I'm presently working on the next Gribblenation blog which this time will be on the Arroyo Seco Parkway and early terminus points of US 66 in Los Angeles. I'll be using the following two photo sets:
Original western terminus of US 66 in Los Angeles:
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmDN8Uxr
Arroyo Seco Parkway:
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmDNaQbv
So far what I'm finding in researching this topic is that at some point between late 1934/early 1935 that US 66 was truncated from 7th Street up Broadway to Sunset Boulevard to the new alignment of US 101. What is certain from a Department of Public Works document is that US 66 was extended to Santa Monica at least by October of 1935. These are the links (excluding the obvious David Rumsey maps) which I'm present using for information:
October 1935 Department of Public Works document showing US 66 extended to Santa Monica
http://libraryarchives.metro.net/DPGTL/Californiahighways/chpw_1935_oct.pdf
1935 Goshua Highway Map showing US 66 ending at Sunset/Broadway
http://cartweb.geography.ua.edu/lizardtech/iserv/calcrgn?cat=North%20America%20and%20United%20States&item=States/California/California1935d.sid&wid=1000&hei=900&props=item(Name,Description),cat(Name,Description)&style=simple/view-dhtml.xsl
Theroute66.com had a couple scans of early ACSC maps showing the locally maintained iterations of US 66 before the 1933 State Highway additions came into play. What interests me is there appears to have been a very brief interim alignment of US 66 via Colorado, Eagle Rock, and San Fernando to reach the three completed North Figueroa Street Tunnels in 1935. The Goshua Map above however doesn't agree at all with theroute66.com but rather suggests an interim route that used Solano Avenue:
https://www.theroute-66.com/los-angeles.html
The 1935 Division of Highways Map shows a slight variation of the Goshua Map which shows State Maintenance on Avenue 64 between Colorado and York Boulevard. I am thinking that this is the true interim 1935 alignment of LRN 165/US 66:
https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~247303~5515362:City-of-Los-Angeles--East-Central-S?sort=Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No&qvq=q:california%20division%20of%20highways%20los;sort:Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=2&trs=15
So with the above in mind here are the first five custom image drafts I made:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/47990814288_32fdc1e492_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2g7Mt7y)X1 (https://flic.kr/p/2g7Mt7y) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/47990864246_a47a5a0729_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2g7MHXU)X2 (https://flic.kr/p/2g7MHXU) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/47990812532_9e5dcde9b1_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2g7MsAh)X3 (https://flic.kr/p/2g7MsAh) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/47990814058_2c7dbc4dbc.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2g7Mt3A)X4 (https://flic.kr/p/2g7Mt3A) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/47990814038_a93465613a_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2g7Mt3f)X5 (https://flic.kr/p/2g7Mt3f) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
Anyways, I figure this is going to be a week long project. If anyone has any early highway documents or anything like ACSC map scans I'd really to add them to this.
I imagine part of your inquiry would involve determining weather 66 was extended to Santa Monica prior to 66 migrating from Broadway to Figueroa. I don't have anything definitive to add, but I know that we have discussed in other threads how the signage kept changing on a regular basis as new alignments kept coming up. Remember that this was during the New deal when there was a lot of government-funded work available to to build highways and it seems like they they certainly took advantage of that in California.
As far as the alignment along eagle Rock boulevard that was definitely temporary. It seems very odd to me that a temporary alignments done only for the purposes of allowing for construction, would be signed as the regular route and not simply as a detour 66.
Nexus 5X
Quote from: mrsman on June 03, 2019, 08:19:04 AM
I imagine part of your inquiry would involve determining weather 66 was extended to Santa Monica prior to 66 migrating from Broadway to Figueroa. I don't have anything definitive to add, but I know that we have discussed in other threads how the signage kept changing on a regular basis as new alignments kept coming up. Remember that this was during the New deal when there was a lot of government-funded work available to to build highways and it seems like they they certainly took advantage of that in California.
As far as the alignment along eagle Rock boulevard that was definitely temporary. It seems very odd to me that a temporary alignments done only for the purposes of allowing for construction, would be signed as the regular route and not simply as a detour 66.
Nexus 5X
What I found with the Bay Area was that there was similar oddities, especially before the State bought in big with highway maintenance in cities circa 1933. Another factor that makes things odd is that the ACSC would have been signing the highways at the time which would have made their maps presumptively more reliable prior to 1933. Some of 66 on the 1930 State Highway Map as an example definitely would have not been on State Maintained Highways in places. A similar example would have been early US 101 in San Francisco being maintained by the City and LRN 2 beginning at the southern city line.
Another thought with regards to the Western extension of us 66 to Santa Monica. it is very likely at the powers-that-be wanted to terminate us routes and other us routes. So all of the Cross country us routes would terminate at US 101 and go no further west. However, once the coastal highway became a US route as well it was easier to extend us 66 all the way to Santa Monica. I wonder if there's any correlation between CA 3 becoming alt US 101 and the extension of us 66 to Santa Monica.
Nexus 5X
Quote from: mrsman on June 03, 2019, 07:50:19 PM
Another thought with regards to the Western extension of us 66 to Santa Monica. it is very likely at the powers-that-be wanted to terminate us routes and other us routes. So all of the Cross country us routes would terminate at US 101 and go no further west. However, once the coastal highway became a US route as well it was easier to extend us 66 all the way to Santa Monica. I wonder if there's any correlation between CA 3 becoming alt US 101 and the extension of us 66 to Santa Monica.
Nexus 5X
It would seem that was the case since 66 to Santa Monica and 101A were announced at the same time on the 1935 Public Works Document that you posted on the other thread. Interestingly the same rule didn't apply to US 466 which ended at CA 1.
Quote from: mrsman on June 03, 2019, 07:50:19 PM
Another thought with regards to the Western extension of us 66 to Santa Monica. it is very likely at the powers-that-be wanted to terminate us routes and other us routes. So all of the Cross country us routes would terminate at US 101 and go no further west. However, once the coastal highway became a US route as well it was easier to extend us 66 all the way to Santa Monica. I wonder if there's any correlation between CA 3 becoming alt US 101 and the extension of us 66 to Santa Monica.
Nexus 5X
The Oct 1935 Calif Hwys Magazine article citation also has CA 3 becoming US 101 ALT at the same time.
Here are three photos of Sunset and Figueroa from 12/17/1935:
NE corner - https://lacityhistory.pastperfectonline.com/photo/0B265B69-CAC5-46CD-93B1-930094702120
SW corner - https://lacityhistory.pastperfectonline.com/photo/9C19B67B-CB74-436A-AB31-609729572468
NW corner - https://lacityhistory.pastperfectonline.com/photo/22DEEFB0-9486-40C1-85F0-506510395226
Shows CA 11 and at least 2 US routes meet here. Would also make sense to see (I think...) just 2 US shields if US 66 still ended there. Because the intersection is not N-S-E-W, I don't know for sure which corner is NE etc. If the SW corner gas station is the one with a sole CA 11 shield, then the NW gas station can be showing US 101 double arrow and US 99 left arrow? However, it appears in the NE photo there are two US route reassurance shields where there should only be 1? Are those a 66 and 101 shield?
^^^^^^^^
If it's the NE corner, then the two partially obscured shields shown on the left would be US 66 and US 99; US 6 wasn't commissioned into L.A. until the end of 1937. The shield assembly on NB US 101 with the "bear spade" at the top is likely showing SSR 11 as the crossing route, US 99 turning right, and US 66 going right and forward. Since this picture was taken only 2 weeks before the end of 1935, it's probably reasonably safe to assume that the extension of US 66 to Santa Monica had already taken place, and that US 99 had been by that time rerouted through the tunnels onto Figueroa.
Quote from: sparker on June 03, 2019, 09:07:25 PM
^^^^^^^^
If it's the NE corner, then the two partially obscured shields shown on the left would be US 66 and US 99; US 6 wasn't commissioned into L.A. until the end of 1937. The shield assembly on NB US 101 with the "bear spade" at the top is likely showing SSR 11 as the crossing route, US 99 turning right, and US 66 going right and forward. Since this picture was taken only 2 weeks before the end of 1935, it's probably reasonably safe to assume that the extension of US 66 to Santa Monica had already taken place, and that US 99 had been by that time rerouted through the tunnels onto Figueroa.
