News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered at https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=33904.0
Corrected several already and appreciate your patience as we work through the rest.

Main Menu

US 101 N Control City of Ventura

Started by Hiroshi66, November 23, 2016, 08:29:05 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

sparker

Quote from: mrsman on December 12, 2016, 07:50:29 AM
Quote from: sparker on December 12, 2016, 06:45:23 AM
Quote from: Hiroshi66 on December 09, 2016, 10:58:24 AM
It is definitely preferable to the bizarre "THRU TRAFFIC" control city that exists on I-605 NB (and SB, for that matter). I'll never understand that. I-605 NB should have "Pasadena" as a control city, and as for I-605 SB, perhaps "Huntington Beach" might be a good one.


Actually, Pasadena access from NB I-605 requires a westerly turn on I-210 at rather an oblique angle; a more appropriate city would be one lying east of the 210/605 junction (Azusa would be the most likely candidate).  And, at the other end of 605, Huntington Beach is a bit of a stretch; one needs to traverse other major cities (Garden Grove, et. al.) to get to that city.  I think Caltrans simply decided that I-605 didn't directly serve any major cities -- at least any cited in the control city compendium -- so they simply gave up (why they didn't consider Long Beach as a southern terminus reference -- given its proximity to that terminus -- is perplexing).  IMHO, north of I-10 the pull-through BGS should read "I-605 TO I-210" (also to be reflected on the I-10 ramps to NB I-605); similarly, I-605 south of CA 91 would read "I-605 TO I-405".  In this way, the crossing routes at the termini, well-known as they are,  would provide any required reference.

I think you are correct that the lack of control cities on 605 is because it starts at ends at very low population suburbs.  Yet, IMO a small city is better than no city at all.

The northern end of 605 is Irwindale - which nobody has ever heard of*.  Nearby is Azusa or Duarte either of which would be fine control cities.  I personally prefer Duarte because it serves a major desination (City of HOpe HOspital).

I feel that Seal Beach would be a good southern control city.  The problem with using Long Beach is that 605 is too far from the key destinations in Long Beach (Downtown, Harbor, Queen Mary) that we don't want traffic to those destinations to take 605 and then clog up surface streets.  If you are on 10, 60, or 91 coming from the east and you see Long Beach, you will take that freeway south.   But it would generally be better if that traffic stayed on their freeway and take the 710 instead.  (From the 210, you could take 605 and then take one of the east-west freeways to the 710, but we still shouldn't put Long Beach as a control because many people may not make the next transfer that they need to.)


* About 30 years ago there was a plan to build a stadium for the Raiders there.  If that were built, Irwindale would be an appropriate control city because it serves a major destination.

Point taken about Long Beach -- the central area is best served by I-710; the only point of interest near the southern terminus is CSULB (which is also the state HQ for the whole CSU system) -- but that in itself isn't enough to warrant a control city.  Seal Beach is not bad (if it could be added to the list!*) -- even if my 1st ex lives there!!!  Enough of the inland portion of that town lies along the 405/22 multiplex to make it a legitimate control point.

Al Davis' 1987 Irwindale stadium proposal was nothing if not laughably ridiculous -- carving out an old aggregate pit next to I-210 as a viable NFL stadium (quickly dashed when the local water table was brought up!). 

*The control city "list" has, for some reason, always reminded me of the old Monty Python sketch about the king's daughter looking for a husband and consulting the "Book of Princes":  "Is he in the book?" -- "Yes -- and in the foreword!"


coatimundi

Quote from: sparker on December 12, 2016, 02:29:07 PM
the southern terminus is CSULB (which is also the state HQ for the whole CSU system)

I was over there a couple of months ago, and a lot of traffic seems to make that 605 SB to 22 WB jog to get to the campus.
I actually had no idea about that being the HQ. And my wife works for them. Makes sense why they always want to have their meetings down there and they put us into the dark, industrial depths of Orange County.

Quote from: sparker on December 12, 2016, 02:29:07 PM
Seal Beach is not bad (if it could be added to the list!*) -- even if my 1st ex lives there!!!  Enough of the inland portion of that town lies along the 405/22 multiplex to make it a legitimate control point.

Seal Beach has such a small population but I guess it's pretty well-known in the region. Certainly better than the location of the rest of that junction, since I would doubt even half of people in LA County know where Los Alamitos is. Then again, it would get some name recognition that way.
Add a zip code in for your ex and it'll make Scott appear, like magic.

