This is a floating closed javascript menu.
Menu


State Shield

State Route 65

Click here for a key to the symbols used. An explanation of acronyms may be found at the bottom of the page.


Routing Routing

  1. Rte 65 Seg 1From Route 99 near Bakersfield to Route 198 near Exeter.

    Post 1964 Signage History Post 1964 Signage History

    This segment remains as defined in 1963.

    A planned bypass route for Route 65 around Ducor and Terra Bella first appears on the 1966 Division of Highways State Map. By 1967 the first Route 211 (a section of former Route 65) on Famoso-Porterville Highway was relinquished and what had been Route 211 on Graces Highway was consolidated into a realigned Route 155. The Ducor-Terra Bella bypass route of Route 65 is shown to be complete on the 1969 Division of Highways State Map. This was the last segment of the original Route 65 alignment between Famoso and Lindsay that was replaced by the current highway. This in effect removed Road 236 from State Highway service.
    (Source: Gribblenation Blog "Old California State Route 65 on; Famoso-Porterville Highway, Sign County Routes J35/J22/J29")

    Much of the original Route 65 became segments of the following Sign County Routes:
    (Source: Gribblenation Blog "Old California State Route 65 on; Famoso-Porterville Highway, Sign County Routes J35/J22/J29")

    • Famoso-Porterville Highway from Richgrove north to Avenue 56 in Ducor became County Sign Route J35 in 1975.
    • Avenue 56 from Famoso-Porterville Highway east to Road 236 in Ducor became part of County Sign Route J22 in 1968.
    • Road 236, Main Street, Orange Belt Drive, Mirage Avenue, and Hermosa Street became part of County Sign Route J29 in 1971.

    Pre 1964 Signage History Pre 1964 Signage History

    In 1929, Chapter 767 defined the route from “[LRN 4] near Bakersfield to Fresno-General Grant National Park Road” as a state highway (this later became LRN 129). The original southern terminus of LRN 129 met US 99/LRN 4 in Delano. By 1934 the southern terminus of LRN 129 was shifted to Famoso via Famoso-Porterville Highway where it terminated at US Route 99/LRN 4. In the August 1934 California Highways & Public Works ("CHPW") guide the Sign State Routes were announced. CA 65 was added to LRN 129 and terminated in Famoso at US 99/LRN 4.
    (Source: Gribblenation Blog "Former US Route 99,US Route 466, and California State Route 65 through Famoso")

    The route was designated as LRN 129 in 1933. In 1934, Route 65 was signed along the route from Jct. Route 99 at Famoso to General Grant National Park (now Kings Canyon National Park) via Porterville. This was part of LRN 129, and ran along was is nolw the Famoso-Porterville Highway and Richgrove Drive.

    The new Ducor Cut-Off alignment of Route 65/LRN 129 first appears in an article in the July 1940 CHPW Guide. The Ducor Cut-Off is cited as being planned to shift Route 65 near the oil farms north of Bakersfield and shorten the distance of travel to Ducor by 5 miles over the then existing route on Famoso-Porterville Highway. A portion of the Ducor Cut-Off is shown to have been completed by July 1940. The Ducor Cut-Off appears as completed on the 1948 Division of Highways State Map and Route 65/LRN 129 is shown shifted to it off of Famoso-Porterville Highway. The shift of Route 65/LRN 129 marked the end of State Highway service through the heart of Famoso.
    (Source: Gribblenation Blog "Former US Route 99,US Route 466, and California State Route 65 through Famoso")

    As noted above, by 1947, a new routing of LRN 129 was constructed to the E, running from near Oildale to General Grant National park via Porterville, and the Route 65 signage was moved to that routing. As of 1964, the original LRN 129 routing was to be signed Route 211, but that designation was changed in 1965 (although the Richgrove portion became County Sign Route J35).

    By 1957 Route 65/LRN 129 was moved onto a bypass of downtown Porterville which can be seen on the Division of Highways State Map from said year. This changed removed State Highway service from Main Street in Porterville.
    (Source: Gribblenation Blog "Old California State Route 65 on; Famoso-Porterville Highway, Sign County Routes J35/J22/J29")

    North of Route 198, the original routing for Route 65 ran along present day Route 245 to Route 180. This was all LRN 129, defined in 1933.

    The following portions of Route 65 were bypassed by freeway or expressway:

    • Orris, Terra Bella, Elmco north to Teapot Dome Avenue in Lois: Road 236 (Road 232 is the current Route 65 expressway)
    • Teapot Dome Avenue in Lois to Zante at Avenue 178, passing through downtown
    • Porterville: Main Street . This bypassed portion is now part of County Sign Route J29.
    • Avenue 178 in Sante north to Avenue 190 in Strathmore: Orange Belt Drive. This is now part of County Sign Route J29.
    • Avenue 190 in Strathmore north to Avenue 200 in Strathmore: Depot Drive. This is now part of County Sign Route J29.
    • Avenue 200 north to Avenue 216 in Stout: Orange Belt Drive. This is now part of County Sign Route J29.
    • Avenue 216 north to Valencia Street in Lindsay: Mirage Drive. This is now part of County Sign Route J29.
    • Through Lindsay, the routing is: Elmwood Avenue north to Tulare Road; west on Tulare Road to reconnect with Route 65 (which continues as Tulare Road west to the Route 137 junction at Cairns Corner.)

    In May 2016, an article in the Modesto Bee noted the original plans for the route. It pointed out that, driving north from Bakersfield on Route 99, a motorist soon encounters an off-ramp onto Highway 65, which runs up the east side of the Central Valley – but on to about 70 miles north of Bakersfield, near the farming town of Exeter. It notes that there is another segment .200-plus miles further to the north, 35 mile of Route 65 connecting Marysville, north of Sacramento, with Roseville. These were the hints of what was to be an Eastside Highway, a major north-south route – a twin, so to speak, of I-5. It’s also evidence of the slowdown, and then virtual halt, in major highway construction that took hold in the 1970s as California’s population growth slowed and as liberal opposition to public works merged with conservative dislike of new taxes. Projects were abandoned, sometimes with pieces of elevated highway left dangling. The paperwork of years, even decades, of complex and often heated local negotiations over routes was filed away.Land acquired for projects was abandoned or was sold off for other purposes. The northern section of Route 65 snuck in under the wire. Under intense political pressure, a young Gov. Jerry Brown authorized its expansion into an expressway to serve high-tech development. There’s some interest among San Joaquin Valley officials in rekindling the Route 65 project to relieve pressure on Route 99, though the source of potential construction money is, to say the least, problematic. However, Brown’s Department of Transportation has drafted a new state transportation plan that, in effect, says California should not add any more carrying capacity into its roadway system and emphasize mass transit instead.
    (Source: Modesto Bee, 5/6/2016)

    Status Status

    Route 99 to Porterville

    Widening to Porterville (TCRP Project #114, ~ KER 0.684 to TUL 17.926)

    TCRP 122There are currently plans to widen the segment from Route 65 from 7th Standard Road to Route 190 in Porterville (~ KER 0.684 to TUL 17.926). This is TCRP Project #122. This project is to convert Route 65 from an existing two-lane conventional highway to a four-lane expressway. Originally, this project was to be coordinated with TCRP Project #114 – Route 65 improvements in Kern County, with a single environmental document for the entire corridor. However, priorities have changed for both Kern and Tulare Counties. The scope of TCRP Project #122 is being revised to reflect only the Tulare County portion of the project (thus, project #122 is now from the Kern County line). The Kern County portion will be handled under TCRP Project #114.

    In June 2017, the CTC was informed that TCRP Project 114 is currently inactive. The project had a TCRP allocation of $376,000 for environmental and has a savings of $1,298,000 programmed for the Design phase that was never allocated. Kern COG fully supports the transfer of $1,298,000 TCRP savings to TCRP Project 113 - Route 46 Expressway, Segment 4A.

    Terra Bella Expressway - Segment 1 (~ TUL 15.164 to TUL 17.796)

    There are also plans to widen near Terra Bella. The August 2004 CTC agenda showed a notice to prepare an EIR to widen to four-lane expressway near Terra Bella. The Draft EIR was reported out in April 2005. Construction of Phase 1 is scheduled to begin in Fiscal Year 2007-08, with Phases 2 and 3 to be constructed as funding becomes available.