Begs the question, when was the fourth Figueroa Street Tunnel open to traffic? Even the 1936 State Highway Map City Insert didn't have the fourth Figueroa Street Tunnel as open when published. The signage could have been preemptively installed but that would still put US 66/99 temporarily still meeting 101/Sunset via Broadway.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 03, 2019, 12:04:28 AM
The 1935 Division of Highways Map shows a slight variation of the Goshua Map which shows State Maintenance on Avenue 64 between Colorado and York Boulevard. I am thinking that this is the true interim 1935 alignment of LRN 165/US 66:
https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~247303~5515362:City-of-Los-Angeles--East-Central-S?sort=Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No&qvq=q:california%20division%20of%20highways%20los;sort:Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=2&trs=15
This appears to be one of the more definitive maps of routings in central/east-central L.A. -- assuming that the streets depicted in
red reflect state maintenance. It actually answers a number of questions I've had over the years about interim routings, precise routings -- and even holds more than a few surprises and/or clarifications to previous information. Among the oddities noted are:
(1) What is obviously the original west end -- pre the extension of the Ramona Parkway -- of LRN 26, which heads over the Monterey Park hill on what was originally Garvey but is now Monterey Park Blvd. before turning west on Brooklyn Ave. to a terminus at US 101/LRN 2 at the tri-corner of Pleasant, Brooklyn, and Macy St. If the map depicts the situation mid-1935, that clears up the path of US 99 up until later that year: down Soto (from Marengo) to Brooklyn, then east toward Garvey and the San Gabriel Valley. As a side note, Ramona Blvd. (functionally the predecessor of the parkway, which was laid out next to the PE San Bernardino line) was shown on what is now City Terrace, a few blocks south of the eventual parkway alignment (today's I-10). As an aside, that route, including the section of Brooklyn between Soto (where US 99 would have originally turned north) and Pleasant (US 101) would have also hosted US 60; from what I've been able to gather, US 70 didn't make an appearance prior to the shift of LRN 26 to the Ramona Parkway.
(2) LRN 4/US 99 until 1935 -- on Workman Ave., a block east of Daly St. in Lincoln Heights. This was obviously a temporary route until Daly could be expanded to accommodate through US 99 traffic. Ironically, by the time that was done, it had been decided to reroute US 99 through the Figueroa Tunnels to the Civic Center -- so it's likely that Daly St. only hosted US 99 traffic briefly if at all.
(3) Re the speculation, bolstered by this map, that Avenue 64 was an interim routing of LRN 165/US 66/SSR 11. That is likely, seeing as how the northernmost section of LRN 165 -- and a stand-alone segment of SSR 11 along Linda Vista Ave. west of the Arroyo Seco -- was specifically cited in the LRN 165 official description -- there had to be a way to get up to Colorado Blvd. until Figueroa was expanded to accommodate US 66 traffic (likely in a similar fashion to Daly St.), so Avenue 64 (originally Garvanza Ave.) filled the bill. It's still a pretty efficient street even today -- a very wide 2 lanes for much of its length.
(4) Not part of the US 66 lore, but up in Glendale, it looks as if Verdugo Road was the original state-maintained street (LRN 61/SSR 2) connecting Glendale with La Canada; whereas Canada Blvd., parallel and to the west, eventually assumed that particular mantle, hosting the state highway at least after WWII (it's almost straight as an arrow, while Verdugo winds around along the east side of the Verdugo Valley.
There are other tidbits to be seen on the map, such as state maintenance of Indiana Ave. (as LRN 166) as far north as 4th Street (LRN 172, shown as complete but gravel out to San Gabriel Blvd.) -- and San Gabriel Blvd. as the original alignment of LRN 168/SSR 19 before Rosemead Blvd. was completed through the Whittier Narrows.
One thing is certain -- before the full completion of both the Figueroa tunnels and the Ramona Parkway, the state alignments (as well as the ACSC routings before them) rarely stayed in one place for more than a couple of years before some form of route revision occurred. Nice find, Max! :spin:
Quote from: sparker on June 03, 2019, 09:07:25 PM
^^^^^^^^
If it's the NE corner, then the two partially obscured shields shown on the left would be US 66 and US 99; US 6 wasn't commissioned into L.A. until the end of 1937. The shield assembly on NB US 101 with the "bear spade" at the top is likely showing SSR 11 as the crossing route, US 99 turning right, and US 66 going right and forward. Since this picture was taken only 2 weeks before the end of 1935, it's probably reasonably safe to assume that the extension of US 66 to Santa Monica had already taken place, and that US 99 had been by that time rerouted through the tunnels onto Figueroa.
I was able to verify this morning using a 1948 Historic Aerial that the corners are oriented as I speculated. There is a 4th picture also of the SW corner but shows the CA 11 shield explicitly - https://lacityhistory.pastperfectonline.com/photo/2937A4BE-8629-4CBE-B55F-059846526510
The City of Los Angeles council minutes are theorectically on-line but when I do searches it will only pull up the first page of that meeting's minutes (on two different computers). Too bad...might be just like San Diego's city business which often acknowledged state highway changes.
Here is the link if anyone else wants to try, use the Council Minutes Archive tab - http://clkrep.lacity.org/oldcfidocs/
It appears that the LA archives in person has boxes of photos that would probably show a lot of what is being worked out in this thread...
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 04, 2019, 08:32:47 AM
Quote from: sparker on June 03, 2019, 09:07:25 PM
^^^^^^^^
If it's the NE corner, then the two partially obscured shields shown on the left would be US 66 and US 99; US 6 wasn't commissioned into L.A. until the end of 1937. The shield assembly on NB US 101 with the "bear spade" at the top is likely showing SSR 11 as the crossing route, US 99 turning right, and US 66 going right and forward. Since this picture was taken only 2 weeks before the end of 1935, it's probably reasonably safe to assume that the extension of US 66 to Santa Monica had already taken place, and that US 99 had been by that time rerouted through the tunnels onto Figueroa.
I was able to verify this morning using a 1948 Historic Aerial that the corners are oriented as I speculated. There is a 4th picture also of the SW corner but shows the CA 11 shield explicitly - https://lacityhistory.pastperfectonline.com/photo/2937A4BE-8629-4CBE-B55F-059846526510
I'm a little late chiming in, but it is plainly obvious that Figueroa is considered the N-S street and Sunset the E-W street, even though the streets are not angled in the perfect compass direction. First, both streets do eventually change into compass direction around where they would hit the "Hoover Street" line, which was once the old boundary between the city of Los Angeles and the nearby ranchos. (Sunset changes to compass about 1/4 mile west of Hoover at the Sunset/Hollywood/Virgil/Hillhurst/Sunset Dr. mega-intersection, Figueroa changes to compass as it crosses Exposition near USC - the Hoover line can be thought to extend through the USC campus and hit right where Figueroa bends.) Second, the addresses on Sunset are E-W and the addresses on Figueroa are N-S. Third, nearly all parallel streets make the same bend as they cross Hoover or Exposition.
The tricky part, though, are the highways that ran on the streets. Old US 101 is N-S, but runs on largely E-W streets for a lot of the L.A. area (Ventura Blvd, Sunset, Whittier). Old US 6 is E-W and is direction is all jumbled up throughout the state. Old US 66 is E-W and also ends up on N-S streets on this last stretch between LA and Pasadena. CA 11 was N-S and it finds itself on Figueroa which is N-S.
I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone familiar with L.A. who would consider Sunset N-S and Figueroa E-W despite the angle at the intersection.
Worked up a custom image off the 1935 Division of Highways Map. I labeled the LRNs and the likely two temporary routes of US 66:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48005329657_4ca6ec0e6b_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2g94S2x)X6 (https://flic.kr/p/2g94S2x) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
^^^^^^^^^^^
That basic scenario actually makes sense; after 7-8 years of signage on streets over which the Division of Highways had no physical control, placing even temporary routes on state-maintained facilities was probably deemed a step forward in the "baby steps" days of the state network -- the state could specify such things as clearances, access points, signal timing -- which otherwise would have been out of their hands and, operations-wise, at the whim of the various cities through which the unadopted routes ran. It's probably also true that in the process of routing US 66 between downtown L.A. and Pasadena they tried out the LRN 61/162/161 combination along Verdugo, Eagle Rock, and Colorado boulevards prior to the adoption of LRN 165 up Figueroa and Garvanza (aka Ave. 64) but found it more than a little out of the way and inefficient as a through facility; 165, once on the books, likely was well-received by through traffic -- but less so by the relatively wealthy folks (even by Depression standards) living along Garvanza (then as now a prime residential neighborhood); once the north end of Figueroa was up to standards and LRN 165/US 66 rerouted over it, its status as the principal commercial corridor between the two cities was cemented, lasting for a bit over 40 years until the Glendale Freeway (CA 2)/Ventura Freeway (CA 134) combination was opened in 1976 -- due to the truck restrictions on the Arroyo Seco Parkway/Pasadena Freeway.
