This is a floating closed javascript menu.
Menu


State Shield

State Route 162

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 162 Seg 1From Route 101 near Longvale to Route 5 near Willows via the vicinity of Covelo and Mendocino Pass.

    Post 1964 Signage History Post 1964 Signage History

    This segment was transferred from Route 261 in 1972 by Chapter 1216: "(a) Route 101 near Longvale to Route 5 near Willows via the vicinity of Covelo and Mendocino Pass."

    Pre 1964 Signage History Pre 1964 Signage History

    This segment was not a state route before 1965. The route runs (signed as Route 162) along Covelo Road into Covelo. From that point, state maintenance end, but the traversable route then runs E along Mendocino Pass Road (unsigned, but marked FH-7) through the Mendocino National Forest. Mendocino Pass Road becomes Alder Springs Road in Glenn County. Signage of the road resumes near Elk Creek when Route 162 exits the National Forest. The route enters Willows along Wood Street.

    Status Status

    Unconstructed Unconstructed from Covelo (Mendocino County PM34.05) to near Elk Creek (Glenn County PM37.65). The traversable local routing is Mendocino Pass Road and Alder Springs Road (both part of Forest Highway (FH) 7) and the unnamed portions of FH 7. As of October 1997, FWHA, Caltrans, and the USFS had decided not to reconstruct and pave 47 miles of FH 7. Mendocino Pass Road is primitive and unsuitable for use in a state highway. Alder Springs Road was improved in 1972 and repaired in 1978. Federal funds of $4M were allocated towards the improvement of Route 162 E of Alder Springs, but the road is still not to state standards.

    In January 2009, the CTC authorized relinquishment of right of way in the county of Mendocino along Route 162 from Route 101 to 0.1 mile easterly, consisting of superseded highway right of way.

    South Eel River Bridge Project - MEN 8.2

    Rte 162 S Eel River BridgeIn April 2020, Caltrans posted a Notice of Intent regarding a seismic project to provide Route 162 at MEN 8.2 with an earthquake-resistant bridge structure capable of resisting a maximum credible earthquake. Three alternatives are in consideration for the South Eel River Bridge Project.
    (Source: Notice from Caltrans District 1 on FB, 4/10/2020)

    • Alternative A would perform retrofit work to improve the structural integrity and make this bridge capable of resisting a maximum credible earthquake. One-way traffic control would be in place during construction.
    • Alternative B would consist of a staged replacement of the existing structure in which the bridge would be reduced to one lane. One-way traffic control would be in place during construction. Construction of a partial width of the new bridge would be completed on the southeast side of the existing bridge. Once the partial section of the new bridge is completed, the one lane of traffic would be moved to the new bridge, and the remainder of the existing bridge would be removed, followed by completion of the new bridge.
    • Alternative C would replace the existing bridge with a new one to the south of the existing bridge. Little to no traffic control would occur.

    In January 2021, the CTC approved for future consideration of funding the following project: 01-Men-162, PM 8.2. South Eel River Seismic Project. Seismically upgrade South Eel River Bridge on Route 162 in Mendocino County. (PPNO 4692)  This project is located on Route 162 near Longvale in Mendocino County. The project proposes to upgrade the South Eel River Bridge to an earthquake-resistant bridge structure capable of resisting a maximum credible earthquake. This project is currently programmed in the 2020 State Highway Operation Protection Program (SHOPP) for a total of $13,339,000 which includes Construction (capital and support) and Right of Way (capital and support). Construction is estimated to begin in Fiscal Year 2021-2022. The scope, as described for the preferred alternative, is consistent with the project scope programmed by the Commission in the 2020 SHOPP. A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been completed. The project will result in less than significant impacts to the environment after mitigation.  The following resource areas may be impacted by the project: biological resources.  Avoidance and minimization measures will reduce any potential effects on the environment. These measures include, but are not limited to, designing the bridge to provide habitat for bat Species of Special Concern like the habitat that exists presently.
    (Source: January 2021 CTC Agenda, Agenda Item 2.2c.(1))