    In December 2011, the Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG) updated its Regional Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The TIP is submitted it to the California Department of Transportation and the California Transportation Commission by March 28 of each year in order for TIP's projects to be included in the state’s TIP funding. The update added a project to widen Route 65 between West Teapot Dome Avenue (Avenue 128) and Route 190, south of Porterville. Construction would start in 2015. The construction costs to widen the road from two to four lanes are estimated at $16.5 million, with $15 million coming from Measure R funds. A state contribution of $1.5 million would cover construction administration costs.

    In May 2016, the CTC adjusted the funding to 1,800,000 for Terra Bella Expressway - Segment 1. Near Porterville, on Route 65 from Avenue 120 to 0.3 mile south of Route 190 (~ TUL 15.164 to TUL 17.796). Widen from 2-lane conventional highway to 4-lane expressway.

    In May 2017, it was reported that work began in April 2017 on what is being called the Terra Bella Expressway. That multi-million dollar project will over many years transform Route 65 from the Kern-Tulare county line to Route 190 into a four-lane expressway. Currently, work is being done from just south of Tea Pot Dome Avenue to just south of Route 190 (~ TUL 15.164 to TUL 17.796). Called Segment 1, work on that should take more than 18 months at a cost of about $25 million. Planned for later on are segments 2, 3 and 4, which will eventually complete the project to Kern County. Segment 2 is not slated to begin until 2020 and will be from where the current work ends to Avenue 80 between Ducor and Terra Bella.
    (Source: Recorder Online, 5/8/2017)

    The 2020 STIP, adopted at the March 2020 CTC meeting, has programming of $3,370K for R/W closeout on PPNO 8650A Terra Bella Expressway - Segment 1 (CCA 6/19).
    (Source: March 2020 CTC Agenda, Item 4.7, 2020 STIP Adopted 3/25/2020)

    Porterville to Exeter

    A small segment, consisting of reconstructed and relocated county roads and frontage roads was up for relinquisment in February 2003, specifically the original routing from PM TUL 21.9 to TUL 29.8 in the County of Tulare (near Linda Vista in North Porterville).

    In May 2017, it was reported that work will finally begin on smoothing Route 65 between Porterville and Lindsay. Five years ago Caltrans did some work on that highway, but left it with deep groves which are tough on tires and difficult for small trailers or motorcycles. The contract for that project has been approved and work on a new pavement overlay all the way from Olive Avenue in Porterville to Carins Corner on Route 137 (~ TUL 19.066 to TUL 31.583) should begin in June. Estimated cost for that 11.5 miles of new pavement is $13.5 million. The pavement preservation project for Route 65 was awarded on April 18, 2017 and is currently on schedule to go into construction on June 1.
    (Source: Recorder Online, 5/8/2017)

    Route 65 Realignment - Lindsay to Exeter (~ TUL 29.469 to TUL 39.539)

    There are also plans to construct a new expressway in Lindsey.

    Tulare ExpresswayIn December 2012, the CTC reviewed a draft EIR regarding improvements on Route 65 and Route 245 in Tulare County to create the Tulare Expressway. The project will realign Route 65 and construct a two-lane expressway on a four-lane right of way for 9.3 miles from Hermosa Street in Lindsay to Avenue 300 on Route 245 northeast of Exeter (~ TUL 29.469 to TUL 39.539, 198 TUL R18.845 to TUL R19.74, 245 TUL 0.000 to 245 TUL 0.514). There would also be about 0.5 miles of improvements on Route 245 starting at Route 198. The project is not fully funded. The project is programmed in the 2012 State Transportation Improvement Program. The total estimated cost for capital and support is $102,711,000. Construction is estimated to begin in Fiscal Year 2018-19. In addition to the no-build alternatives, there are two alternatives being considered: Build Alternative 1 would parallel the east and west side of existing Spruce Avenue depending on location; Build Alternative 2 would project the west side of existing Spruce Avenue. The project is needed to provide a continuous expressway through the corridor. Existing Route 65 does not provide direct access to Route 245 for traffic wishing to continue NB. Currently NB traffic on Route 65 must turn E at the Route 65/Route 198 intersection, enter a left turn lane, and wait for a signal. Route 65 also passes through Exeter, resulting in traffic flow interruptions with local traffic and the use of Spruce Road (Road 204) as an alternative. This has increased the accident rate.

    In November 2016, it was reported that the CTC/Caltrans had “withdrawn from further consideration” its 2012 plan to realign Route 65 between Exeter and Lindsay. Project Manager Judy Aguilar-Luna said the project was being discontinued for a lack of funding through the State Transportation Improvement Program. Instead Aguilar-Luna said Caltrans will begin studying “essential improvements” along the route. She said these will most likely be smaller projects that can be completed one at a time, such as improving the intersection of Route 245 and Route 198 near Exeter or changes to the intersections of Hermosa Street and Oak Avenue along Route 65 in Lindsay. The decision to stop the project is good news for Lindsay businesses that front the current alignment of Route 65. Caltrans’ initial plan proposed realigning Route 65 more closely with Spruce Road (Road 204) and away from its current route along Road 196 (Kaweah204) and away from its current route along Road 196 (Kaweah Avenue through Exeter). As part of the realignment, the current highway would have become a frontage road and the new highway would have been moved farther west away from the City and businesses. The City of Lindsay became the first public agency to formally oppose the Route 65 plan when the City Council approved a letter at its July 9 meeting over concerns for its highway-adjacent businesses. In the letter, then City Planner Bill Zigler stated the “awkwardly configured frontage road” would provide little economic help to the businesses north of the intersection of Hermosa. The city countered the plan by proposing a Lindsay exit at Lindmore. The exit would have created a one-way northbound frontage road along the current highway where it splits into the new alignment and curves west away from the city. This would have allowed vehicles to access the affected businesses. North of Hermosa Street, the frontage road would became two lanes and connect to the Oak Avenue extension, which was already part of initial project. It would have also created new opportunities for the City to develop commercial property that would have faced the new highway. And because most of the land running along the west side of the current highway already falls within Lindsay’s urban develop boundaries, the new highway frontage would have been within the city’s sphere of influence. The city later withdrew its own proposal after Caltrans said it would have to condemn all of the properties (both homes and businesses such as the 76 Station) on the west side of the freeway because Freemont Drive would have created a dead-end road that exceeded the maximum length set by the State. Transforming the current highway into a one-way, northbound “Lindsay Exit” would have required making Fremont Drive a cul-de-sac at the southern end near Lindmore. There is no timetable to present the three-phase plan to make improvements along the route. Once completed, Caltrans will circulate a new draft environmental document for the replacement project. The draft document will be available for review at an open forum public hearing and public notice will provided for new comments.
    (Source: Foothills Sun-Gazette, 11/9/2016)

    The 2018 STIP, approved at the CTC March 2018 meeting, appears to adjust the allocation for PPNO 0104 Align Rd 204, Rt 65-Rt 198, 4 lanes, TUL 29.5/38.6. Near the city of Tulare, on Route 65 from Lindsay to Exeter, and on Road 204 from Route 137 to Route 198. Widen to 4 divided lanes and realign highway. The 2018 STIP changes the allocation from $3.150M to $5.650M.

    The 2020 STIP, approved at the March 2020 CTC meeting, continues the programming for PPNO 0104 Realignment & Operational Improvements: $5,650K in prior years. It also adds a new PPNO 0104A Realign & Op imprvmts (Oak St Roundabout), Phase 1, with programmed funding of $1,500K in FY23-24.
    (Source: March 2020 CTC Agenda, Item 4.7, 2020 STIP Adopted 3/25/2020)

    The December 2011 STIP also includes funding to begin design work in 2015 to widen Route 65 from two to four lanes from Route 137, west of Lindsay, north to Avenue 240 (~ TUL 31.583 to TUL 32.532). State transportation improvement funds would pay more than $1.55 million to cover design work on the 2.5-mile project. TCAG plans to seek funding to widen the entire 13.5-mile stretch of Route 65 between Route 137 and Route 198 (~ TUL 31.583 to TUL 39.536), north of Exeter.

    Naming Naming

    Unofficially, "Porterville Highway". Officially, this segment is named the "All America City Highway". This is because the City of Lindsay was awarded "All America City" status by the National Civic League, as have been Bakersfield and Porterville, and all three are linked by Route 65. Named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 47, Chapter 41, in 1996.

    The portion from Lindsey to Route 198 near Exeter is historically named the "Orange Belt Highway" (~ TUL 28.907 to TUL 39.536) .

