California

[jdbx]

Santa Ana is the Orange County seat.  The freeway is also called the "Santa Ana Freeway."  While I'd agree that Santa Ana is kind of anonymous by modern suburban infill historically the community has been very much a very different thing than Los Angeles.  Either way, I see no issue with using any county seat as a control city.

You bring to mind an interesting question that I am now pondering. Usually these lists of control cities were developed decades ago. Are there ever cases of control cities being dropped or added?  I don't mean a case of greening out "San Diego" to place "Santa Ana" when both were already on the list of control cities. I mean a case where a community grew rapidly and became a major destination *after* the list of control cities were initially created? I guess I am just wondering how fluid a list of control cities may be and how much deviation there could be in 2024 vs 1964 for example.

[RZF]

Santa Ana is the Orange County seat.  The freeway is also called the "Santa Ana Freeway."  While I'd agree that Santa Ana is kind of anonymous by modern suburban infill historically the community has been very much a very different thing than Los Angeles.  Either way, I see no issue with using any county seat as a control city.

You bring to mind an interesting question that I am now pondering. Usually these lists of control cities were developed decades ago. Are there ever cases of control cities being dropped or added?  I don't mean a case of greening out "San Diego" to place "Santa Ana" when both were already on the list of control cities. I mean a case where a community grew rapidly and became a major destination *after* the list of control cities were initially created? I guess I am just wondering how fluid a list of control cities may be and how much deviation there could be in 2024 vs 1964 for example.

What's interesting is I-5 N from Downtown LA used to have Bakersfield as a control city before Sacramento. (There are still some lingering freeway entry signs in the SF Valley with it as a control sign northbound). Bakersfield has become a sort of a "LA is too expensive, I want a big newer house for an affordable price" kinda city, and its substantial population growth over the past 50 years shows that. Given the amount of LA refugees that have increasingly moved there, I'm surprised D7 hasn't kept Bakersfield as the more aptly-fit control city for I-5 N. Yeah, at Wheeler Ridge, motorists are advised to take CA 99 into Bakersfield. But still, I always thought that it's weird that Sacramento, a city 400+ miles away, is the control city when there are other large regional cities on the way there.

[Scott5114]

Santa Ana is the Orange County seat.  The freeway is also called the "Santa Ana Freeway."  While I'd agree that Santa Ana is kind of anonymous by modern suburban infill historically the community has been very much a very different thing than Los Angeles.  Either way, I see no issue with using any county seat as a control city.

You bring to mind an interesting question that I am now pondering. Usually these lists of control cities were developed decades ago. Are there ever cases of control cities being dropped or added?  I don't mean a case of greening out "San Diego" to place "Santa Ana" when both were already on the list of control cities. I mean a case where a community grew rapidly and became a major destination *after* the list of control cities were initially created? I guess I am just wondering how fluid a list of control cities may be and how much deviation there could be in 2024 vs 1964 for example.

It's not in California (if that's what you're looking for specifically) but some of the first freeway signs in Utah had Los Angeles as the southbound control city for I-15, because Las Vegas wasn't a major city yet!

I found a photo that confirms that Los Angeles was a control city on I-15 (though I'm still not sure if that was ever the case for US-91). In Salt Lake, no less!

[Quillz]

On a similar note, once you get north of Redding, I believe I-5's control city changes to Portland, skipping Eugene and Salem entirely, despite these being significant cities in Oregon. (There might be a few Salem signs, but I've yet to see them). Not sure of the exact distance but I think it's close to 500 miles or so between Redding and Portland.

[roadman65]

Santa Ana is the Orange County seat.  The freeway is also called the "Santa Ana Freeway."  While I'd agree that Santa Ana is kind of anonymous by modern suburban infill historically the community has been very much a very different thing than Los Angeles.  Either way, I see no issue with using any county seat as a control city.

You bring to mind an interesting question that I am now pondering. Usually these lists of control cities were developed decades ago. Are there ever cases of control cities being dropped or added?  I don't mean a case of greening out "San Diego" to place "Santa Ana" when both were already on the list of control cities. I mean a case where a community grew rapidly and became a major destination *after* the list of control cities were initially created? I guess I am just wondering how fluid a list of control cities may be and how much deviation there could be in 2024 vs 1964 for example.