Quote from: sparker on December 12, 2016, 02:29:07 PM
Al Davis' 1987 Irwindale stadium proposal was nothing if not laughably ridiculous -- carving out an old aggregate pit next to I-210 as a viable NFL stadium (quickly dashed when the local water table was brought up!). 

Irwindale seems to have too many huffy, insular neighboring municipalities for an NFL stadium. I can't imagine that would go over too well with the locals. But maybe that area is a lot different now than it was in '87.

DTComposer

Quote from: coatimundi on December 12, 2016, 05:11:40 PM
Quote from: sparker on December 12, 2016, 02:29:07 PM
the southern terminus is CSULB (which is also the state HQ for the whole CSU system)
I was over there a couple of months ago, and a lot of traffic seems to make that 605 SB to 22 WB jog to get to the campus.
I actually had no idea about that being the HQ. And my wife works for them. Makes sense why they always want to have their meetings down there and they put us into the dark, industrial depths of Orange County.

The CSU headquarters is actually downtown (next to the Catalina ferry terminal), not on campus.

mrsman

Quote from: sparker on December 12, 2016, 02:29:07 PM
Quote from: mrsman on December 12, 2016, 07:50:29 AM
Quote from: sparker on December 12, 2016, 06:45:23 AM
Quote from: Hiroshi66 on December 09, 2016, 10:58:24 AM
It is definitely preferable to the bizarre "THRU TRAFFIC" control city that exists on I-605 NB (and SB, for that matter). I'll never understand that. I-605 NB should have "Pasadena" as a control city, and as for I-605 SB, perhaps "Huntington Beach" might be a good one.


Actually, Pasadena access from NB I-605 requires a westerly turn on I-210 at rather an oblique angle; a more appropriate city would be one lying east of the 210/605 junction (Azusa would be the most likely candidate).  And, at the other end of 605, Huntington Beach is a bit of a stretch; one needs to traverse other major cities (Garden Grove, et. al.) to get to that city.  I think Caltrans simply decided that I-605 didn't directly serve any major cities -- at least any cited in the control city compendium -- so they simply gave up (why they didn't consider Long Beach as a southern terminus reference -- given its proximity to that terminus -- is perplexing).  IMHO, north of I-10 the pull-through BGS should read "I-605 TO I-210" (also to be reflected on the I-10 ramps to NB I-605); similarly, I-605 south of CA 91 would read "I-605 TO I-405".  In this way, the crossing routes at the termini, well-known as they are,  would provide any required reference.

I think you are correct that the lack of control cities on 605 is because it starts at ends at very low population suburbs.  Yet, IMO a small city is better than no city at all.

The northern end of 605 is Irwindale - which nobody has ever heard of*.  Nearby is Azusa or Duarte either of which would be fine control cities.  I personally prefer Duarte because it serves a major desination (City of HOpe HOspital).

I feel that Seal Beach would be a good southern control city.  The problem with using Long Beach is that 605 is too far from the key destinations in Long Beach (Downtown, Harbor, Queen Mary) that we don't want traffic to those destinations to take 605 and then clog up surface streets.  If you are on 10, 60, or 91 coming from the east and you see Long Beach, you will take that freeway south.   But it would generally be better if that traffic stayed on their freeway and take the 710 instead.  (From the 210, you could take 605 and then take one of the east-west freeways to the 710, but we still shouldn't put Long Beach as a control because many people may not make the next transfer that they need to.)


* About 30 years ago there was a plan to build a stadium for the Raiders there.  If that were built, Irwindale would be an appropriate control city because it serves a major destination.

Point taken about Long Beach -- the central area is best served by I-710; the only point of interest near the southern terminus is CSULB (which is also the state HQ for the whole CSU system) -- but that in itself isn't enough to warrant a control city.  Seal Beach is not bad (if it could be added to the list!*) -- even if my 1st ex lives there!!!  Enough of the inland portion of that town lies along the 405/22 multiplex to make it a legitimate control point.

Al Davis' 1987 Irwindale stadium proposal was nothing if not laughably ridiculous -- carving out an old aggregate pit next to I-210 as a viable NFL stadium (quickly dashed when the local water table was brought up!). 

