California SR 90 (Marina Freeway + Imperial Highway)

[M3100]

Here are some pics from today (7-19-20) of California SR 90. 

The western segment in Los Angeles County includes the Marina Freeway (A "name" that will be dropped?) and connects California SR 1 (Lincoln Blvd.) in Marina del Rey with Slauson Ave. in Culver City.  It crosses over I-405.

Further east, a completely disconnected segment runs on Imperial Highway in Orange County, from an intersection with California SR 39 (Beach Blvd.) in La Habra to an interchange with California SR 91 in Yorba Linda.  It interchanges with California SR 57 and intersects with California SR 142 along its route.

Western starting point from California SR 1


One block east at Mindanao Way there is a confirmation sign of sorts


Westbound traffic at Mindanao Way also have confirmation that they will be on SR 90 for one block (see traffic light cantilever arm).


Here is the "eastern end" of the Marina Freeway segment; this view faces west on Slauson.  Slauson is not a numbered road.


For the Orange County/Imperial Highway segment, when driving east on Imperial Hwy. there is no announcement that one is now on a state highway.  However, there is this sign listing mileages for nearby cities for westbound traffic approaching the California SR 39 intersection (Beach Blvd.) in La Habra.  I don't know if these green signs are maintained by CalTrans, and they are posted at major street intersections.


Heading east, the first confirmation sign is just past Puente St. in Brea.


There was another confirmation shield (both directions) at the Bastanchury intersection (no picture).
Part of the easternmost section is a grade separated parkway through Yorba Linda, posted at 60 mph.

[Occidental Tourist]

Here are some pics from today (7-19-20) of California SR 90. 

The western segment in Los Angeles County includes the Marina Freeway (A "name" that will be dropped?) and connects California SR 1 (Lincoln Blvd.) in Marina del Rey with Slauson Ave. in Culver City.  It crosses over I-405.

Further east, a completely disconnected segment runs on Imperial Highway in Orange County, from an intersection with California SR 39 (Beach Blvd.) in La Habra to an interchange with California SR 91 in Yorba Linda.  It intersects with California SR 72, interchanges with California SR 57, and intersects with California SR 142 along its route.

Currently Route 72 comes close to but doesn't intersect Route 90.  In the past they crossed at the intersection of Harbor Blvd and Imperial Hwy.

[mrsman]

I hope the sign for Marina Freeway is kept.  Some people need more than just a number.  Also, there is no good control city for the eastbound Marina Freeway other than "To Slauson Ave", since it is so short.

I do like the mileage signs that were posted at Imperial/Beach.  As noted, they were typically signed along state highway corridors.  I wish they were more common at major intersections, since I think they can be useful.

Here is one at Fairfax approaching Slauson, about a mile east of the end of the Marina Freeway.  I don't think Slauson was ever a state highway, but perhaps signs like this are posted knowing that Slauson is more likely to attract interregional traffic to reach the Marina Freeway than other parallel arterials. 

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.9871286,-118.3624415,3a,75y,320.61h,79.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1su6i9qoY3c43cOlFX_vcLvQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

[cahwyguy]

I note the following on my pages:

This route was unsigned in 1963. It did, however, have a legislative definition:

1. LRN 221, proposed, with no routing determined, between Lincoln Blvd and LRN 170 (future I-605). This corresponds to the remainder of the original Route 90 definition, and the unconstructed portion. The portion between Route 1 and I-110 was defined in 1947; the remainder in 1959.

2. LRN 176, which runs from the Route 42/LRN 170 (I-605) junction to Yorba Linda. This corresponds to the subsequently added portion of the route that used to be part of Route 42. It also helps to explain why the route was shown as it was on some maps. The portion between Route 39 and Route 91 was defined in 1933; the remainder in 1959.

The interesting part is the Yorba Linda part, which used to be part of Route 42.

The Marina Freeway is associated with one of my best memories. You need to understand my brother died in 1970. In 1968 or 1969, I was riding with him in his VW Bug (PJX 816), when he decided to take the new Route 90 freeway, which had just opened (as far as Centinela) (we lived in Playa del Rey at the time). We weren't sure it was open, as it was extremely foggy. But evidently it was.

[M3100]

Currently Route 72 comes close to but doesn't intersect Route 90.  In the past they crossed at the intersection of Harbor Blvd and Imperial Hwy.

