US 101 N Control City of Ventura

[Hiroshi66]

Hello all,

It's my first post here, although I am a longtime lurker. Great to be here on this excellent forum with all of you!

I wanted to share a thought I've always had while driving. Apologies if this has been addressed or if I am posting it in the wrong place.

Immediately upon leaving Downtown Los Angeles, US 101 North has a control city of "Ventura", and it retains this control city the entire way to Ventura - all through the Los Angeles Basin, the San Fernando Valley, and the Conejo Valley. Starting at the interchange with CA 126 in Ventura, the control city becomes San Francisco - and it remains as such until US 101 enters the San Francisco city limits almost 300 miles later.

However, when we look at US 101 South, the control city is Los Angeles immediately upon leaving San Francisco. Ventura never acts as a control city and is never present on any signs (with the exception of on mileage signs, perhaps). The main control city for southbound US 101 is always Los Angeles.

Is there a reason for this? I know one could argue that most motorists who head south on US 101 for long distances are heading towards Los Angeles, but could one not argue the same for San Francisco on the northbound side? I'm just curious as to why San Francisco is not a control city in the Los Angeles area for US 101, and, conversely, why Ventura's status as a control city for US 101 N is not echoed for the southbound side.

Thank you so much! I'm curious to discussing this with others - unless there is a really obvious answer that I'm missing. 

[coatimundi]

It's a good question and it has been discussed a bit before on this board, but I personally think it's worth bringing up again.
As to why Ventura is used in LA County, I would guess it's partially due to the name: Ventura Freeway. Also I-5 is, for many, the preferred route to reach SF.
As for the rest of it, San Francisco is used inconsistently. In SLO, Salinas appears along with SF. At 154, Santa Maria and Santa Barbara are used. And I believe Santa Barbara is used in parts of Ventura County.
The previous discussion was on what happens up here: after Salinas, San Francisco is the only control city until you reach Gilroy, when San Jose appears on some of the surface street interchanges.
I think 101 is a bit of a wildcard because it's both a long distance route as well as a local highway. While I-5 doesn't really serve any sizable communities outside of LA County, 101 makes some very important local connections.
A lot of this is speculation and opinion though.

[Hiroshi66]

Thanks for your reply, Coatimundi! Interesting!

That's a very good point you bring up about Santa Barbara, Santa Maria, Salinas, and San Jose being used (along with San Francisco) as you continue heading up US 101. Now that you mention it, I do recall seeing those used as control cities as you get closer to each of those areas, although, San Francisco is almost always listed alongside them.

Interesting that you bring up I-5. In the LA area, San Francisco is never used as a control city on I-5, even though most motorists prefer I-5 when traveling to the Bay Area. I have seen San Francisco used as a control city on I-5 where CA 99 splits off after the Grapevine, though, but never in the LA area. In fact, I can't think of a single instance on any interstate or highway in LA where San Francisco is used as a control city (Sacramento is for I-5, and Ventura for US 101) although I do think LA is used as a control city on US 101 in the Bay Area in quite a few places.

I wonder if it's because LA, being a larger city, is seen as a more 'principal' destination and is thus given top billing on US 101 even as far away as the Bay Area, while more local destinations are touted on the opposite journey north?

[Hiroshi66]

By the way, is it just me, or has CalTrans removed Bakersfield as a control city from most highways in the LA area? I seem to remember in the 1990s that Bakersfield was used as a control city (either alongside or instead of Sacramento) on I-5 and maybe on I-210 but now it's only Sacramento. Or, maybe it's just the Mandela effect playing a trick on me. 

[TheStranger]

However, when we look at US 101 South, the control city is Los Angeles immediately upon leaving San Francisco.

A minor correction:

Los Angeles is first signed from US 101 south at the Route 85 junction in Mountain View.  San Jose is pretty much the only control city between Interstate 80 and Route 85 along the Bayshore Freeway southbound.

By the way, is it just me, or has CalTrans removed Bakersfield as a control city from most highways in the LA area?

That is correct.  I have always presumed that was because when the West Side Freeway wasn't finished yet (into the 1970s), the Golden State Freeway route to Bakersfield was the next logical destination, but once the West Side portion of I-5 was constructed, Sacramento became preferred as the one numbered route heading out towards Grapevine from LA is the one that goes to the state capital.

[coatimundi]

Los Angeles is first signed from US 101 south at the Route 85 junction in Mountain View.  San Jose is pretty much the only control city between Interstate 80 and Route 85 along the Bayshore Freeway southbound.

But San Jose is the sole control city on 237 eastbound. INCONSISTENCIES!

I wonder if it's because LA, being a larger city, is seen as a more 'principal' destination and is thus given top billing on US 101 even as far away as the Bay Area, while more local destinations are touted on the opposite journey north?