*The control city "list" has, for some reason, always reminded me of the old Monty Python sketch about the king's daughter looking for a husband and consulting the "Book of Princes":  "Is he in the book?" -- "Yes -- and in the foreword!"

I think the control city list is fine for long distance roads like 2dis and 2dus routes.  It tends to make less sense for more local roads.  Since Duarte and Seal Beach are not on the list, the alternative is to basically have no control city at all.  And that is not helpful to the driving public.

nexus73

Let's add the Ultimate Control City on each end of 101.  "Olympia" at the 4-Level and "Los Angeles" in Olympia!  Once on the route have a mileage sign for the end of the route. 

That should help the cause of US 101 tourism!

Rick
US 101 is THE backbone of the Pacific coast from Bandon OR to Willits CA.  Industry, tourism and local traffic would be gone or severely crippled without it being in functioning condition in BOTH states.

mrsman

Quote from: nexus73 on December 14, 2016, 11:11:06 AM
Let's add the Ultimate Control City on each end of 101.  "Olympia" at the 4-Level and "Los Angeles" in Olympia!  Once on the route have a mileage sign for the end of the route. 

That should help the cause of US 101 tourism!

Rick

Not a bad idea.  There are other US highways that do something similar.  US 50 on both ends has a mileage sign to the other end.

sparker

Quote from: nexus73 on December 14, 2016, 11:11:06 AM
Let's add the Ultimate Control City on each end of 101.  "Olympia" at the 4-Level and "Los Angeles" in Olympia!  Once on the route have a mileage sign for the end of the route. 

That should help the cause of US 101 tourism!

Rick

Except for the fact that US 101's southern terminus is actually at the E. Los Angeles (I-5/I-10/CA 60/US 101) interchange rather than the 4-level, that's not a totally bad idea -- if limited to the "novelty" opposite-end-of-route signs seen on US 50, I-10, and I-40.  As far as actual overhead-sign control cities, "Downtown L.A" or "L.A. Civic Center" might be appropriate signs for US 101 at its southern end, rather than the simple "Los Angeles" that is there now.  Hell, after you cross Indiana Ave. on either CA 60 WB or I-5 NB, you're already in Los Angeles!  May as well get a little more specific about intra-city destinations.  If a 2-destination sign is to be deployed, something like "L.A. Civic Center" with "Hollywood" underneath might not be too bad, as both are actually traversed by US 101, and the latter is a major tourist destination.

TheStranger

Quote from: sparker on December 15, 2016, 09:00:02 PM
  As far as actual overhead-sign control cities, "Downtown L.A" or "L.A. Civic Center" might be appropriate signs for US 101 at its southern end, rather than the simple "Los Angeles" that is there now.  Hell, after you cross Indiana Ave. on either CA 60 WB or I-5 NB, you're already in Los Angeles!  May as well get a little more specific about intra-city destinations.  If a 2-destination sign is to be deployed, something like "L.A. Civic Center" with "Hollywood" underneath might not be too bad, as both are actually traversed by US 101, and the latter is a major tourist destination.

I recall at least one sign at the 5/101 split where "Los Angeles Civic Center" is the control:

https://goo.gl/maps/FDn72yrFHkt
Chris Sampang

coatimundi

Quote from: TheStranger on December 16, 2016, 04:30:09 PM
Quote from: sparker on December 15, 2016, 09:00:02 PM
  As far as actual overhead-sign control cities, "Downtown L.A" or "L.A. Civic Center" might be appropriate signs for US 101 at its southern end, rather than the simple "Los Angeles" that is there now.  Hell, after you cross Indiana Ave. on either CA 60 WB or I-5 NB, you're already in Los Angeles!  May as well get a little more specific about intra-city destinations.  If a 2-destination sign is to be deployed, something like "L.A. Civic Center" with "Hollywood" underneath might not be too bad, as both are actually traversed by US 101, and the latter is a major tourist destination.

I recall at least one sign at the 5/101 split where "Los Angeles Civic Center" is the control:

https://goo.gl/maps/FDn72yrFHkt

It seems like "Civic Center" was a common control for both freeways and surface streets in the 80's. Maybe a product of the urban renewal ideas of the 60's and 70's, where they grouped all the government buildings together (creating a dead zone outside of work hours).