    Detective Kent HawsThe portion of Route 65 between Route 137 and Route 198 in Tulare County (~ TUL 31.583 to TUL 39.536) is named the "Detective Kent Haws Memorial Highway". It was named in memory of Kent Haws, born on October 1, 1969, in Phoenix, Arizona. On May 28, 1993, Kent Haws entered the United States Army and became an Airborne Ranger Avenger crew member assigned to Alpha Battery 3rd Battalion 62nd Air Defense Artillery Unit, with training in forward area air defense, intelligence handling, and jungle warfare. He was stationed in Texas and New York, attained the rank of E4 as a corporal, and was deployed to Haiti. He was an expert marksman with rifle and grenade and a parachutist, and was awarded over 10 medals, commendations, and ribbons. Upon his honorable discharge from the United States Army on October 28, 1996, Kent Haws chose to serve his community by joining the Tulare County Sheriff's Department and working in various locations, including the Main Jail Detention Facility and the Porterville Substation, and in the capacities of East Porterville Community Based Officer, member of both the search and rescue team, and the Sheriffs' Tactical Enforcement Personnel Unit (STEP). Detective Haws had a passion for protecting others, and on December 17, 2007, while on his way home from serving search warrants, he observed a suspicious person in an orange grove near the town of Ivanhoe and attempted to make contact, at which time he was fired upon and suffered a fatal injury. He is remembered by his colleagues in the Tulare County Sheriff's Department as a "STEP-brother" who led by example, was not afraid to volunteer for the most difficult of duties, and was a humble leader who understood that true leadership is characterized by action, not position. Named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution (ACR) 147, Resolution Chapter 161, on 9/19/2008.
    (Image source: Porterville Recorder)


  2. Rte 65 Unconst Seg 2From Route 198 near Exeter to Route 80 near Roseville on a route along the easterly side of the San Joaquin Valley, which route may include all or portions of any existing state highway route.

    Post 1964 Signage History Post 1964 Signage History

    As defined in 1963, this segment was defined as "Route 198 near Exeter to Route 80 near Roseville on a route along the easterly side of the San Joaquín Valley to be selected by the California Highway Commission, which route may include all or portions of any existing state highway route or routes."

    Looks familiar, huh?

    In 1975, Chapter 244 split this segment and deleted a portion, making the routing "(b) Route 198 near Exeter to Route 104 on a route along the easterly side of the San Joaquín Valley, which route may include all or portions of any existing state highway route. (c) The Sacramento-Placer county line to Route 80 near Roseville."

    Why? According to Concrete Bob on AARoads: In November 1974, the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors voted 3-2 to reject the funding and construction of Route 65, Route 143 and Route 244. Construction on Route 143 and Route 244 was slated to begin in 1975. When Adriana Gianturco took over Caltrans in 1975, she worked with Caltrans and the Legislature to change the routes/abandon them. Sacramento County was very cooperative with Caltrans on selling off the rights of way for Route 65, Route 143 and Route 244, since they rescinded the plans for the freeways in November 1974. One of the County Supervisors who voted down the freeways had a developer brother-in-law who acquired much of the Route 143 right of way from Caltrans between Arden Way and American River Drive for a housing development. Twenty years after the plans for the freeways were yanked, the Sacramento Bee interviewed the County Supervisors who voted down the freeways. Two of the three supervisors who voted down the freeways regretted their decision.
    (Source: Concrete Bob on AARoads, 7/22/2019)

    The 1975 act also noted:

    “The department and State Transportation Board shall cooperate with the County of Sacramento and the Sacramento Regional Area Planning Commission in the transportation corridor study conducted by the county and the commission on the adopted route for Route 65. Such cooperation by the state shall be limited to furnishing existing data.

    The department shall not, prior to July 1, 1976, or such later date as adopted by the California Highway Commission, dispose of any real property acquired for the construction of Route 65 as a freeway from Route 50 to the Sacramento-Placer county line except for such real property which, as mutually agreed by the department and the county, is not required for any transportation purpose. If, at such a date, the transportation corridor study indicates the other real property is required for any transportation purpose, the department shall not dispose of the real property prior to January 1, 1977.”

    In 1985, Chapter 46 brought the definition nearly back to the 1963 routing: "(b) Route 198 near Exeter to Route 80 near Roseville on a route along the easterly side of the San Joaquín Valley, which route may include all or portions of any existing state highway route."

    The interchange of US 50 with Sunrise Blvd. is larger than normal, because Sunrise Blvd was, for a short time in the 1970s, designated as Route 65 south of US 50 in anticipation of the freeway routing. This route was relinquished in 1976. On one of the piers for the overcrossing, you can see where it used to call the structure "50/65 separation." The interchange was a cloverleaf until around 2001, when it was converted to a partial cloverleaf.

    Pre 1964 Signage History Pre 1964 Signage History

    Unconstructed The routing is not determined for the portion from Route 198 to Route 80. The portion from Route 198 to Route 80 was shown as proposed both in 1963 and 1986. It was LRN 249, defined in 1959. It appears to have been Mayhew Road and Gunn Road in the vicinity of Sacramento. Sunrise Blvd was also at one time planned to be part of Route 65. This was not part of the original definition of signed Route 65.

    This whole segment has existed as a "line on a map" since the first iteration of the master "California Freeway & Expressway System" was devised in 1959. There was never a formal adoption of alignment for any portion of this corridor except for a short time in the '70's east of Sacramento; even that was later rescinded. The only rumblings of anything being done to advance this corridor came in the early '90's, when eastward expanding housing in the Fresno/Clovis area prompted some locals to opine that an eastern bypass of the metro area partially using the Route 65 corridor would be appropriate to address traffic needs. This segment would have struck out northwest from the Route 65/Route 198 junction as previously planned, crossing Route 180 just east of Minkler and the San Joaquin River immediately downstream from Friant Dam. But the Fresno-initiated plans included intersecting Route 41 a few miles north of Route 145, and then turning west on another proposed alignment -- an eastern extension of Route 152, also a longstanding "dotted line" on the same statewide planning map. The whole thing was envisioned as a large arc around the eastern side of metro Fresno, providing more immediate egress from the expanding eastern suburbs. The concept got legs for a while, but was "back-burnered" by the later part of the decade. Housing in that area has yet to recover from the recession, so it appears that the corridor is pretty much shelved.
    (Source: Sparker at AAroads, 7/3/2016)

    There is no traversable local routing from Route 198 in Tulare County to the Madera-Merced county line touching Route 168. There are no construction plans.

    Note that Route 65 had a different routing in the same general area prior to the 1964 renumbering. That routing was renumbered in 1964 as Route 69, later renumbered again as Route 245.

    Freeway Freeway

    Rte 65 / Rte 244 Route Proposal in SacramentoIn December 1963, a proposed route adoption was published for a portion of this segment, between Route 16 and I-80. The Sacramento Bee wrote:
    (Source: Joel Windmiller, California's Historic Highways on FB, 6/2/2020)

    The state highway commission today announced its intention to adopt routes for proposed freeways in the Fair Oaks area. State Highway Engineer J C Womack was instructed by the commission to determine whether local authorities wish further public hearings on the routes. Previous public meetings developed great controversy among local residents regarding several routes being studied by the highway engineers. The routes that the highway commission has taken under consideration in some cases meet majority local approval and in others have opposition. The routes recommended by Womack for commission: North-south State Highway [Route 65 (LRN 249)] and new Route 244 known as the A alternate offered at the public hearings. This is a line that begins one half mile south of Grant Line Road, and runs north near the westerly boundaries of the Douglas Aircraft and Aerojet-General Corporation properties. It then crosses the American River about a mile upstream from Sunrise Boulevard and runs between Kenneth and Illinois Avenues and continues north to a junction with Rocky Ridge Road east of Roseville in Placer County. This is the direct line route which has received approval of most local agencies except the Fair Oaks Improvement Club. The club suggested routes further to the east. The highway engineers studied these but found them to be less acceptable from the stand-points of traffic service cost area.  Combined Route The route is: East-west State Highway LRN 288 (new Route 244) — a line combining parts of what was termed alternates 1 and 4 at previous public hearings beginning at Garfield Avenue near Cypress Avenue in Carmichael that will connect with a freeway routing between Lincoln and Fair Oaks Boulevar to property East of San Juan Ave, then to the American River a little west of Sunrise Boulevard and connecting with the recommended freeway through Fair Oaks. Engineer Womack said there is no intention to construct the freeways at the present time. He estimated it and new roads and bridges across the American River could be eight years away.