Part of this is that very few people from the Bay Area are taking 101 south to Ventura. Mostly they're going to SLO County or to LA. Even Salinas, in spite of its population (it's the largest city on 101 between Los Angeles and San Jose), lacks the prominence to really warrant a control city designation on most of the highway. It's used in SLO and at the 156 east interchange (the west doesn't use a control city for the southbound ramp, although it should because I've seen people stopped within the gore many times, confused about the signage), but is mostly excluded, even within Monterey County.
And I think this, again, comes down to driver habits: those of us in Monterey County already know that 101 north in the southern part of the county leads you to Salinas. People not from the area are very likely not interested in going to Salinas, they're going to the Bay Area, which is reflected in the "San Francisco" control city. Conversely, those going to Ventura County would be going toward Los Angeles. Not to Los Angeles, but toward it.
That's my thought on it, at least.

[jrouse]

Welcome to the group.  Caltrans employee here.

I think what you're seeing is a difference in practices in terms of control city signing between Caltrans districts.  The districts have the latitude to set control cities on freeways and 3-digit interstates in their jurisdictions (control cities on the primary interstate routes are set by AASHTO).    Consistency in control cities is encouraged, but as you can see, it isn't always applied.


iPhone

[mrsman]

Welcome to the group.  Caltrans employee here.

I think what you're seeing is a difference in practices in terms of control city signing between Caltrans districts.  The districts have the latitude to set control cities on freeways and 3-digit interstates in their jurisdictions (control cities on the primary interstate routes are set by AASHTO).    Consistency in control cities is encouraged, but as you can see, it isn't always applied.


iPhone

True that.  Best example:  I-5 NB control city of Los Angeles in San Diego County, but uses Santa Ana in southern Orange County.

[Hiroshi66]

Thank you all for your comments and corrections! I appreciate it.

That makes a lot of sense. I had completely forgotten that San Jose is used as a control city on US 101 S in the South Bay and so I guess its function as a control city is similar to Ventura in the LA Metropolitan area. The Santa Ana-Los Angeles inconsistency on I-5 NB is a good comparison, too.

I'm glad to hear that I'm not just remembering incorrectly that Bakersfield used to be the control city on I-5 N in the Los Angeles area. I remember it being so as late as the early 2000s, but now it's consistently Sacramento.

Speaking of control cities, I always get a kick out of how the control city on CA 170 NB is Sacramento. I guess it makes sense since it functions as a link between US 101 and I-5, but at that point in LA the distances between the two are still close enough so that people heading up north would have already been taking I-5 NB out of the Downtown area in the first place. (Then again, I can't think of a better control city for CA 170 NB. At least they didn't do what they do on I-605 and just put "THRU TRAFFIC" as a control city. LOL!

[DTComposer]

To echo a little of what was said above - in the older signage, Caltrans District 5 (Central Coast) had been very consistent with their signage on US-101: next major city (San Jose, Salinas, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura) plus San Francisco northbound and Los Angeles southbound. This changes once you enter District 4 at Santa Clara County or District 7 at Ventura County.

Ventura never acts as a control city and is never present on any signs (with the exception of on mileage signs, perhaps). The main control city for southbound US 101 is always Los Angeles.

There had been a sign on US-101 southbound in Montecito with controls of Ventura/Los Angeles, but this was lost when the left exit was configured.

Along these lines: US-101 has no pull-throughs with control cities between south San Jose and San Juan Bautista, and there's no mention of Los Angeles at the CA-152 junction (although it does mention "to I-5"). I had wondered if that was to avoid "endorsing" one route over the other, since I-5 is faster and shorter, but requires crossing over CA-152 (two lanes undivided for part of the route).

It should be noted that the mileage sign between San Jose and Morgan Hill lists 382 miles to Los Angeles, which would be using US-101, but I imagine that's left over from before I-5 was constructed.

[mrsman]

Along these lines: US-101 has no pull-throughs with control cities between south San Jose and San Juan Bautista, and there's no mention of Los Angeles at the CA-152 junction (although it does mention "to I-5"). I had wondered if that was to avoid "endorsing" one route over the other, since I-5 is faster and shorter, but requires crossing over CA-152 (two lanes undivided for part of the route).

It should be noted that the mileage sign between San Jose and Morgan Hill lists 382 miles to Los Angeles, which would be using US-101, but I imagine that's left over from before I-5 was constructed.

I think this is spot on.  I cannot think of anywhere in the state where SF is used in the south where either 101 or 5 is a feasible choice.  But once you are committed to one route over the other, then these controls are used extensively.  So in LA and the SF Valley you can still feasibly get to either 5 or 101, but when you are north of Ventura you committed to 101 and when you are north of Wheeler Ridge, you committed to I-5.