    In March 2021, the CTC approved the following pre-construction SHOPP SB1 support phase allocation(s): (2b) #1. $1,528,000 (PS&E, $1,295,000 programmed); $149,000 (R/W Sup, $127,000 programmed). 01-Men-162 8.2. PPNO 01-4692; ProjID 0117000223; EA 0A131. Route 162 Near Longvale, from 8.2 miles to 8.3 miles east of Route 101 at Eel River Bridge № 10-0236. Bridge seismic retrofit. (Future consideration of funding approved under Resolution E-21-01; January 2021.)  Prog. year 21-22.
    (Source: March 2021 CTC Agenda, Agenda Item 2.5b.(2b) #1)

    In June 2021, the CTC approved the following amendment to the 2020 SHOPP: 01-Men-162 8.2 PPNO 4692 ProjID 0117000223 EA 01-0A131. Route 162 Near Longvale, from 8.2 miles to 8.3 miles east of Route 101 at Eel River Bridge № 10-0236.  Bridge seismic retrofit. Note: During design, it was determined that replacing the bridge along a new alignment will reduce impacts to the environment and traveling public. This change reduced the need for offsite mitigation, thus reducing R/W capital. The change to a new alignment resulted in additional earthwork, paving, landscaping, bridge deck area, and guardrail that consequently increased the construction capital amount. R/W Cap $618K $251K; Const Cap $6,383K $8,150K; Total $13,339K  $14,739K.
    (Source: June 2021 CTC Agenda, Agenda Item 2.1a.(1d) #15)

    In August 2022, the CTC approved a request for an additional $757,000 in PS&E and $140,000 in RW CAP for the SHOPP Bridge Seismic Restoration project on Route 162, in Mendocino County, to complete the PS&E and RW phases. The project (01-MEN-162 8/8.4; PPNO 01-4692; ProjID 0117000223; EA 0A131) is on Route 162 near Longvale, from 8.0 miles to 8.4 miles east of Route 101 at Eel River Bridge № 10-0236. Outcome/Output: Bridge seismic retrofit. Route 162 is the only route to travel in and out of the Round Valley Tribe in the Covelo area. The project will replace the bridge. This project’s PS&E and RW phases were programmed for $1,295,000 and $127,000 in the SHOPP for completion in Fiscal Year 2021-22.  In March 2021, the project received a PS&E allocation for $1,528,000 and RW allocation for $149,000. In October 2021, the project received G-12 funds in the amount of $215,000 for RW. In March 2022, the project received G-12 funds in the amount of $353,000 for PS&E.  In June 2022, the project received a 20-month allocation time extension for the construction phase.  The PS&E phase is currently 80 percent complete and the RW phase is 75 percent complete.  The remaining budget is $10,000 for the PS&E phase and $66,000 for the RW phase, which is insufficient to complete the phases.  The project is scheduled to be Ready to List by October 2022 and is anticipated to complete the remaining PS&E activities by March 2023. The project realized cost increases due to the complex design and construction scenarios at this location with minimal right of way, a delay in geotechnical studies, challenging negotiations with an adjacent property owner, maintaining public access to the river, and additional coordination with the permitting agencies. The bridge is located in a remote, rural setting with mountainous terrain at the confluence of two high flow rivers, and is the only route to service the Round Valley Tribe.  There was an unanticipated delay in drilling, due to the property owner not allowing a permit to enter, that affected the ability to finalize design requirements.  These delays resulted in constructability issues that were identified during the review of the revised design.  There has also been a concern from the community regarding maintaining public access to the river.  Currently, the public encroaches on the property owner’s driveway to access the river.  Additional resources are needed to coordinate with the community to minimize the encroachment to this property owner and still maintain some access to the river.  Environmental requirements were later identified to provide provisions for bats, which was not anticipated and requires further coordination for permits and modifications to the design. Negotiations with a property owner, for a permanent acquisition, have also been more challenging than anticipated.  Continued efforts are needed to respond to the property owner. Due to the complex nature of the acquisition, additional resources have been required for research and documentation of the project while moving forward toward condemnation.  The ongoing negotiations and condemnation process were not anticipated and have delayed the project. All efforts and resources are being used to avoid full condemnation and come to an agreement with the property owner.  However, the property owner is currently contesting the resolution of necessity and is continually requesting design changes to minimize the right of way impacts on the property. Staff time has been required from various functional units to analyze the property owner’s requests and implement design changes.  Several iterations of analysis and changes have occurred to work with the property owner to avoid condemnation. The continuous coordination with the property owner is requiring additional right of way support to resolve the acquisition issue.  The Department has made significant strides toward reaching an agreement with this property owner.  This request for additional support funding is based on reaching an agreement and does not include support for a full condemnation process.
    (Source: August 2022 CTC Agenda, Agenda Item 2.5e.(1))

