 10 near Redlands.".
In 1998, AB 2388 renumbered this route as Route 210. With the completion of the freeway segment, the signage was changed from Route 30 to Route 210, although it is still state shields. Interstate shielding requires AASHTO approval. Until connection of the original I-210 portion to I-215, there were places where the route still appears to be signed as Route 30 (as of December 2009, in Claremont and Upland along Baseline Ave and on 19th Street in Rancho Cucamonga), as well as the freeway portion in San Bernardino.
Note that a big numbering switch also occured in 1964. Prior to 1964, Route 18 ran N from San Bernardino. At Running Springs, it joined with Route 30 (now Route 330) up from Highland, and continued cosigned Route 18/Route 30 to the W end of Big Bear Lake. At this point, Route 30 ran along the S edge of the lake, and Route 18 ran along the N end. When the new definitions went into place, Route 18 was rerouted to the S side of Big Bear Lake (replacing what had been signed as Route 30). The cosigning that existed between the W end of Big Bear Lake and the Route 30 (now Route 330)/Route 18 junction was eliminated, and the route was just signed as Route 18. The old Route 18 routing on the N side of the lake was signed as Route 38.
Route 30 started life as LRN 190, defined in 1933. The initial set of state signed routes in 1934 did not include Route 30. Route 30 was first signed on the 1952 state highway map running between Los Angeles and the Big Bear resort. By 1953, Route 30 was being signed between San Dimas and Redlands, Route 30, located in San Bernardino County, followed Highland Avenue and City Creek Road, with a temporary western terminus as of 1953 in Upland at the junction of Euclid Avenue and Foothill Boulevard (US 66). The eastern end of Route 30 is at Running Springs on Route 18 west of Big Bear Lake. At the time, it was noted that eventually Route 30 would follow Highland Avenue all the way from its western terminus near Glendora, in Los Angeles County. That designation was pending until the portion of Highland Avenue between Glendora and Upland had been improved.
The former portion of Route 30 that was later re-numbered as Route 330 was signed as Route 30, and was LRN 207 (defined in 1937). CHPW noted that since the improvement of City Creek Road around 1950, more and more cars from the Los Angeles area were using the Route 30 (Route 330) route as an alternate way of getting to Lake Arrowhead and Big Bear Lake.
The routing from I-210 near San Dimas to I-10 in Redlands was submitted for inclusion in the interstate system in 1968, but not accepted. See I-210 for a history of submissions of this segment as part of Route 210.
The designation I-30 was proposed in December 1957 for what is now I-40; this was rejected by AASHTO.
Cameron Kaiser reports that as of May 2009, most of the Business Route 30 signs on Highland in San Bernardino are still up, even amidst recent street work (including a set of new red light cameras at Waterman and Highland).
[Note: Route 30 postmiles were renumbered into Route 210 postmiles when the highway was renumbered. This should be nominal change for SBD postmiles, as they both started from 0 at the same point. For LA postmiles, 030 LA 0.0 should be ~ 210 LA 43.904)
In August 2005, the CTC considered relinquishment of the Route 30 right of way in the City of Upland, along the old alignment of State Route 30, from the westerly city limits to 0.25 mile east of the westerly city limits, consisting of superseded highway right of way. (~ 210 SBD 0.0 to SBD 3.935)
The non-freeway routing is unsigned on 19th Street from Mountain Avenue to Haven Ave (~ 210 SBD 1.502 to SBD 6.913). in Upland and Rancho Cucamonga.
According to one correspondant, within the city of Upland (~ 210 SBD 2.698), all Route 30 shields have come down. There remain, however, shields for Route 30 in Rancho Cucamonga, Fontana, and Claremont and La Verne (although recently the freeway entrance shields for the ramps at Lone Hill and San Dimas Avenues have been changed from Route 30 to Route 210).
In November 2000, the California Transportation Commission had two Route 30 projects on its agenda (yes, as Route 30, not Route 210!). One was a $17.5 million request from SANBAG (San Bernardino Associated Governments) for Route 30 from Cucamonga Canyon Wash to Hermosa Avenue (~ current 210 SBD 3.387 to 210 SBD 6.407) for a 6-lane freeway and two HOV lanes (with $7.44 million to be requested later, and $21.007 million from other sources. The $17.5 million is $2.008M state, $15.492M Federal). The second proejct was segment 4 from Hermosa Ave to Milliken Avenue (~ 210 SBD 6.407 to 210 SBD 7.909). This is also 6-lanes plus 2 HOV. The cost for this is $10.166M ($1.167M state, $8.999M Federal), with $10.7M from other sources.