Thanks; I have corrected the original post.  (That route 72 has really been cut back over the years.)  I had referred to the Rand McNally 2021 Atlas, page 40, and I had interpreted the map to mean CA SR 72 ends as a "T" intersection with Imperial Hwy. Another update for the Rand McNally cartographers for 2022.

[sparker]

Currently Route 72 comes close to but doesn't intersect Route 90.  In the past they crossed at the intersection of Harbor Blvd and Imperial Hwy.

Thanks; I have corrected the original post.  (That route 72 has really been cut back over the years.)  I had referred to the Rand McNally 2021 Atlas, page 40, and I had interpreted the map to mean CA SR 72 ends as a "T" intersection with Imperial Hwy. Another update for the Rand McNally cartographers for 2022.

Currently CA 72 ends at the CA 39 intersection at Whittier and Beach Boulevards in La Habra.  The former CA 72 east of there on Whittier to Harbor Blvd. was transferred from CA 72 to CA 39 back in the 1990's; CA 39 itself "terminates" at the corner of Whittier and Harbor.  Apparently at one time there were tentative plans to adopt Harbor Blvd. and its Fullerton Road continuation as far north as CA 60, with a "jog" west to Azusa Ave., and then north on that arterial to the erstwhile CA 39 alignment north of I-10 (much of which has been subsequently relinquished).  But with Caltrans' present attitude toward state highways on urban surface alignments ("get rid of them if you can"), such a concept is effectively dead in the water.  So CA 39 will continue to exist in two regional segments:  Huntington Beach to La Habra and Covina to (technically) CA 2, but with relinquishments carved out of much of the "flatland" Azusa Ave. route. 

Back in the late '60's, when the DOH policy was "if we own it, we sign it", CA 90 from CA 39 east to Yorba Linda was well signed, particularly at the Beach Blvd. and Harbor Blvd. (then CA 72) intersections, which got the full trailblazer treatment.  But with the current de-emphasis of state surface alignments, signage has become much more sporadic to the point where long segments of any number of routes lack reassurance or even trailblazer shields. 

[mrsman]

Currently Route 72 comes close to but doesn't intersect Route 90.  In the past they crossed at the intersection of Harbor Blvd and Imperial Hwy.

Thanks; I have corrected the original post.  (That route 72 has really been cut back over the years.)  I had referred to the Rand McNally 2021 Atlas, page 40, and I had interpreted the map to mean CA SR 72 ends as a "T" intersection with Imperial Hwy. Another update for the Rand McNally cartographers for 2022.

Currently CA 72 ends at the CA 39 intersection at Whittier and Beach Boulevards in La Habra.  The former CA 72 east of there on Whittier to Harbor Blvd. was transferred from CA 72 to CA 39 back in the 1990's; CA 39 itself "terminates" at the corner of Whittier and Harbor.  Apparently at one time there were tentative plans to adopt Harbor Blvd. and its Fullerton Road continuation as far north as CA 60, with a "jog" west to Azusa Ave., and then north on that arterial to the erstwhile CA 39 alignment north of I-10 (much of which has been subsequently relinquished).  But with Caltrans' present attitude toward state highways on urban surface alignments ("get rid of them if you can"), such a concept is effectively dead in the water.  So CA 39 will continue to exist in two regional segments:  Huntington Beach to La Habra and Covina to (technically) CA 2, but with relinquishments carved out of much of the "flatland" Azusa Ave. route. 

Back in the late '60's, when the DOH policy was "if we own it, we sign it", CA 90 from CA 39 east to Yorba Linda was well signed, particularly at the Beach Blvd. and Harbor Blvd. (then CA 72) intersections, which got the full trailblazer treatment.  But with the current de-emphasis of state surface alignments, signage has become much more sporadic to the point where long segments of any number of routes lack reassurance or even trailblazer shields.

It's interesting in this one area of NW Orange County, you have the termini of CA 39, CA 72, CA 142, and CA 90.  WIth all the decommissioning, there are a lot of missed connections to the other highways, as well as the nearby CA 57 freeway.

If they aren't going to sign for the missing connectors as state highways, they can at least get some better signage to get from one to the other.

FWIW, I think Harbor is a better road to cross the hills into La Puente then Hacienda, so it may make more sense to be used as a connection to the San Gabriel Valley.