    Naming Naming

    Historically, this route is close to the original "El Camino Real" (The Kings Road). A portion of this route has officially been designated as part of "El Camino Real by Assembly Bill 1707, Chapter 739, on October 11, 2001. [Note: That's what the bill says. Likely, there was an error and what was meant was Route 262. Still, we go by what is in the state highway code, so this is named part of El Camino Real, no matter what the reality is. -- DPF]


  2. Rte 162 Seg 2From Route 5 near Willows to Route 45.

    Post 1964 Signage History Post 1964 Signage History

    This segment was defined in 1963 as the original (a).

    Pre 1964 Signage History Pre 1964 Signage History

    This segment was part of LRN 45, defined in 1919. It was not a signed route before 1964.

    Naming Naming

    This segment is part of the "Biggs-Willows Road", named by Resolution Chapter 542 in 1919.


  3. Rte 162 Seg 3From Route 45 to Route 99 near Biggs.

    Post 1964 Signage History Post 1964 Signage History

    This segment was defined in 1963 as the original (b).

    Pre 1964 Signage History Pre 1964 Signage History

    This segment was part of LRN 45, defined in 1919. This does not appear to have been signed before 1964.

    Status Status

    Sacramento River Bridge (03-Gle-162, PM 76.3/78.6)

    In March 2016, it was reported that Caltrans was reconsidering a number of alternatives to demolishing and replacing the Sacramento River Bridge on Route 162 near Butte City. The original plans was that Caltrans would demolish the current steel truss bridge — built in 1947 and no longer earthquake-safe — and build a new one along the current road alignment. That approach would close Route 162 at the crossing for 18 months, spanning from June 2020 to November 2021. Caltrans proposed redirecting traffic — an average of 2,400 vehicles per day, 20% of which are trucks — on a 34-mile detour to use the bridge at Ordbend. Many members of the public were curious as to why a new bridge could not be built beside the old one, so that Route 162 could remain open during construction. The primary challenge to that approach is connecting a new bridge to the causeway leading up to the old one. Other options include putting a temporary bridge in place, but additional costs would be added with that approach, also. After hearing comments from the public, Caltrans is re-evaluating.
    (Source: Andy3175 @ AAroads, 3/3/2016; Appeal-Democrat, 2/23/2016)

    In June 2019, the CTC approved for future consideration of funding project is located on Route 162 near Butte City in Glenn County (03-Gle-162, PM 76.3/78.6). The project proposes to replace the Sacramento River Bridge (No. 11-0017). The project proposes to seismic retrofit the existing bridge by replacing both segments of the current bridge and reconstruct the east side roadway to conform with the new structure. The proposed project addresses issues of the current bridge built in 1948 and deemed seismically vulnerable to section losses in pilings as well as viaduct concrete girders exhibiting signs of distress due to insufficient shear capacity. This project proposes to preserve and extend the useful life of the existing roadway and meet current design standards. The project is currently programmed in the 2018 State Highway Operation Protection Program (SHOPP) for an estimated total of $54.0 million which includes Construction (capital and support) and Right-of-Way (capital and support). Construction is estimated to begin in fiscal year 2021-22. The scope, as described for the preferred alternative, is consistent with the project scope programmed by the Commission in the 2018 SHOPP.
    (Source: June 2019 CTC Minutes, Agenda Item 2.2c.(1))