    Status Status

    Unconstructed Unconstructed between Route 198 and I-80. There is currently a corridor study in progress for the section between Route 198 and Route 152; see http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist6/ for details. There is no local traversable highway along this routing, and a general routing is not determined.

    According to the Fresno Bee, 2001-02-04:

    In a major indicator of the tremendous growth projected for California, the state Department of Transportation has begun considering a third north-south highway corridor through the San Joaquin Valley -- a route across the citrus groves and scenic pasture land near the Sierra foothills.

    Saying it must plan today for tomorrow's traffic in a state expected to reach a population of 49 million by 2025, Caltrans is studying the possibility of a 54-mile highway from Exeter in Tulare County to Route 152 in Madera County.

    The route would stretch existing Route 65, which runs from Bakersfield to Exeter, far to the north across five Sierra rivers and five state highways. It would pass near towns such as Sanger, Orange Cove, Clovis and Friant.

    [...]

    Caltrans' goal, however, would be to provide relief for the huge increases in traffic projected in years ahead on Highway 99. If the new Highway 65 comes to pass, the state will eventually buy thousands of acres of right-of-way for a route that could, in decades ahead, become a long-haul California freeway.

    [...]

    Presently, Caltrans is studying only the link from Tulare County to Madera County. Yet the long-range goal is to close a 220-mile gap from Exeter to Rocklin, along I-80 northeast of Sacramento.

    Caltrans planners say Highway 65 could begin as a two-lane route or a four-lane expressway, then expand to a foothill freeway. The vision, officials say, is similar to the long-distance I-5 corridor along the Valley's west side with interchanges every few miles.

    Rte 65 Foothill FreewayAccording to the Fresno Bee in early 2007, there were talks about resurrecting this freeway route. A state-funded master plan for the San Joaquin Valley includes a proposed north-south highway along the Sierra foothills. The so-called Foothill Freeway (the Route 65 extension linking Exeter to Chowchilla, which has existed only on paper since 1959) is being discussed by Fresno and Madera county planners as a way to ease congestion on Route 99, and to connect future growth hot spots such as southern Madera County's Rio Mesa area and Fresno County's Millerton New Town. Caltrans last produced a study six years ago but set it aside in the face of environmental opposition and mixed reactions from local government leaders. The proposal is "still officially inactive" but could be brought back if a consensus emerges from the current San Joaquin Valley Blueprint effort, in which planners and other leaders are trying to define a vision for the Valley at midcentury. Fresno city planners are proposing that Route 65 be part of a beltway incorporating some form of mass transit as well as highways; this loop would encircle Madera and the Fresno-Clovis metropolitan area, and would include land use policies to encourage high-density development on major transit corridors within the loop while preserving farmland elsewhere.

    The state's 1959 plan called for Route 65 to extend from its current end north of Exeter in Tulare County to Rocklin in Placer County, northeast of Sacramento. The route was supposed to run north to the east side of Sacramento and on through to I-80 in northeast Roseville. In the Sacramento area, the state brought up much of the right of way in the late 1960s and early 1970s. In November 1974, the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors killed Route 65 (and three other proposed freeways). In 1975, the California Legislature "buried" the plans for 65, but for some reason, resurrected the route in 1986. The 2001 study covered only the area between Exeter and Chowchilla, where the new highway would connect to an eastward extension of Route 152, with no route determination. The 2001 study focused on two wide and largely undeveloped corridors, one on each side of the Friant-Kern Canal near the base of the foothills. Costs at that time were estimated at $671 million or $763 million, depending on the corridor. If the route were revived, a new study would be required to determine an exact route; once approved, the counties and any cities along the route could alter their general plans to preserve needed right of way. However, this requires support of all of the region's local governments.

    Note that both the northern and southern ends of Route 65 are currently slated for upgrade. Millions were recently approved from bond funding to build a long-planned and awaited freeway/expressway bypass of Lincoln, CA just north of Roseville (see the next segment of the route for details). To the south, there is a proposal to upgrade Route 65 to a four lane expressway (a.k.a "Terra Bella" Expressway) in Tulare and Kern Counties (see above).

    Between 1970 and 1976 Sunrise Blvd. between Route 16 and US 50 was actually designated as Route 65; there were actually mileposts posted as such on the road, although no reassurance shields -- or any trailblazer signage on either of the intersecting highways -- was ever posted. The Sunrise/US 50 interchange was a full cloverleaf at the time; plans were to reconstruct Sunrise Blvd. as the intial 2 lanes of an eventual 4-lane upgradeable expressway. The Sacramento Board of Supervisors voted 3-2 to kill the Route 65, Route 143, and Route 244 freeways. This happened in November 1974. Rights of way were acquired for those freeways, and construction was supposed to begin on portions of Route 143 and Route 244 in 1975. There was a lot of NIMBY-type opposition to the freeways. About 20 years later, the Sacramento Bee published an article where two of the three supervisors who voted to suspend constuction admitted that they made a mistake with their vote. The other supervisor had a brother-in-law developer who bought up a big swath of the Route 143 right of way and built housing. Most of the mileposts on Route 65 were gone by mid-1977, but a few near the US 50 interchange (now a parclo) remained until the mid-80's. Reinstatement of that route was precluded by a redefinition of Route 65 as ending at Route 104 several miles to the south; there was a deliberate gap between Route 104 and the Placer County line. Over the years, both state and local officials have stymied attempts to plan -- much less deploy -- any eastern Sacramento bypass -- and developers certainly haven't helped, placing housing tracts or commercial facilities over most of the available land area. Such a bypass is effectively dead as of now.
    (Source: Sparker at AAroads, 8/30/2016; ConcreteBob at AAroads, 8/30/2016)

    Placer County has plans to connect Route 65 to Route 99 with a $200 million to $300 million roadway called Placer Parkway. There are plans for industrial areas on each end of the roadway. There are currently three possible routes that are being reviewed. The northern alternative follows West Sunset Boulevard, and a southern route is near Base Line Road. A third central route cuts through agricultural land between Sunset and Base Line. See Route 102 for more details.


  3. Rte 65 Seg 3From Route 80 near Roseville to Route 70 near Marysville.

    Post 1964 Signage History Post 1964 Signage History

    As defined in 1963, this segment ran from "Route 80 near Roseville to Route 70."

    In 1970, Chapter 1473 extended this segment to be "Route 80 near Roseville to Route 70 near Marysville" and added segment (d), "Route 70 near Marysville to Route 99 in or near Yuba City."

    Roseville Bypass

    On March 15 1967 the California Highway Commission selected adopted and determined the location of a section of Route 65 north of Roseville along the Roseville bypass alignment. The June 27 1980 motion passed by the California Transportation Commission CTC stated that modification of the State Transportation Improvement Program STIP to include the Roseville Bypass was contingent on several conditions including contribution through dedication of a significant portion of proposed Route 65 right of way.

    In 1984, plans were made for a bypass of Roseville that would move the route off of surface streets. Existing Route 65 at that time traversed the city streets through the heart of the Roseville business district The traffic on these city streets was very heavy and congested during normal peak hours producing serious operational and safety problems The city of Rocklin also experiences similar traffic problems along Sunset Boulevard and Taylor Road. This led to the conclusion that it was not practical to improve existing Route 65 through Roseville sufficiently to handle even the existing traffic effectively. There were four alternatives considered:
    (Source: Route 65 Roseville Bypass Final EIR)

    • Route 256 Westerly Bypass of Roseville . This route was rejected due to the extremely high cost of construction necessitated by the crossing of the Southern Pacific Transportation Company's railway classification yard together with classification yard operational problems. This route was rescinded by the California Highway Commission in 1976.
    • Upgrading of Existing Route 65 Through Roseville . This improvement was considered at one time as an interim improvement until a bypass route could be built. This would have been only a stop gap measure as it would not have provided the necessary traffic service for the anticipated growth. Because a portion of existing Route 65 traverses a narrow section of Riverside Avenue, it would have been necessary to utilize a one way couplet. This would have put heavy traffic onto at least one quiet established residential street. This was not considered feasible.
    • Improvement Of Existing Sunset Boulevard Consideration of this route, which is north east of the proposed location, was rejected due to the fact that the Sunset Boulevard route would not provide the traffic service needed to provide access to the industrial area. It would require construction of additional arterials and result in much circuity of travel. It also has severe limitations in capacity safety alignment grade and sight distance. The route would require major reconstruction with a high right of way cost requiring the acquisition of many residences. This is especially true in the area between Taylor Road and the connection at I-80. It would also create a major disruption of city streets and traffic patterns in the City of Rocklin.
    • No Project . Because of public pressure and support for the project, the no project alternative appears to be an unlikely long term option/ Should the project or a similar project not be implemented the long term consequences are anticipated to be primarily continued increases in local traffic congestion
    • Two lane Expressway . Rejected because, based upon the traffic growth projections, a two-lane facility would only be adequate for a period of two to three years. Further, the two lane expressway would only have two lanes for a short distance due to the absolute need for four lanes at the I-80/Route 65 separation and at the connection to Blue Oaks Boulevard. This would require several merges that would be less safe than continuous four lanes. As a result, this alternative would produce only small cost savings compared to the fourlane expressway.
    • Four lane Expressway This would be the initial stage of the preferred project's construction. This alternative was discarded as an ultimate facility because future traffic volumes will make at grade intersections undesirable.
    • Four lane Freeway . This is the preferred alternate and will be achieved when proposed interchanges are added to the initial Route 65 facility. Interchange construction will depend on the status of local street development.