[sparker]

FWIW, I think Harbor is a better road to cross the hills into La Puente then Hacienda, so it may make more sense to be used as a connection to the San Gabriel Valley.

It's interesting to note that CA 39 was indeed signed over the county-maintained Hacienda Blvd. between (then) CA 72 along Whittier Blvd. and I-10 until early 1971; this included CA 39 shields on the Hacienda exit's BGS's from CA 60, which were "greened out" by 1973.  There were green reassurance spades on the over-the-hill section of Hacienda, which was terribly windy and actually pretty dangerous -- but most of the spades from La Puente north to I-10 were the old late 1950's black-on-white design (post-"bear" larger type), a hangover from pre-'64 days.  The green spades were the first to be taken down; the white shields hung around into the '80's and only removed when Hacienda Blvd. was revamped.  Curiously, the white 39 shields -- originally deployed by L.A. County -- persisted along the South Garvey I-10 frontage road until about 1976, when the diagonally-oriented Hacienda Blvd "main line" was curved north onto Vincent Ave., leaving the stub to Garvey a 2-lane minor street.  At that point the signed 39 alignment, regardless of maintenance, was effectively severed into its discrete south and north segments.   But today the major crossings of the Puente Hills are Colima Road (old county N8, now sporadically signed as simply a yellow "8" on a blue pentagon) and the aforementioned Harbor/Fullerton Road combination; between Whittier Blvd. and Colima Road Hacienda has seen no significant improvement since the '60's.       

[mrsman]

FWIW, I think Harbor is a better road to cross the hills into La Puente then Hacienda, so it may make more sense to be used as a connection to the San Gabriel Valley.

It's interesting to note that CA 39 was indeed signed over the county-maintained Hacienda Blvd. between (then) CA 72 along Whittier Blvd. and I-10 until early 1971; this included CA 39 shields on the Hacienda exit's BGS's from CA 60, which were "greened out" by 1973.  There were green reassurance spades on the over-the-hill section of Hacienda, which was terribly windy and actually pretty dangerous -- but most of the spades from La Puente north to I-10 were the old late 1950's black-on-white design (post-"bear" larger type), a hangover from pre-'64 days.  The green spades were the first to be taken down; the white shields hung around into the '80's and only removed when Hacienda Blvd. was revamped.  Curiously, the white 39 shields -- originally deployed by L.A. County -- persisted along the South Garvey I-10 frontage road until about 1976, when the diagonally-oriented Hacienda Blvd "main line" was curved north onto Vincent Ave., leaving the stub to Garvey a 2-lane minor street.  At that point the signed 39 alignment, regardless of maintenance, was effectively severed into its discrete south and north segments.   But today the major crossings of the Puente Hills are Colima Road (old county N8, now sporadically signed as simply a yellow "8" on a blue pentagon) and the aforementioned Harbor/Fullerton Road combination; between Whittier Blvd. and Colima Road Hacienda has seen no significant improvement since the '60's.       

Right.  And given that there are only a handful of crossings of the Puente Hills  east of I-605/Workman Mill that connect the San Gabriel Valley/Pomona Valley/Inland Empire with Whittier/SE LA County/Orange County the better routes should be emphasized.

For the immediate area between I-605 and CA 57, you have Workman Mill paralleling I-605 and Brea Canyon paralleling CA 57.  For the large area in between, Colima and Harbor/Fullerton are far superior to Turnbull Canyon and Hacienda


So even if there are issues with signing CA 39 on these routes (the signs are signed for maintenance purposes, not navigation for drivers), other signs should guide traffic toward Colima and Harbor/Fullerton.   And perhaps by signing CA 39 on that easternmost section of Whittier Blvd is a tacit way of doing just that.  But I would prefer something more prominent, like signs guiding people to use Harbor/Fullerton to connect Pomona to Fullerton.  (Maybe the name on the SGV side is enough.)