    In June 2019, the CTC approved the following SHOPP SB1 support phase allocation: $6,900,000 03-GLE-162 76.3/78.6 PPNO 2633 ProjID 0312000052. Route 162 At Butte City, from Route 45 to 0.1 mile east of McDougall Street. Replace Sacramento River Bridge and Viaduct No. 11-0017 and reconstruct east side roadway to conform with new structure. PS&E $5,500,000 R/W Support $1,400,000. (Concurrent consideration of funding under Resolution E-19-49; June 2019.) (As part of this allocation request, the Department is requesting to extend the completion of the R/W Sup phase an additional 17 months beyond the 36 month deadline.) (Concurrent SB 1 Baseline Agreement approval under Resolution SHOPP-P-1819-13B.) (Concurrent amendment under SHOPP Amendment 18H-010.)
    (Source June 2019 CTC Minutes, Agenda Item 2.5b.(2b) Item 4)

    The 2020 SHOPP, approved in May 2020, included the following Bridge Preservation item of interest (carried over from the 2018 SHOPP): 03-Glenn-162 PM 76.3/78.6 PPNO 2633 Proj ID 0312000052 EA 3F060. Route 162 at Butte City, from Route 45 to 0.1 mile east of McDougall Street. Replace Sacramento River Bridge № 11-0017 and viaduct approach, and reconstruct east side roadway to conform with new structure. Programmed in FY20-21, with construction scheduled to start in July 2021. Total project cost is $110,400K, with $88,000K being capital (const and right of way) and $22,400K being support (engineering, environmental, etc.),
    (Source: 2020 Approved SHOPP a/o May 2020)

    In August 2021, the CTC approved the following construction phase allocation: $98,488,000. 03-Gle-162 76.3/78.6. PPNO 03-2633; ProjID 0312000052; EA 3F060. Route 162 Near Butte City, from Route 45 to 0.4 mile east of McDougall Street.    Outcome/Output: Replace Sacramento River Bridge № 11-0017 and viaduct approach to current standards, and reconstruct east side roadway to conform with new structure. Allocation: CON ENG $10,000,000 CONST $85,000,000. (Future consideration of funding approved under Resolution E-19-49; June 2019.) (Twelve month time extension for CONST and CON ENG approved under Waiver 21-59; June 2021.) (As part of this allocation request, the Department is requesting to extend the completion of the CONST and CON ENG an additional 12 months beyond the 36 month deadline.)
    (Source: August 2021 CTC Agenda, Agenda Item 2.5b.(1) #12)

    In May 2022, it was reported that Caltrans has broken ground on a major Sacramento River bridge and viaduct replacement project on Route 162 in the Butte City area of Glenn County. The $106 million project includes $13.8 million in funding from Senate Bill (SB) 1, the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017. For more than seven decades, residents, travelers, farmers and school buses have relied on the Butte City Bridge (Sacramento River Bridge) to cross the Sacramento River. On average, more than 2,700 vehicles, including more than 270 trucks, travel daily on the bridge, which connects the county seats of Willows in Glenn County and Oroville in Butte County. The aging structure serves as a vital transportation link connecting Glenn, Colusa and Butte counties. Without the bridge, motorists would have to travel more than 30 miles to connect back to Route 162 and Route 45. Crews will construct a new bridge and viaduct featuring 12-foot traffic lanes and 8-foot shoulders in each direction just north of the current alignment. The structure will feature a 4,686-foot cast-in-place prestressed box girder. A 14-foot eastbound shoulder will be constructed on Route 162/Main Street from east of McDougall Street to south of Eureka Street in Butte City.
    (Source: Lake County News, 5/7/2022)

    Naming Naming

    This segment is part of the "Biggs-Willows Road", named by Resolution Chapter 542 in 1919.


  4. Rte 162 Seg 4From Route 99 near Richvale to Route 70 near Oroville.

    Post 1964 Signage History Post 1964 Signage History

    This segment was defined in 1963 as the original (c)

    Pre 1964 Signage History Pre 1964 Signage History

    This segment was part of LRN 21, defined in 1909. It was not a signed route before 1964.