    As a result, the bypass project consisted of approximately 3.7 miles of new highway to be constructed between I-80 northeast of the present Taylor Road Overcrossing and existing Route 65 near Blue Oaks Boulevard. This section of highway is planned to replace the present 5.2 miles of Route 65, which is presently routed through the downtown area of the City of Roseville. Also involved will be the modification of a section of I-80 from 0.6 mile west of Atlantic Street to 1.0 mile east of Taylor Road Overcrossing. Major revisions to the existing East Roseville and Taylor Road Overcrossings are also planned. The new Route 65 will connect to I-80 via a new interchange at a point nearly halfway between Roseville and Rocklin.

    Pre 1964 Signage History Pre 1964 Signage History

    This segment is signed Route 65, but before 1964, was signed US-99E (and may have been plain US 99 before US 99W was defined). For a while, Route 65 was cosigned with US 99E. Between Route 80 and Route 65, this originally followed the routing of 1964-1994 Route 256. Later, the Route 65 routing was moved to the NE. The route was LRN 3, defined in 1909, between Roseville and Marysville. Parts of this may have been US 40.

    Status Status

    Route 65/I-80 Interchange (~ PLA R5.32 to PLA R6.629)

    Roseville Interchange ImprovementsIn March 2013, the CTC received notice of the preparation of an EIR. This EIR is for a project that would add High Occupancy Vehicle lanes and high-speed connections at the I-80/Route 65 Interchange in Placer County. The project is not fully funded; however, the project is fully funded through the Project Approval and Environmental Document phase with federal and local funds. The total estimated cost is $340,000,000 for capital and support. Construction is estimated to begin in Fiscal Year 2019-20, depending on the availability of funds. There are five alternatives being considered: (1) Taylor Road Full Access Interchange (Diamond-Shaped); (2) Taylor Road Full Access Interchange (Trumpet-Shaped); (3) Taylor Road Interchange Eliminated; (4) Transportation System Management; and (5) No-Build (No-Project).

    In December 2016, the CTC approved for future consideration of funding project in Placer County that will construct improvements to the I-80/Route 65 Interchange in the cities of Roseville and Rocklin. The overall project will be constructed in four phases. Phase 1 of this project will construct a northbound auxiliary lane from Route 80 to Galleria Boulevard/Stanford Ranch Road and install a ramp meter on Route 65. Phase 1 is programmed in the 2016 State Highway Operation and Protection Program. The total programmed amount for Phase 1 is $26,650,000 for capital and support. Construction is estimated to begin in Fiscal Year 2017-18. The scope, as described in the Purpose and Need of the environmental document, is consistent with the project scope programmed by the Commission in the 2016 State Highway Operation and Protection Program. Phases 2 through 4 are not fully funded. The total estimated cost for the overall project is $348,000,000 for capital and support.

    In August 2017, the CTC approved $3,600,000 from the Budget Act of 2016, Budget Act Item 2660-304-6056 for the following locally administered Proposition 1B TCIF Program project: I-80/Route 65 Interchange Phase 1- Third Lane. In and near Roseville and Rocklin, from 0.4 mile north of Route 80 to 0.5 mile south of the Pleasant Grove Boulevard Overcrossing (~ PLA R5.32 to PLA R6.629). Construct third lane for 1.3 miles. (TCIF 126). The local agency was ready to proceed with this project, and is requesting an allocation at this time. The allocation is contingent upon the approval of a budget revision by the Department of Finance. Future Consideration of Funding approved under Resolution E-16-92; December 2016.

    In April 2018, construction was to begin on the Route 80/Route 65 interchange. The first phase will provide a third lane on northbound Route 65 from I-80 to Pleasant Grove Boulevard and improvements to the Galleria Boulevard/Stanford Ranch Road interchange. PCTPA and its partners garnered several funding sources to complete the $50 million first phase. The I-80 Bottleneck project through Roseville was completed in 2011 under budget, thus, PCTPA is able to use nearly $10 million dollars from that project savings. Other local funding sources include traffic mitigation fees assessed on local developments. The remaining $400 million cost will eventually add one lane to each of the four connectors between Route 65 and I-80. Future improvements also include maintaining the existing I-80 access at Taylor Road and eliminating the weaving movements on I-80 eastbound between Eureka Road and Route 65. However, in the first phase, the interchange will retain its present configuration as a trumpet with the heaviest movement around the loop rather than via the direct SB to EB ramp. The interchange design did not include a reversed connection to provide a higher-speed connection from I-80 east to Route 65 north. Apparently there was some concern about damage to the adjacent watershed immediately to the south of the interchange, so the plans were "massaged" to the present configuration to avoid impinging on the identified problematic area. Because of funding limitations, a directional interchange had not been considered, so the area required for the trumpet had not only needed to be shifted NE along I-80, but also "squeezed" into a tighter than usual profile so as not to impinge on an adjoining creekbed; this accounts for the low-speed loop from EB I-80 to NB Route 65. According to Caltrans sources, there's no near-term funded plans to effect basic changes to the present configuration except to expand capacity on Route 65 so that the proximity of the regional commercial center along that freeway to the north of the interchange doesn't result in additional backup issues around the loop. It does appear that in future phases, the interchange will become directional.
    (Sources: 80/65 Interchange Improvement Project Website, 4/2018; Sparkeron AAroads, 4/29/2018)

    In August 2016, the CTC approved for future consideration of funding a project on Route 65 (03-Pla-65, PM R5.4/R6.4) in Placer County that will modify the Route 65 northbound ramps at the Galleria Boulevard/Stanford Ranch Road interchange and reconfigure lanes along Galleria Boulevard/Stanford Ranch Road in the cities of Roseville and Rocklin. The project is programmed in the 2016 State Highway Operation and Protection Program. The total programmed amount is $21,700,000 for capital and support. Construction is estimated to begin 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.

    SR 65 Widening Project (03-Pla-65, PM 6.5/12.8)

    In April 2016, it was reported that a small segment of Route 65 between I-80 and Lincoln Blvd was being repaved. The article also noted PCTPA's SR 65 Widening Project, which proposes improvements to relieve congestion, improve operations, and enhance safety to the freeway from north of Galleria Boulevard/Stanford Ranch Road to Lincoln Boulevard. These improvements include widening the highway from 2 to 5 lanes in each direction with mixed-flow lanes and auxiliary lanes between interchanges to ease the flow of traffic. Currently this project is not funded and PCTPA, the County of Placer and the cities of Roseville, Rocklin and Lincoln are exploring strategies to fund this and other critical transportation projects.
    (Source: Rocklin and Roseville Today,4/11/2016)

    In May 2018, the CTC approved for future consideration of funding the following project for which a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been completed: Route 65 in Placer County. Widen a portion of Route 65 in the cities of Roseville, Rocklin, and Lincoln. (EA 1F170) (03-Pla-65, PM 6.5/12.8). This project is located on Route 65 in the cities of Roseville, Rocklin and Lincoln in Placer County. The project proposes to widen the existing freeway from north of Galleria Boulevard/Stanford Ranch Road to Lincoln Boulevard. Carpool/HOV lanes are also proposed in the project. The project proposes to relieve traffic operation and safety issues as well as existing mainline congestion by adding additional capacity. Additional capacity will also accommodate future growth predictions along this corridor. The proposed project is currently programmed to cost an estimated $59.3 million and anticipates funding from the South Placer Regional Transportation Authority. The project will be built in various phases depending on available funding. Construction is estimated to begin in FY 2019-20.
    (Source: CTC Agenda, May 2018 Agenda Item 2.2c(1))

    In August 2016, the CTC authorized relinquishment of right of way in the city of Roseville (City) along Route 65 at Blue Oaks Boulevard (03-Pla-65-PM M8.2), consisting of collateral facilities. The City, by relinquishment agreement dated July 12, 2016, agreed to waive the 90-day notice requirement and accept title upon relinquishment by the State.