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^^^
One of the issues concerning any N-S corridor over the Puente Hills is that, except for the Colima Road crossing, the south end is in Orange County (Caltrans D12) and the north in L.A. County (D7).  Sometimes it has seemed that there's a virtual "Berlin Wall" separating the two when it comes to projects and priorities.  The fact that D12 saw fit to extend CA 39 eastward to Harbor Blvd., where the most efficient hill crossing (again, besides Colima well to the west in Whittier) is located and out of necessity (not owning/managing the facility beyond there) simply terminating it, while there is zero mention of CA 39 south of I-10 in the San Gabriel valley speaks volumes -- D12 at least gives a bit of a damn about getting the area driver over to a suitable northbound facility, while D7 is essentially shrugging their shoulders.  You'd think someone with an ounce of common sense would have by this time deployed a string of blue pentagons with "39" on them along the Harbor/Fullerton/Azusa alignment just for the sake of continuity (but again, this is CA, not NJ!).  OTOH, while departing CA 39 a bit prematurely just north of Buena Park, L.A. county "8" (old N8) does itself provide a nice clean pathway north, since its signage turns north from Colima onto Azusa and continues north to the I-10/CA 39 interchange; and it's all in L.A. County, no less.  I've used that particular corridor several times; from Buena Park to I-10, off-peak, it's about a 30-35 minute drive, which in L.A. terms is pretty outstanding!  But there is little if any signage from its termini that it's in any way a through facility; if any L.A. posters know if GPS regularly routes folks over County "8" that would be most informative.  Nevertheless, aside from that corridor there is only the most miniscule chance that a continuation of CA 39 will ever be signed from OC to the SG valley. 

[mrsman]

^^^^^^^^^^^
One of the issues concerning any N-S corridor over the Puente Hills is that, except for the Colima Road crossing, the south end is in Orange County (Caltrans D12) and the north in L.A. County (D7).  Sometimes it has seemed that there's a virtual "Berlin Wall" separating the two when it comes to projects and priorities.  The fact that D12 saw fit to extend CA 39 eastward to Harbor Blvd., where the most efficient hill crossing (again, besides Colima well to the west in Whittier) is located and out of necessity (not owning/managing the facility beyond there) simply terminating it, while there is zero mention of CA 39 south of I-10 in the San Gabriel valley speaks volumes -- D12 at least gives a bit of a damn about getting the area driver over to a suitable northbound facility, while D7 is essentially shrugging their shoulders.  You'd think someone with an ounce of common sense would have by this time deployed a string of blue pentagons with "39" on them along the Harbor/Fullerton/Azusa alignment just for the sake of continuity (but again, this is CA, not NJ!).  OTOH, while departing CA 39 a bit prematurely just north of Buena Park, L.A. county "8" (old N8) does itself provide a nice clean pathway north, since its signage turns north from Colima onto Azusa and continues north to the I-10/CA 39 interchange; and it's all in L.A. County, no less.  I've used that particular corridor several times; from Buena Park to I-10, off-peak, it's about a 30-35 minute drive, which in L.A. terms is pretty outstanding!  But there is little if any signage from its termini that it's in any way a through facility; if any L.A. posters know if GPS regularly routes folks over County "8" that would be most informative.  Nevertheless, aside from that corridor there is only the most miniscule chance that a continuation of CA 39 will ever be signed from OC to the SG valley.

While hoping it is a mistake, I don't like the fact that the county is signing the highway as 8.  First of all, it is established practice to sign the county highways with a letter to signify the region within the state that the highway falls in.  Second of all, and more importantly, it would seem to be a violation of CA's rule of not duplicating highway numbers.  There is already an interstate 8 between San Diego and Yuma.

Regardless, it would be nice if more routes were signed as county/local highways for continuity purposes.  If there is a concern of not signing highways with miners spades if they are no longer maintained by the state, then blue pentagons would be perfect.  As you stated above, blue pentagon 39's would be perfect to connect the two sections of CA-39, and there are probably many other examples that we all could think of where this would be useful.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^^^
One of the issues concerning any N-S corridor over the Puente Hills is that, except for the Colima Road crossing, the south end is in Orange County (Caltrans D12) and the north in L.A. County (D7).  Sometimes it has seemed that there's a virtual "Berlin Wall" separating the two when it comes to projects and priorities.  The fact that D12 saw fit to extend CA 39 eastward to Harbor Blvd., where the most efficient hill crossing (again, besides Colima well to the west in Whittier) is located and out of necessity (not owning/managing the facility beyond there) simply terminating it, while there is zero mention of CA 39 south of I-10 in the San Gabriel valley speaks volumes -- D12 at least gives a bit of a damn about getting the area driver over to a suitable northbound facility, while D7 is essentially shrugging their shoulders.  You'd think someone with an ounce of common sense would have by this time deployed a string of blue pentagons with "39" on them along the Harbor/Fullerton/Azusa alignment just for the sake of continuity (but again, this is CA, not NJ!).  OTOH, while departing CA 39 a bit prematurely just north of Buena Park, L.A. county "8" (old N8) does itself provide a nice clean pathway north, since its signage turns north from Colima onto Azusa and continues north to the I-10/CA 39 interchange; and it's all in L.A. County, no less.  I've used that particular corridor several times; from Buena Park to I-10, off-peak, it's about a 30-35 minute drive, which in L.A. terms is pretty outstanding!  But there is little if any signage from its termini that it's in any way a through facility; if any L.A. posters know if GPS regularly routes folks over County "8" that would be most informative.  Nevertheless, aside from that corridor there is only the most miniscule chance that a continuation of CA 39 will ever be signed from OC to the SG valley.