A 5½-mile stretch of the new freeway, from Rancho Cucamonga to Fontana, opened in July 2001. The new stretch extends from Day Creek Boulevard in Rancho Cucamonga to Sierra Avenue in Fontana (~ 210 SBD 9.17 to 210 SBD 14.945). The eight lane thoroughfare, including two carpool lanes, is expected to handle between 115,000 and 120,000 vehicles each day. According to Don Hagstrom in May 2002, Route 210 (former Route 30) is open from Day Creek Bl. to Sierra Ave. The portion from Foothill Bl. in La Verne (connecting to the current open portion once known as Route 30) to Sierra opened on November 24, 2002, and will be numbered as Route 210. The rest of the freeway into Rialto and San Bernardino, connecting with the stub portion west of I-215 will be complete by 2007.
In June 2002, the CTC had on its agenda the relinquishment of 08-Sbd-30-PM 9.6/9.9 and PM 9.4/9.9 in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. This is likely original routings bypassed by the new freeway. In November 2002, they considered relinquishing 08-SBD-30-PM 0.0/4.0 in the City of Upland,a portion bypassed by the new Route 210.
In April 2003, the CTC considered relinquishment of quite a few segments of what was presumably the old routing: 08-SBd-15, 30-PM 9.2/9.4 Routes 15, 30 in the City of Rancho Cucamonga; 08-SBd-30-PM 9.4/9.6 Route 30 in the City of Rancho Cucamonga; 08-SBd-30-PM 12.7/15.0 Route 30 in the City of Fontana; 08-SBd-30, 210-PM 4.0/9.4 Routes 30, 210 in the City of Rancho Cucamonga; and 08-SBd-30, 210-PM 9.2/12.6 Routes 30, 210 in the City of Fontana.
Current planning maps show Route 30 continuing from the terminus of Route 210 and Route 30 to San Bernardino, using Highland Ave. As of about 1996, a section of freeway existed from Route 215 to approximately 5 miles east to Highland Ave (currently 210 SBD 11.716 to 210 SBD 13.854), in San Bernardino. This will be renumbered as Route 210 once the currently existing Route 210 portion is completed to I-215.
It appears that as of 2018, Highland Ave from Juniper Ave (210U SBD 15.537), continuing along Renaissance Parkway and Easton St and Highland St to California Ave (210U SBD 21.769) is in the database as unrelinquished Route 210, meaning former Route 30.
As of December 2008, field reports confirmed that Route 30 is now completely resigned as Route 210 on all overhead signs and trailblazers, as well as on approaching routes. In some cases, a Route 210 shield was pasted over an Route 30 shield on the overhead signs, but in many cases, an entirely new sign panel was put up. About half of the postmila bridge ID signs at the overcrossings and undercrossings have been changed from SBD-30 to SBD-210. The postmile markers that showed the route as Route 30. There appears to be one exception, on the short Route 259 connector that links NB I-215 with eastbound Route 210. There is one interchange on that route at Highland Avenue. The shield on the freeway entrance sign at Highland for NB Route 259 (which defaults into EB Route 210) is still an Route 30 shield, rather than Route 210, and the sign designating it as the business route for Route 18 and Route 30 is still there approaching the Highland offramp.
In June 2011, the CTC authorized relinquishment of right of way in the city of Highland along Route 30 on Victoria Street, consisting of collateral facilities (~ SBD 11.92).
The following segments are designated as Classified Landscaped Freeway:
|County||Route||Starting PM||Ending PM|
Overall statistics for Route 30, before renumbering as Route 210:
The segment of this route from Route 210 to Route 10 is named the "Foothill" Freeway (although it is not all constructed to freeway standards). It was officially named by Senate Concurrent Resolution 29, Chapter 128, in 1991.
Bridge 54-0592 on I-10, the I-10/Route 30 interchange in San Bernardino county, is designated the "Chresten Knudsen Interchange". It was built in 1962, and was named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution 21, Chapter 47, in 1991.
The portion above was part of the "National Old Trails
The portion above was part of the "New Santa Fe Trail".
The portion above also appears to have been part of the "National Park to Park Highway", and the "Pikes Peak Ocean to Ocean Highway".
HOV lanes are under construction or planned as follows:
[SHC 253.1] Entire route; the portions from Route 210 to Route 66 and from Route 215 to Route 10 are constructed to freeway standards. Added to the Freeway and Expressway system in 1959; references were corrected to Route 210 in 1999.