    Status Status

    In July 2020, it was reported that  Caltrans has repaved a stretch of Route 162 between Christian Avenue in Oroville (BUT 12.678) and the Feather River (BUT 15.588) using recycled asphalt pavement and liquid plastic made with single-use, plastic bottles – the first time the department has paved a road using 100 percent recycled materials. The pilot project features work on three lanes of a 1,000-foot highway segment. The department is testing the material for later use throughout the state. A one-mile segment of pavement using this treatment will recycle 150,000 plastic bottles. Using this new technology developed by TechniSoil Industrial of Redding, a recycling train of equipment grinds up the top 3 inches of pavement and then mixes the grindings with a liquid plastic polymer binder, which comes from a high amount of recycled, single-use bottles. The new asphalt material is then placed on the top surface of the roadway, eliminating the need for trucks to bring in outside material for a paving operation. By eliminating the need to haul asphalt from the outside, this process can significantly cut greenhouse gas emissions. The "plastic" roadway has been found in previous tests to be more durable and last two to three times longer than traditional hot-mixed asphalt pavement. This pilot will be the first test on a state highway. Contrast this with the traditional process, where Caltrans uses a cold in-place asphalt recycling program that uses large machines to remove 3 to 6 inches of roadway surface and grind up the asphalt while mixing it with a foamed binding agent made of bitumen, a leftover sludge from oil refining. However, the recycled material used in this process is only durable enough to serve as the roadway base. Trucks need to deliver hot-mix asphalt from a production plant miles away and place a final layer over the base.
    (Source: Caltrans Press Release, 7/30/2020)


  5. Rte 162 Seg 5From Route 70 near Oroville to Foreman Creek Road via the Bidwell Bar Bridge.

    Post 1964 Signage History Post 1964 Signage History

    This segment was added in 1970 by Chapter 1473: "(d) Route 70 near Oroville to Foreman Creek Road via the Bidwell Bar Bridge." This segment appears to have been previously signed Butte County Sign Route B1.

    Pre 1964 Signage History Pre 1964 Signage History

    This segment was not a state legislative route in 1963. It may have, at one time, been part of LRN 30.

    In the late 1930s, there was a temporary routing of Alternate US 40 that took a more southern alignment than the current Route 70 routing, running through Berry Creek and Bucks Lake to Quincy along Orville-Quincy Highway, Spanish Ranch, and Bucks Lake Road. Much of that route is no longer part of the state highway system, although the portion from Oroville to Brush Creek is part of Route 162.

    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.

    The route of LRN 30 east of Oroville appears to have used the following route:
    (Source: Gribblenation Blog "California State Route 162 to the Bidwell Bar Bridge (both the 1965 and 1856 variants)")

    • From modern Route 162 Bridge Street east to Oroville-Quincy Highway.
    • Oroville-Quincy Highway back to modern Route 162.
    • Route 162 to Heritage Road.
    • Heritage Road into Lake Oroville via Bidwell Canyon.
    • A now sunken portion of what was LRN 30 beneath Lake Oroville to the Middle Fork Feather River. LRN 30 would have crossed the Middle Fork Feather River via the 1855 Bidwell's Bar Bridge.
    • LRN 30 would have emerged from Lake Oroville via what is now Foreman Creek Road.
    • Foreman Creek Road to the modern terminus of Route 162.
    • From the modern terminus of Route 162 the route of LRN 30 continued east on Oroville-Quincy Road on Plumas National Forest Route 119 to Quincy.

    Status Status

    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 #253: Rehabilitate Quincy-Oroville Highway (Route 162) in Plumas County. $800,000.