What's interesting is I-5 N from Downtown LA used to have Bakersfield as a control city before Sacramento. (There are still some lingering freeway entry signs in the SF Valley with it as a control sign northbound). Bakersfield has become a sort of a "LA is too expensive, I want a big newer house for an affordable price" kinda city, and its substantial population growth over the past 50 years shows that. Given the amount of LA refugees that have increasingly moved there, I'm surprised D7 hasn't kept Bakersfield as the more aptly-fit control city for I-5 N. Yeah, at Wheeler Ridge, motorists are advised to take CA 99 into Bakersfield. But still, I always thought that it's weird that Sacramento, a city 400+ miles away, is the control city when there are other large regional cities on the way there.

Well some old Enco map I had did show that I-5 north of CA 99 was incomplete in the late sixties. I assume Bakersfield was a holdover from then when all traffic at the 5 & 99 split were then forced onto Highway 99 then due to I-5 north of there not yet a road.

Santa Ana being the Orange County seat and the fact that the communities in between LA and there were smaller at the time I-5 came to life does make sense. However like Clinton and Easton in New Jersey on I-78, are no longer stand out cities as they were prior to the 1980's that added bedroom communities to former rural townships along that interstate, should be amended with the times as the importance of such have changed.

If so it should be signed as both Santa Ana and San Diego from East LA to Santa Ana.

[Max Rockatansky]

Santa Ana is still the seat of governance of Orange County.  That alone makes it an easily justifiable control city.  Trying to argue otherwise is a weak attempt to paint it as a non existent problem.

Also worth point out that Santa Ana has a population of over 300,000.  Not all those people are dashing north to downtown Los Angeles for work.

[mrsman]

While I disagree with Santa Ana as a control for I-5 northbound, Santa Ana is a proper control for I-5 southbound.  Primarily, because the names of freeways are slowly being removed from signage, so control city usage at least maintains that, to an extent.

So if signs for the Santa Ana Freeway are being removed, at least I can see the control guidance to Santa Ana in LA county and northern orange county.

The northbound control from San Diego, in both SD county and Orange county, was Los Angeles for many many years.  D12 decided that its city is good enough to be a control southbound so they replaced Los Angeles with Santa Ana as the control on northbound I-5 on all (most) guide signs to I-5 north between San Clemente and Santa Ana.  I don't like it.  First of all, it creates a discontinuity as L.A. is the control throughout San Diego county, then drops from view, and then reappears after entering SA city limits.  Second of all, L.A. is far more important of a destination.  IMO, guide signs can use Santa Ana as a secondary control on NB I-5, but L.A. should be the primary control.

[roadman65]

Florida in D2 of FDOT did the same for I-95 leaving Jacksonville as they once signed St. Augustine as a control city, as it too is a county seat of nearby St. John's County. Then Miami would commence from St. John's County onward.

Since then D2 changed the cities out for Daytona Beach, where I-4 interchanges, to amend the current trend of using cities near interstate junctions.   So I do see the Significance of Santa Ana.


I just think it's odd that considering that Sacramento is used the other way that they don't remain consistent here. Not going to write Caltrans and lecture them like it's a mortal sin, just that it appears off beat and think it's unusual to apply different principles going north than south.

[DTComposer]

Regarding adding control cities: Irvine has begun to be used on I-405 - it wasn't even incorporated when I-405 was built through the area and had a 1970 population of ~10,000. Now it's over 300,000 and the second-largest city in Orange County (passing Santa Ana).
CA-126 heading east from US-101 had Santa Paula as a control city, which was replaced by Santa Clarita. Similar to the above, Santa Clarita wasn't incorporated until 1987 (although it was at the time a collection of small-ish communities), and now has over 200,000 people.

As far as Santa Ana as a control city: the historical reasons have been given, but this is also why I do not like single control cities. When in a metro area, a significant local control and a long-distance control should both be used. So from downtown Los Angeles, I-5 north should be Santa Clarita/Sacramento (or perhaps Bakersfield/Sacramento) and I-5 south should be Santa Ana/San Diego - BUT I would advocate for Anaheim instead of Santa Ana - it is the largest city in Orange County, has national recognition (Disney, sports teams) and is by far the dominant destination for tourists (who I think would be the primary users of control cities).