    The following projects were also planned for this segment:

    • Upgrading Route 65 to expressway between Roseville and Lincoln. This includes a new interchange serving the Twelve Bridges community east of Lincoln (~ PLA R11.889).

    Lincoln Bypass (~ PLA R12.853 to PLA L23.938)

    The following projects were also planned for this segment:

    • Lincoln/Sheridan Bypass. This would be a four-lane freeway around the city of Lincoln, in Placer County, from south of Industrial Blvd. to north of Riosa Rd., (~ PLA R12.853 to PLA L23.866) with the goal of alleviating congestion within the city of Lincoln and to provide for interregional movement of goods.

    With respect to the Lincoln Bypass, the CTC reviewed in July 2006 the NEIR and had a proposed route adoption. Route 65 is as a major north-south highway along the east side of the Sacramento Valley. It was included as part of the State Highway System under authorization of the State Highway Act of 1909, and was made part of the California Freeway and Expressway system in 1959. The original construction from Roseville to Lincoln, then designated as LRN 3, took place between 1912 and 1914 and was adopted as a freeway by the California Highway Commission on May 20, 1964. Route 65 connects the urbanized areas of Sacramento and Roseville with the cities of Lincoln, Wheatland, Marysville and Yuba City. Route 65 begins in Roseville at I-80 extending to the junction of Route 70 in Yuba County. Legislation was passed in 1985 extending the legislative description of the route to Route 99 in Yuba City. Since the 1964 freeway adoption, there have been considerable changes in land uses along the existing alignment from Roseville through Lincoln. Once primarily agricultural in nature, the past thirty years has seen a shift to industrial, residential, and commercial land uses within the corridor. The city of Lincoln, recognizing the considerable changes in land use along this corridor, requested the Commission consider approving a modification to the current adopted alignment on March 24, 1987. This project is one of several transportation projects responding to the growth in the area. Continued growth in south Placer County and the Sacramento Valley has resulted in the need for a new and improved Route 65 corridor, which would alleviate congestion in the city of Lincoln while providing for improved inter-regional traffic flow. The existing facility as of 2006 through Lincoln is a “Main Street” highway, which will not serve the ultimate transportation needs of the region. As traffic volumes continued to increase, Route 65 within downtown and south of the city of Lincoln has exceeded available capacity. The existing road between the city of Lincoln and town of Sheridan is a two-lane conventional highway. Right of way in this vicinity is typically 100-110 feet (30.5 to 33.5 meters) wide. Between the city of Lincoln and the town of Sheridan, there are two passing opportunity locations; each approximately 1.5 miles (2.4 kilometers). Curves and left-turn channelization along this section of highway limit passing opportunities. From the town of Sheridan north, the route continues as a two-lane conventional highway, passing through the town of Wheatland, slowing down traffic to 35 mph. Three miles north of the town of Wheatland, the highway becomes a four-lane freeway and terminates at the Route 99 in Yuba City.

    Rte 65 Lincoln BypassCaltrans prepared a Project Study Report for the Lincoln bypass in July 1987 that analyzed 16 alternatives. The Draft Project Report was approved on November 5, 2002, and analyzed a no build alternative and six viable alternatives. On May 17, 2006, the Project Report was approved recommending the preferred alternative as depicted on the attached route adoption map. This project will allow for the identification and preservation of a new corridor for the eventual staged construction of a four-lane freeway with interchanges at selected locations and the ultimate relinquishment of a portion of the existing Route 65 to the city of Lincoln and Placer County. The project begins near the junction of Industrial Avenue and Route 65 just south of the city of Lincoln (~ PLA R12.853) and extends to the Bear River, just north of the town of Sheridan (~ PLA L23.938). The Lincoln Bypass project will provide a substantial benefit in accommodating regional traffic and helping to relieve congestion and improve safety on existing Route 65 through the city of Lincoln. Without the bypass, future traffic congestion will create gridlock conditions within and surrounding the city of Lincoln. The bypass will accommodate projected traffic volumes through the year 2025. The Lincoln Bypass project consists of a four-lane freeway and two-lane expressway and includes right-of-way acquisition for an ultimate freeway. This project will include four lanes from just south of Industrial Avenue to just north of North Ingram Slough. From north of North Ingram Slough, the project will include two lanes up to the northern tie-in with existing Route 65 near the town of Sheridan. Industrial Avenue will be a partial interchange and the proposed Ferrari Ranch Road will be an undercrossing. At-grade intersections will be constructed at Nelson Lane, Wise Road and Riosa Road. This project has an overcrossing structure at Nicolaus Road and an overcrossing at UPRR/Industrial Avenue. As funding becomes available, the ultimate facility will include extending the four-lane configuration northward from North Ingram Slough to the town of Sheridan. The project is currently programmed for $262,334,000 for support and capital costs in the 2006 State Transportation Improvement Plan. The Department and local partners are financing this project jointly. Advisory and Mandatory Design Exceptions were approved on September 6, 2002. The Department approved the Project Report on May 17, 2006. An Environmental Impact Report and Environmental Impact Statement was completed in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The adoption of the Lincoln Bypass will create a break in system continuity for Route 193. There are discussions with the city of Lincoln for the “legislative relinquishment” of Route 193 within its’ jurisdiction. [See AB 2733, 2005-2006] To maintain system continuity, the legislation proposes that the city of Lincoln install and maintain signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 193 to the east and Route 65 and I-80 to the west. The city of Lincoln is required to apply for approval of a Business Route designation for that portion of the relinquished highway. The city of Lincoln has also agreed to install and maintain signs for the traveling public when Ferrari Ranch Road is designated as the main arterial route between Route 65 and the continuation of Route 193. The relinquishment cooperative agreement will convey the same continuity message. A Freeway Agreement will be developed and executed with the city of Lincoln and the county of Placer after Commission approval of the route adoption.

    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 #1408: Construction of an interchange located at the intersection of future Route 65 and Ferrari Ranch Road-Westwood in Placer County. $2,400,000. (~ PLA R13.385)

    In 2007, the CTC recommended $73.715M in funding from the Corridor Mobility Improvement Account (CMIA) for the Lincoln Bypass.

    In July 2008, the $325 million Route 65 bypass in Lincoln broke ground. Scheduled for completion in 2013, the nearly 12-mile roadway will stretch from Industrial Boulevard west around the city of Lincoln and link back to Route 65 near Sheridan. The intent is to divert commuters and big rigs away from Lincoln's downtown area, where traffic comes to a standstill during morning and evening rush hours. Placer County officials adopted the idea of a bypass in the 1973 general plan, and by 1988 growth in the region prompted the state to allocate the first dollars for the project. But the funds were diverted to pay for seismic retrofit projects after the Loma Prieta earthquake hit the Bay Area in 1989 and again when the Northridge quake struck Los Angeles in 1994. It wasn't until the late 1990s that local officials renewed efforts to build the bypass. Back then, the estimated cost was $50 million. The project also had to endure a lengthy environmental review since the new roadway cuts through farmland and sensitive wildlife habitat.

    In August 2009, the CTC approved an amendment to the CMIA baseline agreement for the Route 65 Lincoln Bypass project to extend the four-lane portion of the project by 1.5 miles. The Department will negotiate with the contractor to execute a contract change order (CCO) that creates minimal risk to the completion of the contract within the existing contract allotment and schedule. The ultimate scope of the Lincoln Bypass project will consist of a four-lane expressway on a new alignment from south of Lincoln at Industrial Boulevard to near Riosa Road, north of Lincoln. Due to rapid escalation of the construction cost estimate, the project was staged to initially construct a four-lane facility for approximately four miles at the southern end of the project and a two-lane facility for the remaining eight miles. The funding approved in the CMIA baseline agreement was assumed to be sufficient for this initial stage. The project has been in construction since 2008 and is approximately 20 percent complete as of July 2009. The majority of the right of way work is complete and other significant risks have not materialized. The current supplemental funds and contingency balance is $18 million. This is about $5.5 million more than needed to complete the contract which can be used to fund the additional work. Even with the added work, the project will still maintain the standard 5 percent contingency balance. The contractor has indicated a willingness to perform the additional work at the unit prices of the original contract. Completing this work under CCO now can be accomplished at a much lower cost as compared to a separate contract awarded at a later date.