The routing that was to be LRN 30 was defined in the 1909 First Bond Issue as running from Oroville to Quincy. This was likely the Oroville-Quincy Highway. In the 1919 Third Bond Issue, the route was abandoned as a state highway and LRN 21 extended to cover the mileage to Quincy.
In 1959, Chapter 2089 added a new definition for LRN 30, running from LRN 31 near Devore to LRN 26 near Millikan Avenue. This was a duplication with part of LRN 193. This is the routing of the present-day I-15, and for a time was signed as part of Route 31 (Temporary I-15).
No Current Routing.
Some significant history of this route is discussed under I-15. The following is an excerpt:
Sparker on AAroads provided an even more detailed history in a post on 7/12/2016:
It all started with the I-15 extension south to San Diego, part of the 1968 1500-mile Interstate expansion legislation. Originally, the concept was to take I-15 directly south from the original I-10 junction at Colton, continue south on the ridge betwen Reche Canyon and Pigeon Pass, and then descend the mountain near the present east junction of Route 60 and I-215, and then segue onto what was then US 395 south past March AFB and on to San Diego. That concept didn't last long -- just as long as it took to do a detailed survey of the proposed route -- the mountains in that area are basically a pile of unstable compressed sandstone "rocks"; a construction nightmare. A more "flatland" approach was explored to the west, diverging from US 395 between Grand Terrace and Highgrove (both between Colton and Riverside), heading south east of Iowa Avenue, then following the Santa Fe rail line along the base of the mountains -- directly behind UC Riverside -- and merging with Route 60/US 395 (now Route 60/I-215) just north of the present route split in Moreno Valley. You can guess how that went over with the UC Riverside community -- it would have wiped out a whole nest of apartments serving as student housing -- not to mention being across the street from the Chancellor's official residence! By the end of 1969, that option was also kaput.
Early in 1970 District 8 planners came up with an alternate that solved more than a few issues -- the proposed Route 31 freeway, extending north from Corona through eastern Ontario before turning northeast along the base of the San Gabriel mountains to intersect I-15 at Devore, the point where the route started climbing Cajon Pass. Realigning I-15 over this route would cut about 23 miles off the Los Angeles-Las Vegas I-10/I-15 routing by eliminating the "backtracking" route via San Bernardino. And, lo and behold, the south end of the Route 31 freeway continued south of Corona as the Route 71 proposed freeway (actually, about 10 miles of it had been constructed circa 1967 between Corona and Lake Elsinore), which itself merged with US 395 at Murietta, just north of Temecula. While about ten miles longer than the existing I-15/US 395 route through Riverside and Perris, this reroute concept drew not only attention from the local press but also that in L.A. -- virtually all favorable to the idea. By mid-1970 the Division of Highways had decided to strongly pursue the Route 31 option. AASHTO (at that time, without the first "A") concurred, and the matter reached FHWA by the beginning of fall.
At first, FHWA raised an objection to the funding of the former Route 31 section from I-10 north to the existing I-15 at Devore because of the existence of the in-place I-15 through San Bernardino, which had been previously the receipient of chargeable Interstate funds. But a perusal of the records showed that the segment between I-10 and 5th Street in San Bernardino had commenced construction in early 1956 -- almost a year before Interstate funds were first disbursed; only the segment north of there was actually part of chargeable construction. Negotiations commenced, and an agreement was finally made near the end of 1970 whereby California would waive any rights to Interstate maintenance or reconstruction funds for the original I-15 segment between I-10 and Devore in exchange for full funding of the entire Route 31/Route 71 corridor as the realigned I-15. Once that agreement was finalized, the Division accelerated construction of the Devore freeway-to-freeway interchange, already in progress as part of the I-15 Cajon realignment, along with the first couple of miles of the new (then) Route 31 alignment, which opened by the spring of 1971 (this was pre-STIP days, when the Division could do such things without much in the way of outside interference).
However, as soon as the dust had settled on the reroute, the cities of San Bernardino and Riverside voiced concerns that this new routing, which completely bypassed their city centers, would have a negative effect on their development plans. Together, these cities had devised a plan whereby the new western route via Corona and Ontario would become I-15W, while US 395 would be renumbered I-15E, regardless of the actual non-Interstate status of the latter route -- but keeping an Interstate route through their midst. AASHTO quickly shot down the full E/W split, but reserved the notion of at least keeping US 395 through San Bernardino signed as an Interstate until the Ontario-Devore segment of the new alignment could be completed. And as this was several years prior to the decision to eliminate suffixed Interstate numbers, they approved the signage of the I-10 to Devore segment as I-15E (the Division had the entirety of US 395 from Murietta to Devore redesignated as an unsigned Route 194, a number previously decommissioned elsewhere). Initially, I-15E was intended to be a purely temporary designation -- but that it existed at all (signed as such in late 1972) placated the city of San Bernardino for the time being.
