Is it geographically feassible to connect Fresno with Bishop through the Sierras? (Los Angeles: how much, live)

[Dave Coe]

There is not permanent way to get from the Eastern side of the Sierras to the western side/Central Valley and the rest of California btw Bakersfield and Lake Tahoe. The most logical connection would be from Shaver Lake to Bishop. Cost asside would it be geographically feasible and have plans of such been considered?

[.highnlite]

A. It is all protected Wilderness, no road will happen
B. Economics don't warrant the high cost of maintaining such a road
C. Don't you think that it is pretty cool that you can walk due north from Sherman Pass for hundreds of miles without having to cross a road, staying in magnificent wild country the whole way? That is pretty unique in this country.

[esmith143]

The only place where such a road would make sense is further north, from Mammoth Pool Road to Mammoth Lakes. This road has been proposed several times in the past, most recently in 1960's, when it was found that the level of traffic on the road would be too low to justify its costs.

To the south of Mammoth Lakes, you can't build a road because there are no east-west passes lower than ~11,000 feet. Any road that goes to that altitude would only be passable 3 months/year, unless you also spend a lot of money on round-the-clock snow plowing in winter. (Which we can't afford even for an existing nearby crossing - Tioga Pass. By the end of winter, the road gets buried under 6-10 feet of snow.)

[KC6ZLV]

No. Costs would be too high. I think the minimum elevation to transverse the crest in that area is close to 11,000 ft, and for a considerable distance. The road wouldn't be open until late June unless 15 ft of snow was removed for about 45 miles between Huntington Lake and Lake Sabrina. Hwy 168 ends at Huntington Lake. The road going east from the end of 168 is closed during the winter. There is a small section of Hwy 168 between Lake Sabrina and US-395 on the east slope.

When I lived in Fresno I heard stories that Disney planned to build a resort in one of the valleys west of Lake Sabrina. This was before the J Muir Wilderness was created. And that quite a few people were against it after seeing how much trash Disney's visitors leave behind at Disneyland and convinced the legislature that Joe and Jane Sixpack and their three children would be throwing soda cans out of their station wagon windows on the way from Fresno to the Disney resort. I never found any information about connecting the two sections of Hwy 168 (the west section was Hwy 41 back then) or the legislature getting involved, but I read a short article in an old magazine that Disney was considering opening a resort in the mountains near Bishop in the 1950s, I think.

[esmith143]

Originally Posted by KC6ZLV

No. Costs would be too high. I think the minimum elevation to transverse the crest in that area is close to 11,000 ft, and for a considerable distance.

The location I mentioned above is special, because you can traverse the entire width of the Sierras without going much higher than 7,000 ft.

Further south, you are correct. I have personally seen snow fields at 11,000 ft just two weeks ago. With limited snow plowing, such a road might open in June and then close again in November. And it doesn't make much sense financially to build it. There's almost nothing there. Agriculture east of the Sierras has been devastated ever since Los Angeles bought out all water rights in the area. Winter tourist traffic from Southern California is served well by the 395.

[KC6ZLV]

Originally Posted by esmith143

The location I mentioned above is special, because you can traverse the entire width of the Sierras without going much higher than 7,000 ft.

Further south, you are correct. I have personally seen snow fields at 11,000 ft just two weeks ago. With limited snow plowing, such a road might open in June and then close again in November. And it doesn't make much sense financially to build it. There's almost nothing there. Agriculture east of the Sierras has been devastated ever since Los Angeles bought out all water rights in the area. Winter tourist traffic from Southern California is served well by the 395.

You would have to go to 9100 feet to get over the crest near Mammoth Lakes. The town itself is right around 8,000 feet and it is close enough to Hwy 120 that there would be no justification to build a highway over the top of the Sierra Nevada in that area.

[esmith143]

Originally Posted by KC6ZLV

You would have to go to 9100 feet to get over the crest near Mammoth Lakes. The town itself is right around 8,000 feet and it is close enough to Hwy 120 that there would be no justification to build a highway over the top of the Sierra Nevada in that area.

You would need to extend the existing Route 203 about 2 miles west of the town (going downhill most of the way) till you reach the middle fork of San Joaquin River (elevation: 7600). From that point, you'd just follow San Joaquin River downstream and downhill till you emerge out of the mountains near Fresno.

[KC6ZLV]

203 reaches a little over 9,000 feet and still close to 120. It would be similar to Hwy 108, although constructing a highway in the area you mentioned would be difficult. There isn't much to work with other than solid granite most of the way.

[DMenscha]

Mineral King ski area was proposed by Disney in the 1970's. It's east of Three Rivers in what is now part of Sequoia National Park.

Ditto what everyone else has said about it being totally unfeasible to build a new road across the Sierra's. Not to mention ruining one of the most fabulous areas in the entire world.

[BayAreaHillbilly]

Be Swiss - tunnel.