    In June 2010, it was reported that Caltrans is well into building an 11-mile highway to the west of Lincoln that will bypass downtown Lincoln. Opening day is slated for sometime in 2012, and could knock G Street traffic from 31,000 vehicles a day down to 18,000. When the bypass opens, the state will decommission the old highway and turn ownership of G Street over to Lincoln.

    In June 2011, it was reported that some traffic shifts were occuring to prepare for connection to the new Lincoln Bypass.

    Lincoln Bypass Phase IIAIn September 2011, the CTC received a request to amend the CMIA baseline agreement for the Lincoln Bypass project - Phase 1 (PPNO 0145M) to add scope to included the Lincoln Bypass - Phase 2A (PPNO 4895) project, which extends the four-lane expressway from Nelson Lane to West Wise Road, and to update the funding plan and delivery schedule. At the June 2011 meeting, the Commission approved Resolution CMIA-P-1011-07, which added an additional $20,000,000 in CMIA funding for new scope, now referred to as the Lincoln Bypass project -Phase 2A (PPNO 4895); which will extend the four-lane expressway from Nelson Lane to West Wise Road. The funding for Phase 2A includes $2,999,000 in local funds.

    In Spring 2012, Caltrans put the Lincoln Bypass project out for bid, looking for a contractor to construct southbound lanes in Placer County near Lincoln from 2.6 miles north of Twelve Bridges overcrossing to 5.1 miles south of the Bear River Bridge.

    In September 2012, the CTC revised the project description to construct two additional southbound lanes from Nelson Lane to 0.9 miles north of West Wise Road. They also updated the project funding plan to add $100,000 of local funds to address an increase to the design phase, and redistributed $500,000 to construction support to address unaccounted workload and other costs.

    In October 2012, it was reported that the Lincoln Bypass Phase I project was completed and opened. The $325 million, 11-mile, Route 65 bypass, looping west of Lincoln in Placer County, gives commuters a quicker ride from Yuba City and Marysville to I-80, and clears up the congestion in downtown Lincoln.

    In May 2014, the CTC authorized relinquishment of right of way in the city of Lincoln on Route 65 (Lincoln Boulevard) between realigned Route 65 (Lincoln Bypass) and the northerly city limits, consisting of superseded highway right of way. The City, by cooperative agreement dated February 14, 2008, waived the 90-day notice requirement and agreed to accept title upon relinquishment by the State. It also authorized relinquishment of right of way in the county of Placer on Route 65 (Lincoln Boulevard) between the northerly city limits and realigned Route 65 (Lincoln Bypass) consisting of superseded highway right of way, and along realigned Route 65 (Lincoln Bypass), consisting of collateral facilities. The County, by cooperative agreement dated February 19, 2008 and by letter dated October 8, 2013, waived the 90-day notice requirement and agreed to accept title upon relinquishment by the State. The bypassed highway is now called "Old Highway 65".

    The following projects were also planned for this segment:

    • Wheatland Bypass (~YUB R0.408 to YUB 1.232).

    In March 2013, the CTC approved for future consideration of funding a project in Yuba County will perform scour mitigation at Dry Creek Bridge (Bridge 16-0002, YUB 002.21) on Route 65 near Wheatland, placing rock slope protection under the bridge and replacing a deck on the roadway with concrete deck overlay. The project is programmed in the 2012 State Highway Operation and Protection Program. The total estimated cost is $4,503,000 for capital and support. Construction is estimated to begin in Fiscal Year 2013-14.

    Business Routes Business Routes

    The portion of former Route 256 is likely signed as Business Route 65 in Roseville.

    Naming Naming

    Harold (Bizz) Johnson ExpresswayA short segment of this route just N of Route 80 is named the "Harold "Bizz" Johnson Expressway" (~ PLA R4.938 to PLA M8.065). It was named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution 92, Chapter 88, in 1986. Congressman Harold T. "Bizz" Johnson, state Senator from 1949 to 1958, who served in the House of Representatives from 1958-1980, was instrumental in helping establish the Rails-to-Trails program. He also promoted water development projects and sided with consumer-owned electric utilities against the economic and political clout of big investor-owned systems like Pacific Gas and Electric Co. He also successfully broadened language in the Surface Transportation Assistance Act to allow bridges over highways, railroads and other physical features to qualify for funding under the Act's bridge replacement provisions.
    (Image sources: 365 Things to Do in Roseville; Wikipedia)

    Matthew John ReddingThe interchange of Stanford Ranch Road and Galleria Boulevard on Route 65 just N of I-80 (~PLA R5.929) is named the "Officer Matthew J. Redding Memorial Interchange". This segment was named in memory of Officer Matthew J. "Matt" Redding, a decorated police officer, was killed in the line of duty by a drunk driver on October 9, 2005 on Route 65 near the interchange of Stanford Ranch Road and Galleria Boulevard while serving the community and protecting his fellow officers. Redding grew up in Rocklin, graduated from Del Oro High School, attended Sierra College, and had a strong desire to become a police officer. He was hired by the City of Rocklin as a police officer on December 10, 2001, and was a highly respected police officer who, in under four years, was selected to serve on the Regional SWAT team and decorated for valor, life saving, and meritorious duty. Named by Senate Concurrent Resolution (SCR) 10, Resolution Chapter 84, on 7/10/2007.
    (Image source: Rocklin: In The Line of Duty)

    Officer Mark A. WhiteThe portion of Route 65 between the intersection with Sunset Boulevard (approx PLA-065-R9.549) and the intersection with Route 193 (since relinquished -- it was Lincoln Blvd and McBean Parkway in Lincoln, so presumably this is now where Lincoln (old 65) exits the Lincoln Bypass, Industrial Ave, PLA-065-R12.866) in Placer County is named the Officer Mark A. White Memorial Highway. It was named in memory of Roseville Police Officer Mark A. White, a dedicated officer, who was killed in the line of duty on Friday, February 10, 1995, when he was fatally shot during a hostage situation. At Officer White's funeral, the procession was estimated to be over nine miles long. Officers and other mourners came from all over the State of California, and some attended from as far away as Nebraska and Ohio. Officer White was remembered as a happy, warm, compassionate officer, who had a zest for life, a dedicated father and a loving husband. He was a highly respected, dedicated officer for over nine years, first serving in Sutter County as a Deputy Sheriff for five years, then in Roseville as a Police Officer for four years. While serving in Sutter County, Officer White was a member of the S.E.D. team and a diver with the search and rescue team. While serving in Roseville, Officer White was the neighborhood officer, he worked hand-in-hand with community members cleaning up the streets and making it a safer place for everyone. The highway was named to remind us of the ultimate sacrifice Officer White made on that cold, wet February afternoon, as well as remind us of the sacrifices peace officers make on a daily basis. Named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution 179, July 16, 2004, Chapter 126.
    (Image source: Officer Down Memorial Page)