While hoping it is a mistake, I don't like the fact that the county is signing the highway as 8.  First of all, it is established practice to sign the county highways with a letter to signify the region within the state that the highway falls in.  Second of all, and more importantly, it would seem to be a violation of CA's rule of not duplicating highway numbers.  There is already an interstate 8 between San Diego and Yuma.

Regardless, it would be nice if more routes were signed as county/local highways for continuity purposes.  If there is a concern of not signing highways with miners spades if they are no longer maintained by the state, then blue pentagons would be perfect.  As you stated above, blue pentagon 39's would be perfect to connect the two sections of CA-39, and there are probably many other examples that we all could think of where this would be useful.

The non-duplication rule only extends from state highways upwards (in reality, anything under Caltrans' aegis is technically a state highway); county roads have never fallen under this rule even though historically the alphanumeric prefix would have differentiated it in any case.  So L.A. County is free to go ahead and number their admittedly few signed routes with any designation they can pull out of their various orifices. 

But thanks for the support regarding signing "ersatz" connecting routes with pentagons to indicate lack of state maintenance.  Besides the "39" connector I described earlier, I certainly wouldn't mind seeing pentagons indicating "64" on Malibu Canyon, "249" on Angeles Forest Highway, "122" on Pearblossom Highway between CA 14 and CA 138, and "107" on the southern section of Hawthorne Blvd. over the hill in Palos Verdes.  And neighboring San Bernardino County has seen fit to erect pentagon "66" signs on the National Trails Highway between Victorville and Barstow; IMO that practice should extend to all existing sections of the original alignment from at least Upland eastward to Needles.  Stick 'em below the sporadic "Historic US 66" beige/brown rectangles if necessary.     

[cahwyguy]

And neighboring San Bernardino County has seen fit to erect pentagon "66" signs on the National Trails Highway between Victorville and Barstow;

Actually, the good folks in SBD County's public works department had to come to me to get the sign specifications and history for that one, as by that time Caltrans no longer had the information (having decomissioned the mainframe that had it). I think the 66 designation had been more of a historic highway thing. I wish they had followed convention and used one of the letters for their county group (N, P, R, S). S is a bit overloaded to the S (although I do seem to recall an S80), by P66 or R66 would be nice.

[zzcarp]

I attended a workshop at Landmark back on Feb. 29/March 1 which is located south of Slauson Avenue just east of the CA 90 terminus. Waze often had me take I-405 to CA 90 east to Slauson so I could make all right turns into the business park complex. I also went westbound on CA 90 from that terminus to drop off some of my colleagues. I drove through that intersection the better part of a dozen times that weekend. I'd assumed the stub ending was for a freeway never constructed. Thanks for the additional information.

[sparker]

And neighboring San Bernardino County has seen fit to erect pentagon "66" signs on the National Trails Highway between Victorville and Barstow;

Actually, the good folks in SBD County's public works department had to come to me to get the sign specifications and history for that one, as by that time Caltrans no longer had the information (having decomissioned the mainframe that had it). I think the 66 designation had been more of a historic highway thing. I wish they had followed convention and used one of the letters for their county group (N, P, R, S). S is a bit overloaded to the S (although I do seem to recall an S80), by P66 or R66 would be nice.