[mrsman]

Regarding adding control cities: Irvine has begun to be used on I-405 - it wasn't even incorporated when I-405 was built through the area and had a 1970 population of ~10,000. Now it's over 300,000 and the second-largest city in Orange County (passing Santa Ana).
CA-126 heading east from US-101 had Santa Paula as a control city, which was replaced by Santa Clarita. Similar to the above, Santa Clarita wasn't incorporated until 1987 (although it was at the time a collection of small-ish communities), and now has over 200,000 people.

Correct.  Santa Clarita wasn't even a known term before 1987.  The little communities like Newhall, Saugus, and Valencia were the terminology for the area.  I suspect that they wanted a compromise term, although Newhall, IMO, should have been the most prominent for the Newhall Pass that US 99 / I-5 and the railroad passes through between this area and the San Fernando Valley.

As far as Santa Ana as a control city: the historical reasons have been given, but this is also why I do not like single control cities. When in a metro area, a significant local control and a long-distance control should both be used. So from downtown Los Angeles, I-5 north should be Santa Clarita/Sacramento (or perhaps Bakersfield/Sacramento) and I-5 south should be Santa Ana/San Diego - BUT I would advocate for Anaheim instead of Santa Ana - it is the largest city in Orange County, has national recognition (Disney, sports teams) and is by far the dominant destination for tourists (who I think would be the primary users of control cities).

I definitely agree with your points on using two control cities when possible.  I would normally also support Anaheim over Santa Ana, except for the fact that the use of SA keeps alive the SA Fwy name.  Plus, it is a good control from the north, west, and northwest to lead towards the Orange Crush Interchange, which is why SA is also a good control for SB CA-57.

The use of Anaheim as a north control for CA 55 is not helpful since it is directing traffic towards the Anaheim Hills and away from the main Anaheim tourist destinations like Disney and the sports facilities.  (I would prefer a double control of Yorba Linda and Riverside.  Yes, 55 does not hit YL directly, but it is more clearly a city that is in the northeastern corner of Orange County, plus the first two exits off 91 eastbound, after 55 ends, leads directly into YL.)

Anaheim would be a great control for 91 WB from the Riverside area.  Far better than Beach Cities or even Los Angeles in this area.  Beach Cities is non descript and I-10 and CA-60 are far more direct to Los Angeles.  Although good signage towards Disney and the sports facilities would be needed if Anaheim is ever adopted as a control on 91.

EDITED TO ADD:  I would also be in favor of two control cities for I-10 EB.  Whereas San Bernardino can be the main control on smaller signs and at freeway entrance ramps from local streets, I would be in favor of San Bernardino / Phoenix at all major freeway junctions east of Downtown LA.

[nexus73]

Great ideas mrsman!  Love the Phoenix control city addition too...in Oregon I wish we saw some Sacramento control city signage on the southern stretch.  We do drive a long ways out here in the West!

[mrsman]

Great ideas mrsman!  Love the Phoenix control city addition too...in Oregon I wish we saw some Sacramento control city signage on the southern stretch.  We do drive a long ways out here in the West!

I don't want to take full credit.  There are some video games that involve driving that show some of the freeway driving in L.A. that suggest a Phoenix control instead of San Bernardino.  Again, because of the issue of freeway names like Santa Ana Fwy and San Bernardino Fwy that are being removed from signs, I support San Bernardino as the primary control with Phoenix as the secondary - even though in most cases I would advocate for the bigger city being the primary control.

[Quillz]

One thing I've learned is some cities are way more important in certain contexts. For example, most people probably know Ventura, CA but don't know Oxnard, CA as well. But try taking an Amtrak through California and avoiding Oxnard. It's damn near impossible. Nearly all passenger traffic heading north or south goes through Oxnard at some point. Likewise, places like Dunsmuir, CA are tiny rest stops off the 5, but important Amtrak stops. Fillmore, CA was the same way, it had its heyday during the railroads.

[DTComposer]

in Oregon I wish we saw some Sacramento control city signage on the southern stretch.  We do drive a long ways out here in the West!

Agree on this. I know Portland shows up northbound by Redding if not earlier.