Getting from central L.A. to Pasadena has never been a straightforward process -- prior to the state highway network's inception circa 1926, the Santa Fe main passenger line east of L.A. -- the route of all their "name" trains (the Chief, El Capitan, and later the Super Chief) snaked up through Lincoln Heights, Highland Park, crossed the Arroyo Seco on a high trestle, and scooted through South Pasadena's business district en route to Pasadena and thence east more or less paralleling US 66 out to San Bernardino. My grandfather lived a couple of blocks from the tracks in Highland Park; it was always intriguing to me as a kid to see the great silver Santa Fe trains trundling along at about 20-25 mph through the N.E. L.A. neighborhoods -- and then through back yards in Pasadena (they didn't get up to anywhere near "track speed" until out around Monrovia). A lot of very narrow ROW coupled with grade crossings every few hundred yards didn't make for terribly exciting train travel -- that was reserved for Cajon Pass and beyond! So convoluted and "head-scratching" alignments in that neck of the woods was par for the course for any mode of ground travel due to both local topology and the way the area developed over the years.
Something I've noted while researching these maps which I never really looked into too closely before was US 99 on LRN 9. The original alignment of US 99 clearly is seen bypassing Los Angeles via LRN 9 and following it multiplexed with US 66 from Pasadena east to San Bernardino. What I find interesting is that it gives much more weight historically to the surface alignment of CA 118 and completely fits in with the motif of US 99 somehow being a less major Route than US 101. The early route of 99 is intriguing enough that probably merits inclusion in it's own blog whenever I get to 118.
^^^^^^^^^^
What was never crystal-clear -- even after scouring early CH&PW volumes -- was the timeline regarding the decision to move US 99 away from its original planned multiplex with US 66 between San Bernardino and Pasadena and down to the more direct LRN 26 route into central L.A. via Pomona and El Monte, which seemed to have been developed piece by piece until a full corridor. I don't recall seeing any pictures showing the two US routes signed together along that stretch; since signage had been essentially "farmed out" to ACSC during those early years, it's possible only US 66 got actual shields.
The fact that US 99 was originally relegated to what was essentially a secondary regional role -- going to Pasadena rather than downtown L.A. -- further enhances the role of US 101 as the "glamour" route, traversing downtown L.A., Hollywood, and the historic Cahuenga Pass. And once out in the (San Fernando) Valley, US 101 utilized Ventura Blvd., long the site of "high-end" area development; US 99, whether on Foothill Blvd. or San Fernando Road, pierced the industrial zone in the eastern part of the valley -- hardly conducive to tourist or recreational use! Without overstating the obvious, CA's section of US 101 went through the "prettier" parts of the state, echoed in miniature in its L.A. mileage, while US 99 was by comparison the "workhorse" route, connecting L.A. to the inland portions of CA that supplied more revenue than physical beauty.
At least after 1935 all the "majors" in the L.A. area were brought together in a single point at Sunset & Figueroa (likely acceding to L.A. city "booster" elements) -- in much the same way that US 40, 50, and 99 were paraded right by the State Capitol grounds farther north in Sacramento. Civic/state pride seemed to take precedence at that point (likely prompted by attempts to break out of Depression-era civic lethargy) over route efficiency -- although before long the latter re-emerged with the advent of the freeways!
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 03, 2019, 09:20:19 PM
Begs the question, when was the fourth Figueroa Street Tunnel open to traffic? Even the 1936 State Highway Map City Insert didn't have the fourth Figueroa Street Tunnel as open when published. The signage could have been preemptively installed but that would still put US 66/99 temporarily still meeting 101/Sunset via Broadway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arroyo_Seco_Parkway#Construction
"The first three, between Solano Avenue and the river, opened in late 1931,[17] and the fourth opened in mid-1936,[18] completing the extension of Figueroa Street to Riverside Drive."
Quote from: NE2 on June 05, 2019, 01:41:41 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 03, 2019, 09:20:19 PM
Begs the question, when was the fourth Figueroa Street Tunnel open to traffic? Even the 1936 State Highway Map City Insert didn't have the fourth Figueroa Street Tunnel as open when published. The signage could have been preemptively installed but that would still put US 66/99 temporarily still meeting 101/Sunset via Broadway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arroyo_Seco_Parkway#Construction
"The first three, between Solano Avenue and the river, opened in late 1931,[17] and the fourth opened in mid-1936,[18] completing the extension of Figueroa Street to Riverside Drive."
What's throwing me off is the article dedicated to the tunnels exclusively says 1935. Bridgehunter even say contradicting 1935/1936 opening dates. Suffice to say it's like a safe assumption mid-1936 is correct given the map from said year shows the fourth tunnel still under construction. I still haven't found a public works document that backs up mid-1936 clearly which is what I'd like to find.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 05, 2019, 02:00:01 PM
Quote from: NE2 on June 05, 2019, 01:41:41 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 03, 2019, 09:20:19 PM
Begs the question, when was the fourth Figueroa Street Tunnel open to traffic? Even the 1936 State Highway Map City Insert didn't have the fourth Figueroa Street Tunnel as open when published. The signage could have been preemptively installed but that would still put US 66/99 temporarily still meeting 101/Sunset via Broadway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arroyo_Seco_Parkway#Construction
"The first three, between Solano Avenue and the river, opened in late 1931,[17] and the fourth opened in mid-1936,[18] completing the extension of Figueroa Street to Riverside Drive."
What's throwing me off is the article dedicated to the tunnels exclusively says 1935. Bridgehunter even say contradicting 1935/1936 opening dates. Suffice to say it's like a safe assumption mid-1936 is correct given the map from said year shows the fourth tunnel still under construction. I still haven't found a public works document that backs up mid-1936 clearly which is what I'd like to find.
August 4, 1936 - 2nd in list at https://www.newspapers.com/search/#lnd=1&query=figueroa+tunnel+opens&dr_year=1936-1936&t=4312
1931 tunnels opened October 22 - 16th in list at https://www.newspapers.com/search/#lnd=1&query=figueroa+tunnel+opens&dr_year=1931-1931&offset=12&t=4312
edited to add 1931 opening date
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 05, 2019, 02:14:42 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 05, 2019, 02:00:01 PM
Quote from: NE2 on June 05, 2019, 01:41:41 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 03, 2019, 09:20:19 PM
Begs the question, when was the fourth Figueroa Street Tunnel open to traffic? Even the 1936 State Highway Map City Insert didn't have the fourth Figueroa Street Tunnel as open when published. The signage could have been preemptively installed but that would still put US 66/99 temporarily still meeting 101/Sunset via Broadway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arroyo_Seco_Parkway#Construction
"The first three, between Solano Avenue and the river, opened in late 1931,[17] and the fourth opened in mid-1936,[18] completing the extension of Figueroa Street to Riverside Drive."
What's throwing me off is the article dedicated to the tunnels exclusively says 1935. Bridgehunter even say contradicting 1935/1936 opening dates. Suffice to say it's like a safe assumption mid-1936 is correct given the map from said year shows the fourth tunnel still under construction. I still haven't found a public works document that backs up mid-1936 clearly which is what I'd like to find.
August 4, 1936 - 2nd in list at https://www.newspapers.com/search/#lnd=1&query=figueroa+tunnel+opens&dr_year=1936-1936&t=4312
1931 tunnels opened October 22 - 16th in list at https://www.newspapers.com/search/#lnd=1&query=figueroa+tunnel+opens&dr_year=1931-1931&offset=12&t=4312
edited to add 1931 opening date
Exactly what I was looking for, thanks I'll make sure it's added.
^^^^^^^^^
If that is indeed the case -- and US 66 remained on Broadway at Sunset until mid-1936, then the signage depicted in the photographs of the corner gas stations (NE/NW corners) would likely be quite different:
NE corner (sign assembly WB Sunset): US 66/US 101 straight forward, SSR 11 left (south) turn onto Figueroa.
NW corner (sign assembly SB Figueroa, pre-signed route here): US 66/US 101 crossing, SSR 11 left and straight forward. Of course, this is presuming the information about the date of the US 66 Santa Monica extension was accurate and signage had already occurred.
However -- that doesn't account for the two shields posted on NB Figueroa -- unless there was an interim connection over to North Broadway between that point and the approach to the unfinished fourth tunnel (or the shields, the front of which are cut off by the edge of the photograph, were covered until the tunnel's completion some six months from the date of the photographs). This deserves further exploration.
Finished up the last map image snips. About all I can think to do now before typing the blog up is maybe dig for some more photos showing the interchange of Figueroa and Sunset? Its going to be a long weekend out in Monterey and Salinas so I'll have some digging around time.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48017028412_9d514f5a29_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2ga6PEd)X7A (https://flic.kr/p/2ga6PEd) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48017028387_957549d198_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2ga6PDM)X8 (https://flic.kr/p/2ga6PDM) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48016955443_1e9575c029_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2ga6rY8)X9 (https://flic.kr/p/2ga6rY8) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48016940326_4fd58dec30_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2ga6ntu)X10 (https://flic.kr/p/2ga6ntu) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48016940021_c257dfa2ce_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2ga6noe)X11 (https://flic.kr/p/2ga6noe) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48016954928_65a14aaffd_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2ga6rPf)X12 (https://flic.kr/p/2ga6rPf) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48016954898_783c0f2b80_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2ga6rNJ)X13 (https://flic.kr/p/2ga6rNJ) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48017027817_a62894c48b_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2ga6PtX)X14 (https://flic.kr/p/2ga6PtX) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48017027767_0c6e97f86e_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2ga6Pt6)X15 (https://flic.kr/p/2ga6Pt6) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48017027712_a353395576_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2ga6Ps9)X16 (https://flic.kr/p/2ga6Ps9) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
One of the more subtle interesting factoids from those maps: the infamous 710 extension (at the time Route 15) through South Pasadena to at least the Arroyo Seco Parkway was proposed as early as 1951!!!