TheStranger

Quote from: coatimundi on December 16, 2016, 05:48:05 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on December 16, 2016, 04:30:09 PM
Quote from: sparker on December 15, 2016, 09:00:02 PM
  As far as actual overhead-sign control cities, "Downtown L.A" or "L.A. Civic Center" might be appropriate signs for US 101 at its southern end, rather than the simple "Los Angeles" that is there now.  Hell, after you cross Indiana Ave. on either CA 60 WB or I-5 NB, you're already in Los Angeles!  May as well get a little more specific about intra-city destinations.  If a 2-destination sign is to be deployed, something like "L.A. Civic Center" with "Hollywood" underneath might not be too bad, as both are actually traversed by US 101, and the latter is a major tourist destination.

I recall at least one sign at the 5/101 split where "Los Angeles Civic Center" is the control:

https://goo.gl/maps/FDn72yrFHkt

It seems like "Civic Center" was a common control for both freeways and surface streets in the 80's. Maybe a product of the urban renewal ideas of the 60's and 70's, where they grouped all the government buildings together (creating a dead zone outside of work hours).

Civic Center remains one of US 101's primary controls in SF.  The neighborhood of that name has existed in some form since the early 1900s, though the current City Hall is several blocks away from the site of the old structure that collapsed in the 1906 quake.  (The old building fronted a short street parallel to Market Street, City Hall Avenue, which was removed before 1920)
Chris Sampang

Hiroshi66

Sorry for the late reply everyone. Was getting caught up with grading and end of the semester business. All done! Hoping to get some road trips in this Christmas vacation.

On the subject of "missing" control cities, I have noticed the same thing on CA 118. "Thru Traffic" doesn't appear there, but "WEST" or "EAST" is the control city for most of the route. At most points in the San Fernando Valley (such as when you approach CA 118 from the 405) Simi Valley is listed as a control city, but there is no control city going eastbound. I don't think "Valley Cities" is a very good one to use, but I read somewhere on this forum a while ago that somebody suggested "Pasadena" as a control city for EB 118. It doesn't go anywhere near Pasadena, but it does link to I-210 which is the route to Pasadena. Either that, or maybe San Fernando...

Going WB, I think Moorpark becomes the de-facto control city in Simi Valley but I can't recall any signs to that effect. Ultimately, the terminus is at CA 126 at the Ventura city limits but I could swear there is at least one sign (maybe on CA 126 WB) listing "Saticoy" at the CA 118 exit.

I could have sworn there were more "Civic Center" signs on US 101 SB in the Downtown area but I think they may have been replaced. I'm not sure. I have to pay more attention next time I'm down there.

By the way, I will be heading up to the Bay Area this Christmas and will of course be taking US 101 NB. I'll take notes of all the control cities at major interchanges and share them with you all!

Mapmikey

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 10, 2016, 09:20:46 AM
Quote from: Hiroshi66 on December 10, 2016, 08:56:26 AM
Speaking of San Francisco, there is a street there right by the water called "Great Highway." I'm curious about the origin of this street name - was it the original routing of CA 1 or something? It's the street right by the water where all of SF's major streets terminate.

Doesn't look like it was ever part of CA 1 or CA 5, had a flip through maps back to 1938 and 5 was always on Skyline while 1 dipped inland.  Cahighways has both located in the same place back in 1934:

http://www.cahighways.org/001-008.html

Sorry for thread bump but found photographic proof that CA 5 followed Sloat west past Skyline to Great Hwy, from 1939 - http://opensfhistory.org/Display/wnp4.1634.jpg - shows CA 5 heading right at the split.

Also of interest is 19th and Sloat with the backs of CA 1 and CA 5 shields in 1937 - http://opensfhistory.org/Display/wnp26.006.jpg

dbz77

Quote from: mrsman on December 03, 2016, 10:14:25 PM
  I-15 should absolutely be signed to Los Angeles from the LV area (and not San Bernardino) as it is more important.  [The older signs were for L.A. and the signs in NV are as well, the mentality that we should change the control to SB just beacuse I-15 doesn't reach LA is ludicrous, this is the road to LA.]
There is a bit of history behind that.

I-15 follows the route of what was then called the Los Angeles Highway. The Los Angeles Highway passed through Jean and Baker, and terminated at an intersection with US 66 in Barstow. From Barstow, US 66 went southwest and in fact passed through downtown Los Angeles. Hence the name for the Los Angeles Highway, and later the decision to use Los Angeles as the control city for I-15 south.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.