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

I keep meaning to ask - do you mean Willits (instead of Willets)?

One thing I've learned is some cities are way more important in certain contexts. For example, most people probably know Ventura, CA but don't know Oxnard, CA as well. But try taking an Amtrak through California and avoiding Oxnard. It's damn near impossible. Nearly all passenger traffic heading north or south goes through Oxnard at some point.

Another historical context here - although Oxnard has been larger population-wise for decades, Ventura is the county seat and the commercial, historical and cultural center of the region. Along those lines, though, Santa Barbara is much better known outside of California than either of those cities and is a much bigger tourist/cultural draw. I've always thought US-101 should sign for Ventura/Santa Barbara from L.A.

Interesting to note that Santa Barbara isn't used as a control at all on that stretch (save for some auxiliary signs on intersecting roads) - starting at CA-126, US-101 north is signed for San Francisco.

For trains it makes sense that the long-distance Coast Starlight stops in Oxnard, since it's more centrally located in Ventura County. But the Pacific Surfliners do stop in Ventura, as well as Oxnard and Camarillo.

[GaryA]

Interesting to note that Santa Barbara isn't used as a control at all on that stretch (save for some auxiliary signs on intersecting roads) - starting at CA-126, US-101 north is signed for San Francisco.

Back when Caltrans used dual control cities, US 101 was signed at CA 126 as being for "Santa Barbara / San Francisco".
Further up, it would be "San Luis Obispo / San Francisco"; I don't remember what was used north of there (Salinas and then San Jose, probably).

[roadman65]

Interesting to note that Santa Barbara isn't used as a control at all on that stretch (save for some auxiliary signs on intersecting roads) - starting at CA-126, US-101 north is signed for San Francisco.

Back when Caltrans used dual control cities, US 101 was signed at CA 126 as being for "Santa Barbara / San Francisco".
Further up, it would be "San Luis Obispo / San Francisco"; I don't remember what was used north of there (Salinas and then San Jose, probably).

Why does US 101 receive three control city mileage signs but I-5 only gets two mileage cities?

[DTComposer]

Interesting to note that Santa Barbara isn't used as a control at all on that stretch (save for some auxiliary signs on intersecting roads) - starting at CA-126, US-101 north is signed for San Francisco.

Back when Caltrans used dual control cities, US 101 was signed at CA 126 as being for "Santa Barbara / San Francisco".

That must have been some time ago - since I began driving in that area (1990) the pull-through signs at CA-126 and CA-33 have always just been San Francisco, and they were definitely older signs.

North of there (beginning at the CA-1 junction in Las Cruces) they still have two-city controls: San Luis Obispo/San Francisco, Salinas/San Francisco, San Jose/San Francisco.

[nexus73]

in Oregon I wish we saw some Sacramento control city signage on the southern stretch.  We do drive a long ways out here in the West!

Agree on this. I know Portland shows up northbound by Redding if not earlier.

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

I keep meaning to ask - do you mean Willits (instead of Willets)?

One thing I've learned is some cities are way more important in certain contexts. For example, most people probably know Ventura, CA but don't know Oxnard, CA as well. But try taking an Amtrak through California and avoiding Oxnard. It's damn near impossible. Nearly all passenger traffic heading north or south goes through Oxnard at some point.

Another historical context here - although Oxnard has been larger population-wise for decades, Ventura is the county seat and the commercial, historical and cultural center of the region. Along those lines, though, Santa Barbara is much better known outside of California than either of those cities and is a much bigger tourist/cultural draw. I've always thought US-101 should sign for Ventura/Santa Barbara from L.A.

Interesting to note that Santa Barbara isn't used as a control at all on that stretch (save for some auxiliary signs on intersecting roads) - starting at CA-126, US-101 north is signed for San Francisco.

For trains it makes sense that the long-distance Coast Starlight stops in Oxnard, since it's more centrally located in Ventura County. But the Pacific Surfliners do stop in Ventura, as well as Oxnard and Camarillo.

Fixed the Willets!  Good catch :-)

[Max Rockatansky]

What you talkin about Willits?

[TheStranger]

Interesting to note that Santa Barbara isn't used as a control at all on that stretch (save for some auxiliary signs on intersecting roads) - starting at CA-126, US-101 north is signed for San Francisco.