    In March 2019, the CTC approved for future consideration of funding a project on Route 162 in the city of Oroville in Butte County. The project proposes to widen shoulders. The proposed project will provide a two way left turn lane, standard shoulders, and a clear recovery zone. The project also proposes to construct drainage ditches, culverts, sound and retaining walls, and sidewalks. The proposed project addresses the issues of multiple existing driveways along this portion of Route 162 and the need to provide a safe means of travel, and alleviate traffic congestion due to vehicle use of these driveways. This project is fully funded and currently programmed in the 2018 SHOPP for approximately $22.4 million, construction is estimated to begin in Fiscal Year 2020-21. The scope, as described for the preferred alternative, is consistent with the project scope programmed by the Commission in the 2018 SHOPP.
    (Source: March 2019 CTC Minutes, Agenda Item 2.2c.(1))

    Named Structures Named Structures

    Randy Jennings Memorial BridgeBridge 12-0193, crossing Feather River, W of the Routes 162 and 70 Juncture (BUT 015.57), is named the "Randy Jennings Memorial Bridge". It was named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution 84, Chapter 100 in1998. Butte County Deputy Sheriff Randy Jennings was killed in the line of duty while investigating a domestic dispute on May 21, 1977. The plaques mounted on the bridge note that on May 21, 1997 Deputy Randy Jennings became the first Butte County Sheriff’s Deputy to be murdered in the line of duty, at the age of 38. Randy was a member of the Special Incident Response Team, served as the Department Range Master and was named Officer of the Year for 1996. For his action in this final call Deputy Jennings was posthumously awarded The Medal of Valor. A second plaque notes that Jennings graduated Oroville High School, 1977, Butte College, AA, 1981, and Simpson College, BA, 1984, and had a passion for motorcycles.
    (Image source: Bridgehunter; Historical Marker Data Base; Officer Down Memorial Page)

    Bridge 12-0188 over Lake Oroville in Butte County (BUT 026.87) is unofficially named the "Bidwell Bar Bridge". It was constructed in 1965.


Pre 1964 Signage History Pre 1964 Signage History

Signed Route 162 was not defined as part of the initial state signage of routes in 1934.

Other WWW Links Other WWW Links

Statistics Statistics

Overall statistics for Route 162:

Pre-1964 Legislative Route Pre-1964 Legislative Route

In 1933, the route from "[LRN 60] at Santa Monica to Colorado Boulevard near Eagle Rock" was added to the highway system. In 1935, this route was added to the highway code as LRN 162 with that definition.

In 1957, Chapter 1911 removed the portion east of LRN 61, making the definition "[LRN 60] near Santa Monica to [LRN 61] near Avenue 36"

This route ran from LRN 60 (Route 3; later US 101A; later Route 1) near Santa Monica to LRN 61 (US 66) near Avenue 36. This segment was the westernmost segment of both state Route 2 and US 66. Signed as Route 2, it ran SW on Alverado St to cosigned US 66/US 101 (along a path approximately equal to the Glendale freeway). It then briefly ran NW along US 66/US 101 (prior to the freeway, it ran along Sunset Blvd), then then along Santa Monica Blvd, signed as US 66 (present-day Route 2) to Lincoln Blvd, where it terminated. One Caltrans map (as well as the 1959 Renie Atlas) shows LRN 162 as continuing from LRN 2 (US 101) along Hyperion, cutting over along Rowena to Fletcher, and then along Eagle Rock Blvd to LRN 161 (Colorado Blvd).

A 1954 issue of CHPW confirms that the widening of US 101 near Vermont was in anticipation for the future Route 2 freeway (LRN 162, called, at that time, the "Santa Monica Freeway" as it ran along Santa Monica Blvd, vice LRN 173, the Olympic Freeway (Route 26), which eventually became I-10): "The design finally adopted for the Hollywood Freeway at the crossing. with Vermont Avenue was influenced by the contemplated future construction of the Santa Monica Freeway and also the possibility of rail rapid transit facilities being installed on the future Santa Monica Freeway. This required the lengthening of the Vermont Avenue Bridge and other bridges in the vicinity. The added cost providing for future rail rapid transit facilities was financed by the City of Los Angeles from city funds. Similarly financed from city funds were the bus transfer facilities at Alvarado Street and Vermont Avenue and Western Avenue."


Acronyms and Explanations:


Back Arrow Route 161 Forward Arrow Route 163

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