To add to the confusion, there are some places in LA where Sacramento is the control on the 101!  The 101 Hollywood Freeway, of course, splits in North Hollywood to 170 to I-5 to Sac and 101 towards Ventura.  So yes, along the 101 Hollywood Freeway you can reach Sacramento, even though 101 itself doesn't get there.

I believe the reason for this was that there was some Caltrans directive that said that Ventura isn't a proper control city so some of the newer signs say Sacramento.  Although, most of the signs are along the street, but I believe they are Caltrans, but maybe they are from LA City.

Here's an example at the Alvarado Street on-ramp:

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0724775,-118.266826,3a,75y,179.72h,74.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZRIpCbwTnbh1Cu6LlSwf6Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Likewise, I cannot think of anywhere in the state where LA is used in the north where either 101 or 5 is a feasible choice.  LA is only along 101 south of CA-85.  You don't see mention of Los Anglese on the road to I-5 along I-580 until you are way beyond Livermore.

[TheStranger]

Likewise, I cannot think of anywhere in the state where LA is used in the north where either 101 or 5 is a feasible choice.  LA is only along 101 south of CA-85.  You don't see mention of Los Anglese on the road to I-5 along I-580 until you are way beyond Livermore.

IIRC, there is a sign pointing to "I-580 MacArthur Freeway - Stockton/Los Angeles" along I-80 near the MacArthur Maze.  Only mention of LA though before I-205 pretty much.

In Santa Clara County, even though LA is mentioned as far north on southbound 101 as Mountain View, at that juncture the cutoff to Route 152 in Gilroy remains an option for those who want a shorter route via I-5.  However as noted earlier, 152 does require going through the sluggish two-lane portion from Gilroy to Route 156, while 101 is all dual-carriageway up to the end of the route in East LA.

[bing101]

However, when we look at US 101 South, the control city is Los Angeles immediately upon leaving San Francisco.

A minor correction:

Los Angeles is first signed from US 101 south at the Route 85 junction in Mountain View.  San Jose is pretty much the only control city between Interstate 80 and Route 85 along the Bayshore Freeway southbound.

By the way, is it just me, or has CalTrans removed Bakersfield as a control city from most highways in the LA area?

That is correct.  I have always presumed that was because when the West Side Freeway wasn't finished yet (into the 1970s), the Golden State Freeway route to Bakersfield was the next logical destination, but once the West Side portion of I-5 was constructed, Sacramento became preferred as the one numbered route heading out towards Grapevine from LA is the one that goes to the state capital.

Dang I had no idea that Universal City had the Hollywood freeway where US-101 says Sacramento.

[Exit58]

(Then again, I can't think of a better control city for CA 170 NB. At least they didn't do what they do on I-605 and just put "THRU TRAFFIC" as a control city. LOL!

They could have also put 'Other Valley Cities' lol.

[Hiroshi66]

They could have also put 'Other Valley Cities' lol.

LOL! I always laugh when I see that sign. Or, they could use the 241's control city of "South County" and change it to "North Valley" on all 170 NB signs. LOL!

Yes, I have seen those Sacramento signs on US 101 NB onramps in the Echo Park area, as well as around Universal City! It would only work until the CA 170 interchange, though, since that's the easiest/shortest connection between I-5 and US 101. Actually, motorists could technically use I-405, as well, which has an official control city of Sacramento heading northbound, as well. After that, though, there is no viable link between I-5 and US 101 until Ventura and CA 126 - but that's much longer of a drive than CA 170 or even I-405!

Interestingly enough, CA 134 EB also uses Ventura as a control city pretty much from its start in Pasadena.

[Occidental Tourist]

With a population of 220k, Santa Clarita should be the NB control city on the 5, 405, 170, and 210.

[mrsman]

With a population of 220k, Santa Clarita should be the NB control city on the 5, 405, 170, and 210.

I'm still upset with the removal of San Fernando on the 210.  Sure, it's small, but it basically sits at the nexus of 5/118/210/405 and does mark the point very well.

[Hiroshi66]

With a population of 220k, Santa Clarita should be the NB control city on the 5, 405, 170, and 210.

Yes! I couldn't agree more with this. It would have a similar function that Ventura has as a control city on US 101. Sacramento can be listed as a control city only after passing the Santa Clarita area.

Plus, there is a lot of traffic heading between the Santa Clarita Valley and the Los Angeles area in both directions, so it would only make sense.

[Exit58]

I'm still upset with the removal of San Fernando on the 210.  Sure, it's small, but it basically sits at the nexus of 5/118/210/405 and does mark the point very well.