    Thomas J. Cosgrove Memorial HighwayThe portion of the Rout 65 Lincoln Highway in the County of Placer from Lincoln Boulevard (postmile PLA-065-R12.87) to Nelson Lane (postmile PLA-065-R15.55) is named the "Thomas J. Cosgrove Memorial Highway". It was named in memory of Thomas Joseph Cosgrove, who was born in November 1948, and moved to the City of Lincoln in the County of Placer in 1987. Ever since that time he remained dedicated to making Lincoln a better place to live by serving as a volunteer firefighter for many years prior to the city adopting a full-time fire department and by serving on the city council and other local organizations. Tom Cosgrove was first elected to the City Council of the City of Lincoln in 1994, at which time the city had a population of 8,304 people and one traffic light at the intersection of Route 193 and Route 65. He served 18 years as a city council member and served as Mayor of the City of Lincoln in 1997, 2001, 2005, and 2010. In his 18 years as a city council member, Tom Cosgrove was admired by his coworkers and the development community for his intelligence, professional competency, positive attitude, willingness to help others, and sense of humor. Tom Cosgrove played an instrumental role in the construction of the Route 65 Lincoln Highway, a $325,000,000 project in a rural county that was nearly impossible to build without support and a political champion, and in the case of this highway, that champion was Tom Cosgrove. Dating back to 1998, when the Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Board was prioritizing what would be the next big project to take on, Tom Cosgrove got the City Council of the City of Lincoln to pledge $1,000,000 as matching money to get the project to the top of the list and, ultimately, that promise was primarily fulfilled with a creative “in kind” contribution of fill material for the Lincoln Boulevard Interchange from the wastewater treatment plant. When it came to moving the Route 65 Lincoln Highway forward, Tom Cosgrove was always at the ready and attended virtually any meeting to further the progress of the project, whether it be technical meetings with rooms full of engineers, regulatory meetings with environmental specialists, meetings with potential funders like the California Transportation Commission, or meetings with the public to get input on the project. Whatever the need, Tom Cosgrove was always there. Tom Cosgrove was also the face of the Route 65 Lincoln Highway with the community because of all the meetings he attended, and Tom Cosgrove had all the latest information to share, whether it be at a city council meeting, a chamber of commerce get-together, or when running into citizens on the street. These exceptional efforts culminated in the opening of the Route 65 Lincoln Highway on October 8, 2012. Tom Cosgrove was also a regional leader, as exemplified by his service on the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) Board of Directors from 2000 to 2012, including a term as chair in 2008. In his role with SACOG, Tom Cosgrove championed the blueprint approach to combining transportation, land use, and air quality considerations into cohesive long-term plans and spoke to groups across the nation on the blueprint approach, providing the perspective of a publicly elected official on the benefits to communities both large and small. Tom Cosgrove also spearheaded the effort to modernize the SACOG Board of Directors’ composition to include every jurisdiction, no matter how large or small, at the table. The expansion to a 31-member board of directors continues to ensure that every city and county has a say in the regional issues that SACOG addresses. Tom Cosgrove also served as the President of the Lincoln Area Chamber of Commerce from January 2016 until his untimely death on February 8, 2017, at 68 years of age. ; For all these reasons, Tom Cosgrove will long be remembered by the Lincoln community for his hard work and dedication to making the Route 65 Lincoln Highway a reality. Named by Senate Concurrent Resolution (SCR) 46, 7/18/2017, Res. Chapter 108, Statutes of 2017.
    (Image source: Caltrans District 3 on Twitter; Dignity Memorial)

    The portion of this route that is former US 99 is, in local usage, called the "East Side Highway".

    The portion of this route from I-80 to Route 99 was historically called the "Capitol Highway".

    Historical Route Historical Route

    The portion of this route that is former US 99 is designated as part of "Historic US Highway 99" by Assembly Concurrent Resolution 19, Chapter 73, in 1993.

    Named Structures Named Structures

    Jerrold L. SeawellBridge 19-0047, an underpass in Roseville, is named the "Jerrold L. Seawell Underpassing". It was built in 1950, and named by Senate Concurrent Resolution 7, Chapter 12, the same year. Jerrold L. Seawell served in both the State Assembly (1929 to 1933) and the State Senate (1933 to 1945) and as a member of the State Board of Equalization. (This is no longer in the Bridge Log; it was on Washington Blvd on a section of Old 65 since relinquished)
    (Image source: Find a Grave)

    Charles J. La PorteBridge 19-0151 (PLA R004.87), an overcrossing near Roseville in Nevada county, is named the "Charles J. La Porte Memorial Bridge". It was built in 1973, and was named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution 92, Chapter 88, in 1986. California Highway Patrol Captain Charles J. La Porte, (1897-1943) a World War I veteran, was a motorcycle officer and the first Commander assigned to the Placer County CHP office.
    (Image source: Find a Grave)

    Other WWW Links Other WWW Links

    Blue Star Memorial Highway Blue Star Memorial Highway

    The portion of this route that is former US 99 was designated as a "North-South Blue Star Memorial Highway" by Senate Concurrent Resolution 33, Ch. 82 in 1947.


  4. Rte 65 Seg 4 UnconstFrom Route 70 near Marysville to Route 99 in or near Yuba City.

    Post 1964 Signage History Post 1964 Signage History

    This segment was added in 1970 by Chapter 1473

    Pre 1964 Signage History Pre 1964 Signage History

    This is a proposed, unconstructed routing. It was added in 1970. According to the 2002 Traversable Highways Report, Caltrans is conducting a route adoption study for this segment. However, no local roads fit the definition of a traversable highway along this routing. A major bridge crossing the Feather River S of Yuba City would be required. District 3 has protected all at-risk parcels through corridor preservation right of way purchases.

    Status Status

    There are currently plans for construction of a third Feather River bridge south of Yuba City. This project could be related to an EIR that is in preparation regarding construction of a freeway link to Route 65/Route 70 and Route 99, and a bridge structure over the Feather River. [April 2002 CTC Agenda Item 2.2a.(2)]

    In October 2015, it was reported that the third Feather River bridge plan was dead. Caltrans has officially washed its hands of the project. The agency is exploring its options to sell property marked for the third bridge in both Yuba and Sutter counties, according to Liza Whitmore, public information officer for Caltrans. The dream of building a third bridge to connect Yuba City and Marysville has been around since the 1950s. It has died and been resurrected a number of times since then. It's been called everything from "impossibly expensive" to an "economic savior" that would limit congestion and attract business development. Cost estimates for the project have ranged from $100 million to $250 million to $600 million, depending on the scope of the project, according to long-term planning documents and figures quoted by public officials in the past.
    (Source: Appeal-Democrat, 10/5/2015)


Classified Landcaped Freeway Classified Landcaped Freeway

The following segments are designated as Classified Landscaped Freeway:

County Route Starting PM Ending PM
Tulare 65 17.78 18.71
Tulare 65 18.79 20.63

Exit Information Exit Information

Other WWW Links Other WWW Links

Freeway Freeway

[SHC 253.1] Entire route. Added to the Freeway and Expressway system in 1959. This is constructed to freeway standards for a 5 mile section starting at Route 190 to Porterville; from Route 80 to Rocklin; and from near Wheatland to the intersection of Route 70 and Route 65 near Marysville.

Statistics Statistics

Overall statistics for Route 65:

Interregional Route Interregional Route

[SHC 164.13] Between the north urban limits of Bakersfield and Route 198 near Exeter, and between Route 80 and Route 99 near Yuba City.

Pre-1964 Legislative Route Pre-1964 Legislative Route

The route that was to become LRN 65 was first defined in 1921 by Chapter 839, which declared “All that portion of the public highway commencing at Auburn in Placer County through Placerville, Jackson, San Andreas, and Angels to and connecting with the state highway lateral at Sonoma, Tuolumne county is hereby... declared to be a state highway... highway shall be known as the "Mother Lode Highway".” In 1933, it was extended from [LRN 40] near Moccasin Creek to [LRN 18] near Mariposa, and from [LRN 11] near El Dorado to [LRN 11] near Placerville via Diamond Springs. In 1935, the route was captured into the state highway code as:

  1. Auburn to Sonora via Placerville, Jackson, San Andreas, and Angels.
  2. [LRN 11] near El Dorado to [LRN 11] near Placerville via Diamond Springs
  3. [LRN 40] near Moccasin Creek to [LRN 18] near Mariposa

In 1939, Chapter 473 combined the sections near Placerville into one, and added Diamond Springs as one of the "vias".

In 1959, Chapter 1062 extended the last segment to end at [LRN 125] near Oakhouse.

In 1963, Chapter 1698 would have clarified that the first segment terminated at [LRN 13] near Sonora, but that was overtaken by Chapter 385 and the great renumbering. This route was signed as follows:

  1. From Auburn (junction US 40) to Sonora (LRN 40; junction Route 108) via Placerville, Diamond Springs, El Dorado, Jackson, San Andreas, and Angels.

    This was signed as Route 49. Between 1972 and 1988, some portions between US 50 and Route 193 were legislatively defined as Route 193.

  2. From LRN 40 (Route 108) near Moccasin Creek to LRN 125 (Route 41) near Oakhouse.

    This was also signed as Route 49.


Acronyms and Explanations:


Back Arrow Route 64 Forward Arrow Route 66

© 1996-2020 Daniel P. Faigin.
Maintained by: Daniel P. Faigin <webmaster@cahighways.org>.