Back when Caltrans used dual control cities, US 101 was signed at CA 126 as being for "Santa Barbara / San Francisco".
Further up, it would be "San Luis Obispo / San Francisco"; I don't remember what was used north of there (Salinas and then San Jose, probably).

Why does US 101 receive three control city mileage signs but I-5 only gets two mileage cities?

A couple of thoughts on this:

1. US 101 has existed for longer, so the dual control city setup may date back to the 1960s - an era where 5 did not exist at all between the Grapevine and points north.

2. 99 I know does the double-control thing almost from the very start in Wheeler Ridge, 5 goes through much fewer destinations between LA and Sacramento compared to 101 between SF and San Francisco.  So while San Francisco is mentioned on roadside distance signs along the West Side Freeway portion, it's never the main control city (except for maybe a mention at the 152 junction). 

From Sacramento southward, Los Angeles is already the control city (as far north as in Natomas near the former Arco Arena).  Since Bakersfield was removed as a control city in the 1980s from I-5, Sacramento has been the northbound control from East Los Angeles north to Elk Grove.

[Great Lakes Roads]

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/bridge-toll-booth-removal-postponed-18654142.php

"The Bay Area Toll Authority, which oversees operation of the bridges, had planned to start removing the empty booths last August and finish the last one — the Bay Bridge — by the fall of 2026.

Those plans, however, have been delayed and will cost more, the Chronicle has learned.

The removal of the toll booths — and the accompanying restriping and installation of overhead toll collection equipment — won't begin until early 2026, according to John Goodwin, a spokesperson for the toll authority, and won't be completed until March 2027.

The reason for the delay was a decision by Caltrans to upgrade the automated toll collection system at the same time it moves from toll booths to gantries, Goodwin said.

"What will come is a whole new toll collection system — hardware and software," he said. "While drivers will surely notice the hardware, they're not likely to see any of the software changes. What drivers will notice is the elimination of toll booths and the installation of gantries. The rest of it will be invisible."

As for the state-owned bridges, here's the latest schedule for when each will shed its toll booths and start so-called open-road tolling:

Richmond-San Rafael Bridge: February 2026
Antioch Bridge: May 2026
Carquinez Bridge: June 2026
Benicia-Martinez Bridge: July 2026
Dumbarton Bridge: July 2026
San Mateo Bridge: August 2026
Bay Bridge: March 2027

The project is expected to cost $150 million, compared with the original estimate of $77 million. And it could grow further as the toll authority develops a formal budget for the move to open-road tolling over the next four months, Goodwin said."

[Rothman]

Egads, they're slow.

[jdbx]

Egads, they're slow.

From the article: "One Bay Area bridge — the Benicia-Martinez Bridge on Interstate 680 — already has some open-road tolling, which began as a test when the northbound span opened in 2007......  At the time, the toll authority called the test the 'wave of the future.'"

No kidding, "wave of the future" finally happens elsewhere 20 years later.  That said, I suppose delaying things to allow them to use upgraded equipment is probably a better use of funds than doing it sooner with legacy equipment and then having to come back later to upgrade.

I'm curious to see how they will approach this at each of the bridges with regards to how they manage lane drops, where they ultimately place the gantries, how many through-lanes are maintained ahead of the metering lights.

[nexus73]

Fuel prices are already sky high so why not add a 10 cent per gallon tax for the bridge system in all counties along the San Francisco Bay? Then drop the tolls and save money by also dropping the toll bureaucracies plus the collection system while removing all the toll booth obstructions so traffic flows better.  Drive the bridges for "free" and figure out of area people doing so will be gassing up somewhere along the bay to put something in the kitty.

[kkt]

Fuel prices are already sky high so why not add a 10 cent per gallon tax for the bridge system in all counties along the San Francisco Bay? Then drop the tolls and save money by also dropping the toll bureaucracies plus the collection system while removing all the toll booth obstructions so traffic flows better.  Drive the bridges for "free" and figure out of area people doing so will be gassing up somewhere along the bay to put something in the kitty.

Yes.  I don't live in California anymore but I will visit every year or two, and I don't want to have to jump through hoops and pay a "visitor's tax" extra high rate to cross bridges.