Also, while Route 11 used the Figueroa corridor dating back to 1934 and was on the Harbor Freeway and the southern part of the Arroyo Seco Parkway from the very start, it seems like the portion of the parkway east of today's Avenue 26 exit was built as US 66 and only was part of 11 from 1964 to 1981.
Pipe dream of mine that is not remotely realistic: codifying all of the Harbor Freeway as I-110 (which is only not the case in signage for the northbound section past Staples Center) and the parkway as Historic US 66 for that reason
Quote from: TheStranger on June 07, 2019, 01:07:43 AM
One of the more subtle interesting factoids from those maps: the infamous 710 extension (at the time Route 15) through South Pasadena to at least the Arroyo Seco Parkway was proposed as early as 1951!!!
Also, while Route 11 used the Figueroa corridor dating back to 1934 and was on the Harbor Freeway and the southern part of the Arroyo Seco Parkway from the very start, it seems like the portion of the parkway east of today's Avenue 26 exit was built as US 66 and only was part of 11 from 1964 to 1981.
Pipe dream of mine that is not remotely realistic: codifying all of the Harbor Freeway as I-110 (which is only not the case in signage for the northbound section past Staples Center) and the parkway as Historic US 66 for that reason
If it were indeed the case that CA 11 was along Figueroa and not Arroyo Seco, I believe that there are two reasons for this. One, was the truck restrictions on the Arroyo Seco. Sparker had mentioned that for a while trucks were allowed on the section of freeway between US 101 and I-5, but then had to get off onto I-5 or Figueroa. Signing CA-11 this way would maintain signage over the truck route to Pasadena utilizing the left exit onto North Figueroa.
Probably the main reason for keeping CA 11 onto North Figueroa was to make a direct connection to Linda Vista. After 1964, they saw there was no need for both 118 and 11 going NW from Pasadena, so 11 was rerouted onto the Parkway.
I find it interesting having a state highway with such significant truck restrictions. I know many states would not route state highway numbers over parkways that restrict trucks.
It is interesting that you mention US 66 along the parkway. While I generally agree with the 1964 renumbering as a way of simplification, I do feel bad that certain US routes weren't kept. I could see keeping US 99 until Wheeler Ridge, keeping all of US 395 to San Diego, routing US 60 along the Pomona Fwy, and keeping US 66 to at least Pasadena (if not all the way to the 4-level).
With all the interest in 66, I believe there should be signage showing one historic routing, signed with US cutout shields. Only one routing should be highlighted, so that it is not too hard to navigate. The signs should also indicate "local maintenance" since we know that they remove state highway markers on roads that have been decommissioned. I think the 1938 routing would be best, keeping it off freeways (except the section of the Figueroa tunnels), but also keeping it off the old routings along Broadway. Colorado-Figueroa-110 fwy-figueroa-sunset-santa monica-Lincoln.
Quote from: mrsman on June 07, 2019, 02:06:43 AM
If it were indeed the case that CA 11 was along Figueroa and not Arroyo Seco, I believe that there are two reasons for this. One, was the truck restrictions on the Arroyo Seco. Sparker had mentioned that for a while trucks were allowed on the section of freeway between US 101 and I-5, but then had to get off onto I-5 or Figueroa. Signing CA-11 this way would maintain signage over the truck route to Pasadena utilizing the left exit onto North Figueroa.
The existence of Alternate US 66 primarily seems to have been for that purpose too, I'm surprised it wasn't called Truck US 66 really.
Quote from: TheStranger on June 07, 2019, 02:18:04 AM
Quote from: mrsman on June 07, 2019, 02:06:43 AM
If it were indeed the case that CA 11 was along Figueroa and not Arroyo Seco, I believe that there are two reasons for this. One, was the truck restrictions on the Arroyo Seco. Sparker had mentioned that for a while trucks were allowed on the section of freeway between US 101 and I-5, but then had to get off onto I-5 or Figueroa. Signing CA-11 this way would maintain signage over the truck route to Pasadena utilizing the left exit onto North Figueroa.
The existence of Alternate US 66 primarily seems to have been for that purpose too, I'm surprised it wasn't called Truck US 66 really.
North Figueroa Street and Linda Vista Ave, both former LRN 165 & SSR 11, were retained after renumbering as CA 159. The Figueroa section was relinquished circa 1977 after the completion of the CA 2 (Glendale) freeway which connected to CA 134 (which had been completed from Glendale into Pasadena in 1971), providing a through truck-appropriate route from central L.A. to Pasadena, obviating the need to retain Figueroa (which, along with the Linda Vista portion, had never received any CA 159 reassurance signage; it was a "silent" state-maintained facility). The Linda Vista segment remained in the state highway network until the mid-90's; rumor has it that since it ran immediately west of the Rose Bowl, some influential parties wanted it maintained as a through route (although in reality little more than a 2-lane city street, albeit with concrete pavement!). In any case, 1976-77 also marked the completion of I-210 through Pasadena, completing what's currently in use, freeway-wise, in the immediate area.
Since the use of "Alternate" banners was widespread statewide pre-'64 (others included Alternate US 40 & Alternate US 101), it was likely considered appropriate in this situation as well. The only other "banner" attached to US highways in CA -- at least those retaining state maintenance -- was the "Bypass" designation, used, of course, in relation to US 101 on the S.F. peninsula as well as, for a time, around the southeast side of Sacramento as Bypass US 50 (before LRN 98 was moved to the Elvas Freeway and the 29th/30th street one-way couplet as US 99E). But there were no commercial-traffic restrictions along either of those bypass routes (the Sacramento facility was also clearly marked as one of that city's designated pre-freeway truck routes), so it would have been unlikely that the Arroyo Seco Parkway would have been designated as "Bypass US 66".
And the Division of Highways wasn't going to go the Kansas City route and designate a "OPTIONAL US 66"!!!!! :colorful:
Quote from: sparker on June 07, 2019, 02:54:13 AM
Quote from: TheStranger on June 07, 2019, 02:18:04 AM
Quote from: mrsman on June 07, 2019, 02:06:43 AM
If it were indeed the case that CA 11 was along Figueroa and not Arroyo Seco, I believe that there are two reasons for this. One, was the truck restrictions on the Arroyo Seco. Sparker had mentioned that for a while trucks were allowed on the section of freeway between US 101 and I-5, but then had to get off onto I-5 or Figueroa. Signing CA-11 this way would maintain signage over the truck route to Pasadena utilizing the left exit onto North Figueroa.
The existence of Alternate US 66 primarily seems to have been for that purpose too, I'm surprised it wasn't called Truck US 66 really.
North Figueroa Street and Linda Vista Ave, both former LRN 165 & SSR 11, were retained after renumbering as CA 159. The Figueroa section was relinquished circa 1977 after the completion of the CA 2 (Glendale) freeway which connected to CA 134 (which had been completed from Glendale into Pasadena in 1971), providing a through truck-appropriate route from central L.A. to Pasadena, obviating the need to retain Figueroa (which, along with the Linda Vista portion, had never received any CA 159 reassurance signage; it was a "silent" state-maintained facility). The Linda Vista segment remained in the state highway network until the mid-90's; rumor has it that since it ran immediately west of the Rose Bowl, some influential parties wanted it maintained as a through route (although in reality little more than a 2-lane city street, albeit with concrete pavement!). In any case, 1976-77 also marked the completion of I-210 through Pasadena, completing what's currently in use, freeway-wise, in the immediate area.
Since the use of "Alternate" banners was widespread statewide pre-'64 (others included Alternate US 40 & Alternate US 101), it was likely considered appropriate in this situation as well. The only other "banner" attached to US highways in CA -- at least those retaining state maintenance -- was the "Bypass" designation, used, of course, in relation to US 101 on the S.F. peninsula as well as, for a time, around the southeast side of Sacramento as Bypass US 50 (before LRN 98 was moved to the Elvas Freeway and the 29th/30th street one-way couplet as US 99E). But there were no commercial-traffic restrictions along either of those bypass routes (the Sacramento facility was also clearly marked as one of that city's designated pre-freeway truck routes), so it would have been unlikely that the Arroyo Seco Parkway would have been designated as "Bypass US 66".