However, the city of Riverside did not hesitate to voice their objections to being left out of the Interstate network. They "lucked out", however due to inadvertently good timing: the Nixonian "block grant" legislation, passed in early 1973 prior to that administration's functional crippling in the wake of the Watergate scandal, introduced the concept of "chargeable/nonchargeable" Interstate delineation. Now the 15E concept could, with AASHTO/FHWA consent, be extended south along US 395, rejoining the new I-15 at Murietta, as a nonchargeable route. With a major push from the local Congressional delegation, this was done by the spring of 1974. I-15E was signed in place of US 395 as far south as the Route 60 split at Moreno Valley; the remainder of the route south to Murietta was signed, by mid-1975, as "Temporary I-15E" and south of the Route 71 merge at Murietta as "Temporary I-15". This configuration lasted for a few years until the decision to eliminate suffixes was made.
Renumbering of the completed and uncompleted
portions of I-15E was proposed circa 1979; Caltrans made one of their rare
appropriate renumbering decisions: to reinstate the number 215, which was an
urban surface-street connector in Pomona before it was deleted from the state
highway system in 1965. AASHTO and FHWA vetted the 15E to 215 change by 1981;
the renumbering in the field took place in 1982. Although some sections were
technically substandard, the route was by that time mostly full freeway; a
short segment between Sun City and Perris still featured a couple of at-grade
crossing roads, while the segment from Perris to Route 60 was still a divided
facility with numerous at-grade and/or signalized intersections [Ed: I remember
this segment from numerous trips to OERM in Perris]. The "temporary"
designation concept had been dropped by Caltrans at that point; the section
between the Murietta I-15 divergence and Route 60 was (IMO somewhat absurdly)
signed as "TO I-215" northbound, and as Route 215, complete with green shields,
southbound. This unwieldly situation persisted until the two sections featuring
cross traffic were upgraded to full freeway in 1995. The in-city Riverside
segment of I-215 featured one of the most underpowered Interstate "Turn Off To
Stay On" (TOTSO) interchanges (in both directions, including a 25mph loop
southbound) until 2004, when the southbound I-215 2-lane flyover was completed;
the northbound outside ramp still shrinks to a single lane before merging with
lanes continuing from the terminating Route 91. It's still a TOTSO -- but not
quite as obnoxious as before!
(Source: Sparker @ AAroads, "Re: Interstate 15E signage in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties?", 7/12/2016)
The route of 1964-1974 Route 31 was LRN 193, defined in 1933.
Route 31 was not defined as part of the original set of state signed routes. It is unclear what, if any, routing was signed as Route 31 before 1964.
The route that would become LRN 31 was first defined in the 1916 Second Bond Act as "an extension of the San Bernardino county state highway lateral to Barstow in San Bernardino County by the most direct and practical route..." (i.e., US 66 to Barstow). In 1925, the route was extended to Nevada by Chapter 369, which authorized and directed "the California highway commission to acquire necessary rights of way, and to construct and maintain a highway, which is hereby declared to be a state highway, extending from Barstow...to a point...on the boundary line between the state of California and the state of Nevada...which said highway is commonly known and referred to as the Arrowhead trail.". In 1933, the route was extended again with a segment from "[LRN 26] near Colton to [LRN 9] near San Bernardino via Mt. Vernon Ave".
In 1935, LRN 31 was codified into the state highway code as:
This was primary state highway from San Bernardino to the Nevada State Line.
In 1957, Chapter 1911 removed the branch on Mt. Vernon Avenue, which appears to have been signed as US 395/US 91. That segment was subsequently rerouted onto a new alignment (presumably the eventual I-15 alignment).
Signage on the route was as follows:
From Route 5 near Orland to Route 99 near Chico.
In 1934, Route 32 was signed along the route from Orland at Jct. US 99 to Jct. Route 36 near Deer Creek Meadows, via Chico. It was LRN 47 between US 99W (LRN 7; present-day I-5) and US 99E (LRN 3; present-day Route 99). This portion of LRN 47 was defined in 1919.