Once it gets to Pasadena, I would sign it with dual control cities - one local and one long distance, especially when the freeway ends there. San Fernando or Santa Clarita and Sacramento would be a good pairing. It'll give both locals and travelers a sense of direction instead of mass confusion: "I don't want Sacramento! I'm just trying to get to the other side of the valley" (that happened when I told someone to take 210 West). For local SR Freeways and 3di Interstates this makes sense. For example, San Bernardino/Indio would be a good pick for EB 210.

101 though, being a 'long distance' route to not only San Francisco but Oregon and Washington, should be given a distant control city similar to NB 5 getting a control city of Sacramento right after entering Los Angeles. Dual control cities might not be out of the question, but replacing San Francisco from LA to Ventura with Ventura seems odd. Ventura is not a long distance city, and as this is a 2di US Highway that runs inter-state. Seems natural to give it a large city like SF.

[coatimundi]

I'm still upset with the removal of San Fernando on the 210.  Sure, it's small, but it basically sits at the nexus of 5/118/210/405 and does mark the point very well.

Once it gets to Pasadena, I would sign it with dual control cities - one local and one long distance, especially when the freeway ends there. San Fernando or Santa Clarita and Sacramento would be a good pairing.

I thought Caltrans was following the AASHTO discouragement of multiple control cities.

Also, AASHTO sets the control cities for 2di interstates. So I-5's are set. Santa Ana just happens to be one of those cities. Santa Clarita hasn't even existed that long as a city.
Personally, I think I-5 NB should carry the control cities for 99 until the split occurs, which would be Bakersfield.

[Exit58]

I thought Caltrans was following the AASHTO discouragement of multiple control cities.

Also, AASHTO sets the control cities for 2di interstates. So I-5's are set. Santa Ana just happens to be one of those cities. Santa Clarita hasn't even existed that long as a city.
Personally, I think I-5 NB should carry the control cities for 99 until the split occurs, which would be Bakersfield.

They probably are following AASHTO, but at the same time California and Caltrans always do their own thing.

I know AASHTO sets the control cities for 2dis but I was just using it as an example.  I-5 used to be signed with Bakersfield due to it being part of the Golden State Highway, however AASHTO required it to be changed to Sacramento at some point.

[nexus73]

If AASHTO was so on the ball. SR-210 would be I-210 and then we could have fun with control cities beginning east of Berdoo!

Rick

[TheStranger]

Dual control cities might not be out of the question, but replacing San Francisco from LA to Ventura with Ventura seems odd. Ventura is not a long distance city, and as this is a 2di US Highway that runs inter-state. Seems natural to give it a large city like SF.

I don't think San Francisco has ever been used as a control city in Los Angeles for 101.

I think another factor in Ventura being the northbound control is that the freeway portion ends a little bit west of town.

[Exit58]

If AASHTO was so on the ball. SR-210 would be I-210 and then we could have fun with control cities beginning east of Berdoo!

Rick

I have this strange feeling that the old Crosstown Freeway (old SR 30, modern SR 210 from I-215 to I-10) is a large reason why the road hasn't gotten its Interstate destination yet. It's very narrow and I do not believe the shoulders are up to Interstate standards (could be wrong, please correct me). It also has to do with the fact that the old I-210 routing from Glendora to Pomona is still chargeable Interstate and will either need a new number (luckily X10 digits are still available) or will have to be removed from the chargeable system.

In the mean time, SR 210 green out keeps falling off and exposing I-210 shields and Caltrans hasn't made an effort to remedy the situation. Gives a nice glimpse of the blue shields that will be coming soon. (I hope)

[Hiroshi66]

101 though, being a 'long distance' route to not only San Francisco but Oregon and Washington, should be given a distant control city similar to NB 5 getting a control city of Sacramento right after entering Los Angeles. Dual control cities might not be out of the question, but replacing San Francisco from LA to Ventura with Ventura seems odd. Ventura is not a long distance city, and as this is a 2di US Highway that runs inter-state. Seems natural to give it a large city like SF.

Yes, that was exactly my thinking and the reason why I created this post. It just seemed odd to me that San Francisco wasn't signed anywhere in the Los Angeles area, even though (as mentioned elsewhere above) there are lone signs in the LA area (before the CA 170 split) listing Sacramento as a control city!

Speaking of which, I remember from my childhood drives in the early 1990s to the Bay Area that San Francisco was first given as a control city on US 101 at the CA 33 interchange in Ventura. Before that, including at the CA 126 interchange before Ventura, Ventura was still given as a control city. I seem to remember that well because the US 101 shield at the CA 33 interchange was one of the old fashioned clear ones (as opposed to the white backgrounds) and I clearly remember that "clear shield" being used on the first sign that listed San Francisco as a control city. It is no longer there and has since been replaced.

Now, however, US 101 lists "San Francisco" as a control city all the way back from the 126 interchange. I could have sworn that used to be Ventura before. Or was I not paying attention to it well enough as a kid? LOL.