And the Division of Highways wasn't going to go the Kansas City route and designate a "OPTIONAL US 66"!!!!! :colorful:
I guess one had to keep track of which alternate was which.
Alternate 66 on North Figueroa, less direct than 66 on Arroyo Seco, but it allows trucks.
Alternate 40 via Beckwourth Pass, less direct but lower elevation than 40 along Donner Pass. Alt. 40 more likely to be open during winter.
Alternate 101 along PCH, instead of 101 through SFV and Downtown LA. Hard to say which one would be busier with regards to traffic, but Alt 101 provides more coastal travel.
I guess for all practical purposes, CA-2 and CA-134 serve as the best truck route between LA and Pasadena. And even though there isn't much signage about it, it seems that truck traffic from the ports are encouraged to do the following:
If coming up the 710, you can use an E-W freeway to reach I-605 and use that to reach I-210 (especially if your destination is east of the 605 or near the 605 like Arcadia and Monrovia).
Alternatively, you can take 710 to either 60 west or 10 west to reach I-5 north. I-5 north to Sacramento or transfer to CA-2 to reach Pasadena and the 134 and 210 freeways. The direct connection from 710 to 5 north is not recommended, since it is on the left -- most truckers use 60 to make the connection. It is unlikely that trucks are recommended from using surface street alignments in place of the 710 gap like Fremont or Fair Oaks, but I don't believe they are prohibited.
If coming up the 110, there is signage encouraging traffic to take Santa Monica Fwy (10) east to reach I-5 north. Of course, taking 10 east will also lead you to the Santa Ana (5), Pomona (60), and San Bernardino Fwys (10) as well. From the I-5 Golden State Fwy, use CA-2 to reach eastern Glendale and Pasadena.
If you remain on the 110, you can transfer to US 101. US 101 south will lead to the SB, Pomona, and Santa Ana Fwys, but other than for the SB, this would add more mileage and likely more traffic than using the Santa Monica Fwy. No direct truck connection in East LA from 101 to the Golden State Fwy. Likely surface street routings aren't recommended for trucks, although most big streets don't seem to prohibit trucks. If trying to go from 101 south to I-5 north, Mission Road seems to be the most effective connector for trucks. I-5 north to CA-2 north.
If transferring from 110 to US 101 north, you can exit on Glendale Blvd to reach CA-2. If your destination is toward Glendale and Burbank, you can use CA-2 to I-5 north. If your destination is north of Burbank along I-5, you can take CA-2 to I-5 or stay along US 101 to CA 170 to I-5.
Again, it is a shame that so little of this is spelled out for truckers.
^^^^^^^^^^
Fortunately, Pasadena built out to its present limits relatively early; there was never much in the way of room to place extensive warehousing and distribution sites -- those have been "relegated" to more outlying areas such as the City of Industry, Irwindale, and, of course, the Inland Empire (i.e., "warehouse central", with the crux being the I-10/15 junction). Trucks needing access to Pasadena are in all likelihood doing so for local deliveries, so there isn't the 24/7 flow in & out that is seen in the other areas; instead of dominating the freeway arteries into the area (like CA 60, for instance), anything coming from the south or southwest would simply blend into the remainder of traffic flow. True, I-210 is used as a bypass (duh!) for commercial traffic to and from northward I-5 to the San Gabriel Valley and the Inland Empire, and that traffic can be overwhelming at times -- so possibly it might be a good thing that Pasadena has a limited requirement for commercial egress. Yeah, access from the south sucks -- but even a completed I-710 -- if it was to have been truck-restricted as per more recent planning efforts -- might not have helped in that regard.
As far as "spelling out" a designated truck route (possibly I-5/CA 2/CA 134), that signage would probably just get lost among the plethora of BGS's already located along that composite corridor -- at least on I-5; once on CA 2, just stating "TRUCK ROUTE to PASADENA USE EAST CA 134" on a roadside sign might help. But trying to delineate the whole corridor from, say, the ELA interchange might be just "piling on" the present directional aids. For now, depending upon truckers' common sense (and the ability to read a map or correctly work their GPS) may well have to suffice.
Back onto the Fourth Figueroa Street Tunnel really quick. I don't know why I didn't check California Highways but I'm glad that I did today. Daniel has a photo of the fourth tunnel being constructed with US 66/99 and CA 11 shields in front of it. The photo is facing southbound towards the fourth tunnel.
https://www.cahighways.org/105-112.html#110
Since the topic of older LA->Pasadena routes has arisen, is Marmion Way significant at all?
It exists in several different pieces, generally follows the railroad tracks, and could be envisioned as connecting the remaining segments of Pasadena Ave.
It's easy to imagine that this was the older route, bypassed when Pasadena/Figueroa was constructed to straighten out (and widen?) the route, but can anyone confirm (or refute) that?
Quote from: GaryA on June 07, 2019, 07:28:51 PM
Since the topic of older LA->Pasadena routes has arisen, is Marmion Way significant at all?
It exists in several different pieces, generally follows the railroad tracks, and could be envisioned as connecting the remaining segments of Pasadena Ave.
It's easy to imagine that this was the older route, bypassed when Pasadena/Figueroa was constructed to straighten out (and widen?) the route, but can anyone confirm (or refute) that?
Marmion Way, originally the service route for the adjacent Santa Fe rail line, may have at one time been part of a series of streets that were used to access Pasadena from central L.A. or vice-versa, but there was never any state maintenance of that road. It's a distinct possibility that the section of North Figueroa from San Fernando Road to just before Pasadena Ave. may have been Marmion at some point, since the original name of Figueroa northeast of there was Pasadena Ave. (as an extension of the present street) -- and the at-grade rail crossing of Figueroa at a sharp angle lies between where Marmion veers off to the northeast on the
north side of the tracks. Alternately, Pasadena Ave. merged onto North Figueroa on the
south side; the angle was sharp enough so there wasn't any direct access from NE-bound Pasadena to NE-bound Marmion. I remember those intersections as a kid (my grandfather's house was accessed via Marmion); they were particularly nasty, seeing as how they were fouled regularly by trains. It's probably likely that they were originally two separate streets on either side of the tracks and only connected via the grade crossing when the through route was shifted north to go through the Figueroa Tunnels after 1931 (may have to do some research about that) -- possibly correlated to when LRN 165 was commissioned in '33.
The finished product is up on Gribblenation:
https://www.gribblenation.org/2019/06/the-arroyo-seco-parkway-and-early.html
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 10, 2019, 12:50:56 PM
The finished product is up on Gribblenation:
https://www.gribblenation.org/2019/06/the-arroyo-seco-parkway-and-early.html
One of the little research nuggets you found in that - at the same time US 66 was extended to Route 2 (October 1935), two other state highway changes were noted then: the switchover from Route 440 to (modern) Route 44, the extension of Route 24 out of its grid spot (over what is now Route 70 and would be at one point Alternate US 40) and onto what is modern day Route 160, Route 242, and the remaining modern portion of Route 24 in Oakland (plus part of today's Route 13), and...the creation of Route 21! I don't think we had a definitive timeline before for the 24 extension or for the start of 21's existence before.
As for the Harbor Freeway between US 101 and I-10 itself, while not part of the official Interstate 110 route as far as I know, southbound it is signed 75% as such (and is signed as Interstate off of US 101 at the Four Level) dating back to the 1980s and currently affirmed by post-2010 signage updates. The northernmost part of the northbound route to have an interstate shield was right before the James M. Wood exit ca. 2014., I'll have to see in a few weeks if it is still there. (There's even a music video from a Korean pop group around that time showing I-110 signage within the downtown core near that exit)
This weird "signed as Interstate but not officially in interstate system" status is actually pretty similar to I-80's odd situation in SF, where its interstate mileage between US 101 and the former I-480 interchange was rescinded as part of California's reassignment of interstate mileage from canceled SF projects (480, 280 along Route 1, 80 west to Golden Gate Park) to the Century Freeway/I-105 project in 1968; a similar thing occurred when the San Bernardino Freeway west of I-5 and the Santa Ana Freeway from the East Los Angeles Interchange to the San Bernardino Split lost their unsigned 3di numbers that existed from 1965 to that point. In both the Harbor Freeway and San Francisco Skyway cases, both routes were built before the Interstate system, though the Skyway was signed as an interstate in the 1960s and retained that signage after losing its status, while the downtown LA portion of the Harbor Freeway gained southbound Interstate signage in the 1980s.A
The sign here:
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-vwWL-KEdiMA/XP59BmumumI/AAAAAAAAgqA/utvLp7kRDzcsugaeY-J-bNwQX0LoMSiSgCLcBGAs/s1600/IMG_0533.JPG
Is mostly well known for the "guerilla" modification on its predecessor that was done by an artist, to improve signage to I-5:
https://ankrom.org/freeway_signs.html
IIRC Casey Cooper's website has some neat photos of when US 6 and US 66 were signed off of US 101 in the early 1960s:
http://gbcnet.com/ushighways/
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgbcnet.com%2Fushighways%2Fus_pix%2Fhollywood_sign.jpg&hash=f5a7f858f3b75b66f0a501cd836c3a66491a3e6f)
I completely forgot about the guy who did the rogue I-5 shield install onto CA 110 north at the Four Level Interchange. Suffice to say that Caltrans obviously didn't disagree with the signage change he made. Does anyone know if he was actually prosecuted or if anything happened after the sign install? Nonetheless I thought the effort to recreate a button copy shield and accessory signage was pretty damn amusing considering it used Caltrans design.