[Note: There is a brief section of L and R postmiles before GLE 0.0, which is at old 99W.]
In July 2008, the CTC relinquished right of way in the city of Orland between postmile L0.30 and the westerly right of way of the Southern Pacific Railroad (~ GLE L0.30 to GLE 0.049) consisting of superseded highway right of way, and relocated and reconstructed city streets, sidewalks, and landscape areas.
In July 2002, the CTC considered for funding and future adoption a realignment of Route 32 in the City of Orland. This new route adoption runs from 0.06 mi W of Eighth St to Sixth St (~ GLE R0.335 to GLE 0.0).
In March 2013, the CTC relinquished right of way in the city of Orland along Route 32 at 8th Street (~ GLE R0.395), consisting of collateral facilities inadvertently omitted from a previous relinquishment.
The following project was included in the final adopted 2018 SHOPP: PPNO 2114. 03-Butte-32 7.6/7.9. On Route 32, In Chico, from West Sacramento Avenue (East) to West Sacramento Avenue (West). Construct two roundabouts. Begin Con: 7/30/2020. Total Project Cost: $6,755K.
From Route 99 near Chico to Route 36.
In 1934, Route 32 was signed along the route from Orland at Jct. US 99 to Jct. Route 36 near Deer Creek Meadows, via Chico. Before 1964, this segment of Route 32 was LRN 47 between US 99W (LRN 3) and Route 36 (LRN 29). This portion of LRN 47 was defined in 1933.
In a discussion on AARoads in June 2017, it was noted that there appears to have been a major change in Route 32 from the original highway alignment northeast out of Chico. It would seem that originally Route 32 originally met US 99 East at Park Avenue but used Humboldt Avenue instead of 8th and 9th Street to exit the city. It also seems that Humboldt Avenue is the original alignment directly to the hill climb into the Sierras east of Chico. The original alignment can be seen on the 1935 Butte County Road Map. North to Forest Ranch there doesn't appear to be really any major realigments, whichis interesting considering much of modern Route 32 is 65 MPH, sussing much of the original road grade was used. There appears to be a minor older alignment on Toll Gate Way but really it is too small to pick up on any map. Really everything north of Forest Ranch to Route 36/Route 89 appears to be mostly on the original alignment of Route 32.
East Chico Widening (BUT 10.3/11.3)
In 2007, the CTC did not recommend using the Corridor Mobility Improvement Account (CMIA) to fund widening from Route 99 to Yosemite Dr. (~ BUT 10.24R to BUT 12.38). However, in May 2011, the CTC approved for future consideration of funding a project that will widen and improve approximately 2.6 miles of Route 32, beginning at Route 99 and extending past Yosemite Drive. The project will widen Route 32 from two to three lanes in each direction from the east side of the Route 99 interchange to just east of Fir Street. The roadway will then be widened from two to four lanes (two in each direction) from east of Fir Street to Yosemite Drive, where the roadway width will transition down from four lanes to the existing two lanes. The project will also modify the ramp terminal intersections and the couplet at the Route 99/Route 32 Interchange. The Route 32 intersections with Forest Avenue, El Monte Avenue and Bruce Road will be widened and the existing signals will be modified. The Route 32 intersections with Fir Street and Yosemite Drive will be widened and new signals will be installed. The project scope also includes open graded asphalt, shoulder, median, guardrail (timber barrier), landscaping, signal and bridge improvements as well as sound barrier installation along select rear yards of residential properties that abut Route 32. The proposed project will relieve traffic congestion, increase capacity, improve signal operations and enhance safety.
In May 2011, the CTC amended the CMIA baseline agreement for the Route 32 Widen Phase 1 project (PPNO 2107) in Butte County to remain within budget. This included revising the project limits from Post Mile 10.1 - 11.1 to Post Mile 10.3 - 11.3 to accommodate scope change. The purpose of this project is to add a lane in each direction on the section of Route 32 from the Route 32/ Route 99 intersection eastward approximately one mile to the Forest Avenue intersection, which will improve safety, relieve congestion and mitigate traffic queues at the Forest Avenue/Route 32 intersection. During the design phase, it was discovered that the limits of the project would need to be shifted to just east of the Forest Avenue intersection, in order to accommodate the roadway transition from four lanes back down to two lanes. Furthermore, it was discovered that the work to build these roadway design tapers for the transition from four to two lanes, impacts the nearby Dead Horse Slough Bridge, which will now need to be widened. The additional scope and costs related to the widening of Dead Horse Slough Bridge were not part of the original baseline agreement. In order to remain within budget, the project was changed to widen the Dead Horse Slough Bridge to accommodate roadway tapers at Forest Avenue, and to eliminate signal, roadway and widening work at the intersection of Route 32 and Route 99 as well as at Fir Street.