The "R" series might have been a good fit; the few remaining examples are in the greater Inland Empire, such as R3 on old CA 79 south of Hemet.  R1, of course, eventually was adopted into the state system as CA 243 (when the agency actually did things like that!).  So conceivably "R66" could have been used to delineate old US 66.  But it's just as likely that the PR folks undoubtedly behind that posting were able to convince the county that the "66" number should be posted "as is" without modification or embellishment (county signage history be damned!) to emphasize the relationship to the old highway.  With the de-emphasis of the signed county route in CA over the last few decades, attempting to maintain some sort of systematic classification like the old region-by-region alphanumeric prefixes would likely be an effort beyond the means or will of any governing body.  BTW, IIRC the "P" prefix was never in service, although there were a number of "N" prefixes on the north side of the San Gabriels near Wrightwood -- with the most famous/nororious, N2, being the CA 138 "direct connector" between Palmdale and Gorman while the actual state highway (at least the signed version) jogged north on CA 14 before striking out west on Ave. D.  So, OTOH, "N66" might have been employed -- even though many of the several "N" series county roads out in the desert region between CA 14 and I-15, such as N4 and N6, lost their field signage years ago.     

[mrsman]

Personally, not as concerned with county-66, as there is no likelihood of issues with the duplication.  If there are still old signs on Foothill Blvd with CA-66 then it's OK, as it was at one time the same highway.

I just wished that the historic signs were designed more with navigation in mind.  It would be nice to be able to use them to actually follow a corridor, so you need to display arrows when the designation turns down onto another street.  (I understand the designations changed every couple of years, making this somewhat difficult in practice.)

[sparker]

Personally, not as concerned with county-66, as there is no likelihood of issues with the duplication.  If there are still old signs on Foothill Blvd with CA-66 then it's OK, as it was at one time the same highway.

I just wished that the historic signs were designed more with navigation in mind.  It would be nice to be able to use them to actually follow a corridor, so you need to display arrows when the designation turns down onto another street.  (I understand the designations changed every couple of years, making this somewhat difficult in practice.)

Since Foothill Blvd. has been relinquished piece-by-piece in San Bernardino County since around 2007, there are precious few green CA 66 shields left in the field; the last ones I saw circa 2012 were at the CA 83/Euclid Ave. intersection in Upland.  And they're outnumbered by the "historic US 66" shields/signs predominant in the Fontana-Rialto area.   While it might be nice to have a continuous "old 66" consistently signed route, the fact remains that much of I-15 directly overlays the old road, particularly from the north side of Cajon Pass north to CA 18 in Victorville (and putting "historic US 66" signs on the frontage roads wouldn't be particularly accurate nor productive).   But what is curious is that the original US 66 Victorville alignment, which makes a right-angle turn at the corner of 7th and D streets, is signed -- almost to saturation level -- with "Historic US 66" brown rectangular signs with a 1930's-era shield appended.  But where D Street (also CA 18) passes under I-15, it becomes the National Trails Highway (old US 66/91), gaining blue 66 pentagons, immediately after the SB I-15 onramp.  So, at least at that one point, there are two separate examples of historic 66 field reference adjacent to one another.  But then this is CA, where signage consistency is honored more in the breach than the observance!

[Max Rockatansky]

Hit the Marina Freeway eastbound today after touring CA 187:

https://flic.kr/s/aHBqjzxWux

About the notable thing I can say about the Marina Freeway is that it probably was the most lightly traveled L.A. area freeway I've ever hit during daytime hours. 

[mrsman]

Hit the Marina Freeway eastbound today after touring CA 187:

https://flic.kr/s/aHBqjzxWux

About the notable thing I can say about the Marina Freeway is that it probably was the most lightly traveled L.A. area freeway I've ever hit during daytime hours.

It's a great shortcut for those who can use it, but given its length and location there aren't many who can make good use of it.

One key benefit of it, is that it does provide good access to the Playa Vista area.  The area was once the Howard Hughes Airport and then the land was sold and developed in the 1990s.  Part of the discussions allowing upzoning for more office use in the area was the fact that the Marina Freeway was so close which could be used as a means of dissipating some of the expected traffic.  The area is now the center of the "Silicon Coast", as several high-tech companies have LA area offices in this zone.

[Max Rockatansky]

Put something together for CA 90:

https://www.gribblenation.org/2022/06/california-state-route-90.html?m=1