To your point that October 1935 Public Works document essentially was the missing link for a lot of the early Signed Highway era questions that were out there. Really that whole shirt period immediately after the State was allowed to adopt urban Highways might be just as interesting the 64 renumbering era.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 10, 2019, 05:55:29 PM
I completely forgot about the guy who did the rogue I-5 shield install onto CA 110 north at the Four Level Interchange. Suffice to say that Caltrans obviously didn't disagree with the signage change he made. Does anyone know if he was actually prosecuted or if anything happened after the sign install? Nonetheless I thought the effort to recreate a button copy shield and accessory signage was pretty damn amusing considering it used Caltrans design.
https://abc7.com/society/las-stealthy-freeway-sign-artist-still-up-to-his-old-tricks/2978744/ notes the Ankrom sign mod lasted for 8 years, before being replaced by the state-issued reflective sheeting that uses his same format now.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 10, 2019, 05:55:29 PM
To your point that October 1935 Public Works document essentially was the missing link for a lot of the early Signed Highway era questions that were out there. Really that whole shirt period immediately after the State was allowed to adopt urban Highways might be just as interesting the 64 renumbering era.
I almost feel like 1934-1937 was an extremely fluid period that began with the initial 1934 numbering and ended with the creation of Route 107. You have some really short-lived things (Route 13 along the later 1936-1984 Route 17, Route 740, Route 7 north of Inyokern, State Route 95, Route 3 along the Pacific Coast Highway), some thought at the time to maintaining the "every four digits" numbering system (Route 21 as noted earlier), and some routes that ended up lasting nearly unchanged to present (Route 180). Obviously the original 24 was a very grid-correct route, before ending up confined to the East Bay after 1964 - one could argue that the 24 extension south and west past Sacramento was the first time that the numbering system was really stretched past the grid limits.
There seems to have been some intentional fluidity to some of the numbering conventions like having a split CA 7 through Nevada and CA 440. I really think the Department of Public Works was banking on adding as many US Route designations as possible which ultimately ended up happening. The fascinating thing for me is the almost universal departure in big cities from what was the established right of way that was being signed by the ACSC/CSAA. Conceptually it seems bizarre to think that legislative action was needed to allow the State to use funds for highways in cities. The highway system prior to 1933 as far as state maintenance was mostly rural and focused on traditional corridors travel that were well established as through routes by the late 19th Century. I suppose that's why I find California interesting in that the highway system was born out of what were wagon roads largely and took until the 1930s to fully emulate what other states were doing. 1934 is a seriously long time for a state the size of California to get on board with a State Highway network.
Found the old Guerrilla Public Service video regarding the I-5 north shield on the CA 110 assembly at the Four Level Interchange:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Clgl63CWOkM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 10, 2019, 08:56:32 PM
There seems to have been some intentional fluidity to some of the numbering conventions like having a split CA 7 through Nevada and CA 440. I really think the Department of Public Works was banking on adding as many US Route designations as possible which ultimately ended up happening. The fascinating thing for me is the almost universal departure in big cities from what was the established right of way that was being signed by the ACSC/CSAA. Conceptually it seems bizarre to think that legislative action was needed to allow the State to use funds for highways in cities. The highway system prior to 1933 as far as state maintenance was mostly rural and focused on traditional corridors travel that were well established as through routes by the late 19th Century. I suppose that's why I find California interesting in that the highway system was born out of what were wagon roads largely and took until the 1930s to fully emulate what other states were doing. 1934 is a seriously long time for a state the size of California to get on board with a State Highway network.
Either on Wikipedia or here, I recall reading that some states have state highway numbers in use since the 1910s! And California's numbering occurred a full 8 years after the US highway system was established.
What is harder to really find info on is...how well that US highway system was signed in the 1928-1934 period before the state route system was established here, particularly routes that only existed pre-1934 (US 99E/W near Modesto, US 101E/W in the Bay Area). Even thinking about the post-1934 history, it's striking how few Alternate US routes have ever existed in this state:
Alternate US 101 (El Camino Real in the Bay Area, 1936-1938)
Alternate US 101 (former Route 3 on PCH, now Route 1, 1936-1964)
Alternate US 40 (modern Route 113, Route 99, Route 70, the latter of which was former Route 24, 1954-1964)
Alternate US 66 (Figueroa Street/Colorado Boulevard along Route 11 and Route 134, 1957-1964)
Alternate US 50 (El Dorado County, 1998-present but only signed in inclement weather if I recall correctly)
I still think it would be interesting to find out who exactly was involved in the route grid creation in 1934 - that 1935 California public works post does suggest that the sign numbers were already of some importance and were being determined by the state and not CSAA/ACSC, especially factoring that 21 was unused in the initial numbering but slotted perfectly with the Bay Area part of the grid in 1935.
^^^^^^^^^^
Considering the overall mileage of the state highway system (post about 1936 or so), the percentage that were US highways was relatively small compared with states from the Midwest east -- the western states always had topology and, until post-Dust Bowl years, were relatively isolated, with a few -- mostly coastal or nearly so -- population enclaves. There just wasn't the need nor the opportunity for the redundancy found with US routes farther east. US highways entering CA, even at the post-WWII system peak, were limited by topology as well as the scarcity of population center in the mountain states with which to connect. The majority of those that did cross into CA did so accompanying railroad lines (e.g., UP/the old LA&SL along US 91, Santa Fe along US 66, SP along US 40, 80, 97, and 99, and even the narrow-gauge Carson & Colorado along US 6). The Division of Highways was equally apt to request 3dus numbers for intrastate (or near-intrastate) facilities like US 299, US 399, and US 466 in place of "alternate" routes, which tended to come along later and used for specific purposes, like Alternate US 101 (replacing the original SSR 3) in SoCal -- specifically designed to divert US 101 traffic to beach communities where the recreational-minded could and did spend their money. Alternate 66 was, as described upthread, a commercial alternative for the restricted Arroyo Seco Parkway, while Alternate 40 was commissioned rather late in the game as a response to the severe winters of 1951-52 that blocked the higher-elevation Sierra passes for weeks at a time.
A case could be made that the U.S. highways in CA served a somewhat "populist" agenda -- intended not only to connect the state's population centers but also to funnel both tourist and migratory traffic to specific areas -- such as US 399 functioning (albeit indirectly) as a corridor from the Valley to the largely recreational Santa Barbara coast (but as a distinctly challenging ride). The westernmost section of US 466 might have been more useful if not for the Divisions' insistence on dragging it down LRN 125 from Cholame to Atascadero rather than directly to Paso Robles on LRN 33 as was done after 1957 (and should have been done decades previously). Again, funneling recreational traffic from the agricultural center of the state to the coast (Morro Bay being arguably a more attractive destination than SLO in the early years, with Morro Rock appearing on endless postcards!). Likewise US 199 funneling OR-originating traffic over to US 101 for the "redwood experience" found along the Avenue of the Giants. And I for one am surprised that the Division didn't snag one of the discarded Midwest 2dus designations (like US 32 or 38) for US 299 in the mid-30's.
The '34 grid creation was, considering the topologies encountered as well of the post-'33 urban route concentrations, a relatively effective way to lay out the state's routes. Why it was functionally discarded in '64 rather than expounded upon (as was very possible!) is a mystery possibly contained within the minutes of the Division's 1963 meetings that ended up being what was placed into the field the following year -- CH&PW only reported the final results, not the deliberations leading up to such. Again, to be a fly on those walls!
Quote from: sparker on June 11, 2019, 04:53:15 AM
^^^^^^^^^^
Considering the overall mileage of the state highway system (post about 1936 or so), the percentage that were US highways was relatively small compared with states from the Midwest east -- the western states always had topology and, until post-Dust Bowl years, were relatively isolated, with a few -- mostly coastal or nearly so -- population enclaves. There just wasn't the need nor the opportunity for the redundancy found with US routes farther east. US highways entering CA, even at the post-WWII system peak, were limited by topology as well as the scarcity of population center in the mountain states with which to connect. The majority of those that did cross into CA did so accompanying railroad lines (e.g., UP/the old LA&SL along US 91, Santa Fe along US 66, SP along US 40, 80, 97, and 99, and even the narrow-gauge Carson & Colorado along US 6). The Division of Highways was equally apt to request 3dus numbers for intrastate (or near-intrastate) facilities like US 299, US 399, and US 466 in place of "alternate" routes, which tended to come along later and used for specific purposes, like Alternate US 101 (replacing the original SSR 3) in SoCal -- specifically designed to divert US 101 traffic to beach communities where the recreational-minded could and did spend their money. Alternate 66 was, as described upthread, a commercial alternative for the restricted Arroyo Seco Parkway, while Alternate 40 was commissioned rather late in the game as a response to the severe winters of 1951-52 that blocked the higher-elevation Sierra passes for weeks at a time.