In August 2011, the CTC approved an allocation of $3.425 million to a project to widen to four lanes a stretch of Route 32 in east Chico. The city of Chico will be kicking in $3 million to the Route 32 work, which will stretch east from the park and ride lot at Route 99, to just past the Dead Horse Slough bridge east of Forest Avenue. The work will also extend down Forest to Humboldt Road, and will improve northbound left turns from Forest onto Route 32 by adding a second dedicated left turn lane. The work will include widening the Dead Horse Slough bridge to four lanes. The ultimate plan is to widen the highway to four lanes as far east as Yosemite Drive.
In April 2012, the CTC approved revising the project schedule. The Route 32 Widen Phase 1 project originally proposed to widen Route 32 from Route 99 (BUT 10.1) to east of Forest Avenue (BUT 11.1). The project is needed to improve traffic operations on a portion of Route 32 in an urbanized area of Chico feeding Route 99. The completed improvements will mitigate queues of traffic, relieve congestion, increase capacity, and improve safety. The project was programmed at the Commission’s May 2010 meeting to be funded with a combination of Corridor Mobility Improvement Account funding and local funding. A construction allocation was approved by the Commission at its August 2011 meeting; however a contract award has been delayed due to a recent court decision which affected the project funding. Specifically, the recent California Supreme Court decision that eliminated all re-development agencies and related funding impacted the City’s financial plan for the Route 32 Widen Phase 1 project. Additional time to award the contract wass needed for the City to revise its financial plan in which the City will re-allocate City development impact fees and gas tax revenues to the project. Once the revised financial plan has been approved by the City Council, the City Manager will be able to move forward with awarding the contract which was anticipated by June 30, 2012. Closeout is now estimated for May 2014.
In April 2018, it was reported that construction was starting on the Colby
Curves Realignment Project, on Route 32 in Tehama County (TEH 8.6 to TEH 9.3).
The goal of the realignment is to improve drainage and install new roadway
(Source: District 2 Tweet, 4/2/2018)
There is an historical plaque in Butte County commemorating the 14 Mile House (~ BUT R21.897). In June 1864, the Chico and Humboldt Wagon Road Company was incorporated, and John Bidwell and other Chicoans received the franchise to construct a road to connect the City of Chico with the Idaho Mines. Nick Spires built accommodations on that road at a site located on the rim of Little Chico Creek Canyon for travelers and their livestock. Paul Lucas bought the land from Nick Spires, and Paul Lucas' son, John Lucas, built a fine two-story hotel. The hotel, a slaughter house, and a hide house, which later served as a school for Chico Canyon children, were collectively referred to as 14 Mile House. Soon after the turn of the 19th century, the toll house that was adjacent to the road was moved four miles north, nearer to today's Forest Ranch, and the last remaining 14 Mile House building, the old barn, disappeared in the 1960's. In 2001, a historical plaque commemorating the 14 Mile House was authorized in the right-of-way of Route 32 in Butte County at a site that is located along Route 32, lying approximately 12.7 miles east of the junction of Route 32 and Route 99, at the site of the 14 Mile House. Authorized by Senate Concurrent Resolution 59, Chapter 101, 9/4/2001.
[SHC 253.1] Entire route. Added to the Freeway and Expressway system in 1959.
Overall statistics for Route 32:
The route that would become LRN 32 was originally defined in the 1915 Second Bond Act as "an extension connecting the San Joaquin valley trunk line at a point between the city of Merced in Merced County and the city of Madera in Madera County with the coast trunk line at or near the city of Gilroy in Santa Clara County, through Pacheco Pass, by the most direct and practical route." In 1933, it was extended from "Coast Road near Watsonville to [LRN 2] in Santa Clara Valley via Hecker Pass". Thus, by 1935, it was codified as:
In 1959, Chapter 1062 combined the segments and extended the routing to LRN 249, which was the proposed "Easterly" freeway, Route 65. This made the definition "LRN 56 near Watsonville to LRN 249 near Sharon via Hecker Pass and Pacheco Pass."
This is currently signed as Route 152. As with present-day Route 152, the portion of the routing E of US 99 (LRN 4; present-day Route 99) due E to the Fresno River, where it intersects unconstructed Route 65 (LRN 249) is unconstructed.
Return to State Highway Routes