We did have a few Bypass US routes but still fewer than other states:
Bypass US 101 (Bayshore corridor, 1938-1964)
Bypass US 101, Southern California (Santa Ana Freeway plus the Firestone Boulevard/Manchester Avenue corridor/former Route 10 east of Norwalk, 1946-1956?)
Bypass US 50 (14th Avenue and 65th Street, Sacramento, 1940s to about 1964)
Quote from: sparker on June 11, 2019, 04:53:15 AM
A case could be made that the U.S. highways in CA served a somewhat "populist" agenda -- intended not only to connect the state's population centers but also to funnel both tourist and migratory traffic to specific areas -- such as US 399 functioning (albeit indirectly) as a corridor from the Valley to the largely recreational Santa Barbara coast (but as a distinctly challenging ride). The westernmost section of US 466 might have been more useful if not for the Divisions' insistence on dragging it down LRN 125 from Cholame to Atascadero rather than directly to Paso Robles on LRN 33 as was done after 1957 (and should have been done decades previously). Again, funneling recreational traffic from the agricultural center of the state to the coast (Morro Bay being arguably a more attractive destination than SLO in the early years, with Morro Rock appearing on endless postcards!). Likewise US 199 funneling OR-originating traffic over to US 101 for the "redwood experience" found along the Avenue of the Giants. And I for one am surprised that the Division didn't snag one of the discarded Midwest 2dus designations (like US 32 or 38) for US 299 in the mid-30's.
The US 50 extension to San Francisco via former US 99W, US 48 and US 101E seems to fit this too - more of a "let's get San Francisco a second major route" thing rather than a functional corridor anyone would use between the Bay Area and Sacramento. In some respects it is similar to how US 80 took a more indirect route in Arizona than I-8, though 80's old route along today's I-8 and AZ 85 does reflect San Diego-Phoenix traffic patterns a bit.
US 50 itself going north and west to go "eastbound" from Elk Grove to midtown Sacramento just to reach the state capitol also had very little navigational value! It was only when freeway construction commenced that 50 ended up using the most direct route along US 99 (today's South Sacramento Freeway) and US 99E (later I-80 and now Business 80) before rejoining the Folsom Boulevard corridor.
Quote from: sparker on June 11, 2019, 04:53:15 AM
The '34 grid creation was, considering the topologies encountered as well of the post-'33 urban route concentrations, a relatively effective way to lay out the state's routes. Why it was functionally discarded in '64 rather than expounded upon (as was very possible!) is a mystery possibly contained within the minutes of the Division's 1963 meetings that ended up being what was placed into the field the following year -- CH&PW only reported the final results, not the deliberations leading up to such. Again, to be a fly on those walls!
Seems like a lot of 1964 came down to "let's just use as many unused route numbers as possible and sometimes shove a few in the same range in the same area"; there were already some examples of the grid being ignored before the 1961-1962 period when Route 84 was created (specifically when former Route 10 became Route 42). But if the goal in 1964 was to make sure most routes were signed, I feel from the start the 164/19 deal kinda undermined that.
^^^^^^^
Yeah, after the '64 renumbering, there were certainly "clusters" of numbers; a lot of the '80's ended up somewhere around the Bay Area (80 grandfathered in, 82, 84, 85, and 87), while most of the 70's, save 70 and 77, stuck to the original plan in SoCal (with 72 and 73 added to the mix). I have the feeling that the Division gave up the ghost on the original grid once the Interstates started being signed; since the I-routes tended to overlay US routes -- particularly on the already multi-route passages into greater L.A. (60/70/99 over San Gorgonio Pass and 66/91/395 over Cajon), they simply became overwhelmed and in '63 decided to go in an entirely opposite direction -- the infamous "one road/one number" dictum, manifested the following year. Interestingly, it wasn't until about 1967 that they started field-signing most of the previously unsigned state routes -- particularly in the San Joaquin/Sacramento Valleys and the east slope of the Sierra -- routes that probably didn't have enough traffic to warrant signage pre-renumbering, but which were "just sitting there"; somehow a decision was made around that time to actually sign everything under state maintenance -- urban and rural.
The 164/19 "deal" was an artifact of the planned but never built Rosemead Freeway, which diverged from I-605 north of Whittier, passed through Whittier Narrows, and would have paralleled Rosemead Blvd. (old LRN 168/SSR 19) north to I-210 at the east end of Pasadena. IMO, that would have been as useful as the I-710 extension, since it would have "cut the corner" allowing traffic to access Pasadena directly rather than the current out-of-the-way slog through Duarte (I-210/605 interchange). But NIMBYs in Rosemead and Temple City doomed any chance of that route being adopted; it always remained a generalized line on the map. That facility was given the number CA 164; it was differentiated from CA 19, a route that never saw an inch of freeway proposed for its particular routing. In fact the legal definition of CA 19 ended at the Whittier Narrows dam (or an intersection near it), with CA 164 legally routed over Rosemead north of there. Of course, absent the freeway connection from I-605 over to Rosemead through the Whittier Narrows recreational area (the connector's traversal of which also fomented opposition to the freeway in general), the Division, and later Caltrans, simply decided to keep the longstanding CA 19 field designation going over Rosemead all the way into Pasadena. Laughably, back around 1970 a crew replacing signage at the Rosemead Blvd interchanges with both CA 60 and I-10 erected trailblazer small green signs referring to CA 164 rather than CA 19 (someone got a little literal-minded!); that signage lasted until late '72 or early '73 before it was corrected. But while it will likely never be adopted much less constructed, the CA 164 freeway remains on the books (for some reason it survived the late '70's chopping block!); as long as it's legally there, the 164/19 dichotomy will persist.
Quote from: sparker on June 11, 2019, 05:25:48 PM
The 164/19 "deal" was an artifact of the planned but never built Rosemead Freeway, which diverged from I-605 north of Whittier, passed through Whittier Narrows, and would have paralleled Rosemead Blvd. (old LRN 168/SSR 19) north to I-210 at the east end of Pasadena. IMO, that would have been as useful as the I-710 extension, since it would have "cut the corner" allowing traffic to access Pasadena directly rather than the current out-of-the-way slog through Duarte (I-210/605 interchange). But NIMBYs in Rosemead and Temple City doomed any chance of that route being adopted; it always remained a generalized line on the map. That facility was given the number CA 164; it was differentiated from CA 19, a route that never saw an inch of freeway proposed for its particular routing. In fact the legal definition of CA 19 ended at the Whittier Narrows dam (or an intersection near it), with CA 164 legally routed over Rosemead north of there. Of course, absent the freeway connection from I-605 over to Rosemead through the Whittier Narrows recreational area (the connector's traversal of which also fomented opposition to the freeway in general), the Division, and later Caltrans, simply decided to keep the longstanding CA 19 field designation going over Rosemead all the way into Pasadena. Laughably, back around 1970 a crew replacing signage at the Rosemead Blvd interchanges with both CA 60 and I-10 erected trailblazer small green signs referring to CA 164 rather than CA 19 (someone got a little literal-minded!); that signage lasted until late '72 or early '73 before it was corrected. But while it will likely never be adopted much less constructed, the CA 164 freeway remains on the books (for some reason it survived the late '70's chopping block!); as long as it's legally there, the 164/19 dichotomy will persist.
If only there were photos of those 164 signs!
One key thing that the 1935 blurb that Max found earlier makes me wonder: When 21/440/24 extension were established then, it seemed like this was a decision made by the then-California Department of Highways, and NOT as a legislative action. Was turning signed route numbering into a legislative process just a side effect of switching over the then-existing hidden Legislative Route Number system with using the sign routes? I do think the weirdness of relinquishment and the odd inflexibility of route realignment are direct results of this, as opposed to the navigational focus of the original 1934 grid.
Quote from: TheStranger on June 11, 2019, 05:35:55 PM
Quote from: sparker on June 11, 2019, 05:25:48 PM
The 164/19 "deal" was an artifact of the planned but never built Rosemead Freeway, which diverged from I-605 north of Whittier, passed through Whittier Narrows, and would have paralleled Rosemead Blvd. (old LRN 168/SSR 19) north to I-210 at the east end of Pasadena. IMO, that would have been as useful as the I-710 extension, since it would have "cut the corner" allowing traffic to access Pasadena directly rather than the current out-of-the-way slog through Duarte (I-210/605 interchange). But NIMBYs in Rosemead and Temple City doomed any chance of that route being adopted; it always remained a generalized line on the map. That facility was given the number CA 164; it was differentiated from CA 19, a route that never saw an inch of freeway proposed for its particular routing. In fact the legal definition of CA 19 ended at the Whittier Narrows dam (or an intersection near it), with CA 164 legally routed over Rosemead north of there. Of course, absent the freeway connection from I-605 over to Rosemead through the Whittier Narrows recreational area (the connector's traversal of which also fomented opposition to the freeway in general), the Division, and later Caltrans, simply decided to keep the longstanding CA 19 field designation going over Rosemead all the way into Pasadena. Laughably, back around 1970 a crew replacing signage at the Rosemead Blvd interchanges with both CA 60 and I-10 erected trailblazer small green signs referring to CA 164 rather than CA 19 (someone got a little literal-minded!); that signage lasted until late '72 or early '73 before it was corrected. But while it will likely never be adopted much less constructed, the CA 164 freeway remains on the books (for some reason it survived the late '70's chopping block!); as long as it's legally there, the 164/19 dichotomy will persist.
If only there were photos of those 164 signs!
One key thing that the 1935 blurb that Max found earlier makes me wonder: When 21/440/24 extension were established then, it seemed like this was a decision made by the then-California Department of Highways, and NOT as a legislative action. Was turning signed route numbering into a legislative process just a side effect of switching over the then-existing hidden Legislative Route Number system with using the sign routes? I do think the weirdness of relinquishment and the odd inflexibility of route realignment are direct results of this, as opposed to the navigational focus of the original 1934 grid.
I could be wrong but I don't believe the Legislative Route Numbers ever had anything pre-renumbering in their legislative description that dictated what they would be signed as. Daniel probably could elaborate more on what the legislative minutes used to say regarding the matter.
Quote from: TheStranger on June 11, 2019, 02:30:28 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 10, 2019, 08:56:32 PM
There seems to have been some intentional fluidity to some of the numbering conventions like having a split CA 7 through Nevada and CA 440. I really think the Department of Public Works was banking on adding as many US Route designations as possible which ultimately ended up happening. The fascinating thing for me is the almost universal departure in big cities from what was the established right of way that was being signed by the ACSC/CSAA. Conceptually it seems bizarre to think that legislative action was needed to allow the State to use funds for highways in cities. The highway system prior to 1933 as far as state maintenance was mostly rural and focused on traditional corridors travel that were well established as through routes by the late 19th Century. I suppose that's why I find California interesting in that the highway system was born out of what were wagon roads largely and took until the 1930s to fully emulate what other states were doing. 1934 is a seriously long time for a state the size of California to get on board with a State Highway network.
Either on Wikipedia or here, I recall reading that some states have state highway numbers in use since the 1910s! And California's numbering occurred a full 8 years after the US highway system was established.
What is harder to really find info on is...how well that US highway system was signed in the 1928-1934 period before the state route system was established here, particularly routes that only existed pre-1934 (US 99E/W near Modesto, US 101E/W in the Bay Area). Even thinking about the post-1934 history, it's striking how few Alternate US routes have ever existed in this state:
Alternate US 101 (El Camino Real in the Bay Area, 1936-1938)
Alternate US 101 (former Route 3 on PCH, now Route 1, 1936-1964)
Alternate US 40 (modern Route 113, Route 99, Route 70, the latter of which was former Route 24, 1954-1964)
Alternate US 66 (Figueroa Street/Colorado Boulevard along Route 11 and Route 134, 1957-1964)
Alternate US 50 (El Dorado County, 1998-present but only signed in inclement weather if I recall correctly)
I still think it would be interesting to find out who exactly was involved in the route grid creation in 1934 - that 1935 California public works post does suggest that the sign numbers were already of some importance and were being determined by the state and not CSAA/ACSC, especially factoring that 21 was unused in the initial numbering but slotted perfectly with the Bay Area part of the grid in 1935.
I have specific information on us route posting in California but cannot access it from the road. I will post it when I return next week or you can find it in reply 16 on the thread regarding us 48 and us 50. Incidentally I don't think us 48 was posted.
Does anyone actually know if photos of US 48 signed in-field actually exists? I've never seen a photo of a US 48 shield that was actually mounted on a sign assembly.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 11, 2019, 06:14:16 PM
I could be wrong but I don't believe the Legislative Route Numbers ever had anything pre-renumbering in their legislative description that dictated what they would be signed as. Daniel probably could elaborate more on what the legislative minutes used to say regarding the matter.
You aren't wrong; up to 1964 the only numbers that were legislatively "vetted" (more like "sign here" for routes submitted by the Division) were LRN's. SSR's were decided jointly by the various districts and/or HQ in Sacramento; the decision to number and
what the number would be could be initiated at either level; as long as Sacramento signed off on the decision. That's one of the reasons why so many Valley connecting routes went unsigned until '64; the district offices didn't think overall navigation could be helped by signing certain routes -- and they didn't want to spend any additional manpower to post and maintain signage than was absolutely necessary. Of course AASHTO (and its single-A predecessor) had something to say regarding US highways -- but for SSR's, it was solely at the discretion of the Division of Highways.
Of course, since 1964 all state highways are legislatively designated (and relinquished!), regardless of shield type!
Quote from: sparker on June 12, 2019, 12:58:34 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 11, 2019, 06:14:16 PM
I could be wrong but I don't believe the Legislative Route Numbers ever had anything pre-renumbering in their legislative description that dictated what they would be signed as. Daniel probably could elaborate more on what the legislative minutes used to say regarding the matter.
You aren't wrong; up to 1964 the only numbers that were legislatively "vetted" (more like "sign here" for routes submitted by the Division) were LRN's. SSR's were decided jointly by the various districts and/or HQ in Sacramento; the decision to number and what the number would be could be initiated at either level; as long as Sacramento signed off on the decision. That's one of the reasons why so many Valley connecting routes went unsigned until '64; the district offices didn't think overall navigation could be helped by signing certain routes -- and they didn't want to spend any additional manpower to post and maintain signage than was absolutely necessary. Of course AASHTO (and its single-A predecessor) had something to say regarding US highways -- but for SSR's, it was solely at the discretion of the Division of Highways.
Of course, since 1964 all state highways are legislatively designated (and relinquished!), regardless of shield type!
In that vein, it's interesting to think of some of the biggest wholesale pre-1964 changes that happened rather quickly: 13 becoming 17 (though was 13 ever signed along the Oakland Road etc. corridor?), 10 becoming 42 to accommodate I-10, things like that - in comparison to the 20+ years it has taken for Route 210 east of San Dimas to finally be part of a unified I-210, even though that freeway has been pretty complete for quite some time now.
^^^^^^^^^
Re the 210 freeway: some of the older 4-lane (2+2) sections of the E-W portion in San Bernardino did have, at least the last time I used that facility back in 2012, substandard inner shoulders, well under the minimum 4-foot system criterion. That portion dated from the late '60's and early '70's; the newer section that included the CA 330 interchange, the Santa Ana River bridge, and the I-10 Redlands interchange, opened in early 1992 and was constructed to Interstate standards. But with the concentration on completing the freeway from San Dimas to San Bernardino in big chunks (out to I-15 by 2002 and to I-215 in mid-2007), that older section didn't garner much attention from D8; they were more intent on fully completing the 210/215 interchange than upgrading the section east of there. Besides the question of what to do with the chargeable former I-210 segment now signed as CA 57 (which has been cited as one possible reason for the delay/inability to deploy I-210 east of the original chargeable segment), the lack of full directional access to southward I-215 (corrected a few years back) was additionally mentioned as a rationale for non-signage. But it appears that the final obstacle is simply that substandard section in eastern San Bernardino and Highland -- and a couple of bridges, including the Highland Ave. (old CA 30) overpass, may themselves have to be widened as well, probably by "filling in" the gap between the directional overpasses. In any case, until these projects are let and subsequently completed, any extension of I-210 is still "on hold".
Quote from: sparker on June 12, 2019, 05:20:44 AM
^^^^^^^^^
Re the 210 freeway: some of the older 4-lane (2+2) sections of the E-W portion in San Bernardino did have, at least the last time I used that facility back in 2012, substandard inner shoulders, well under the minimum 4-foot system criterion. That portion dated from the late '60's and early '70's; the newer section that included the CA 330 interchange, the Santa Ana River bridge, and the I-10 Redlands interchange, opened in early 1992 and was constructed to Interstate standards. But with the concentration on completing the freeway from San Dimas to San Bernardino in big chunks (out to I-15 by 2002 and to I-215 in mid-2007), that older section didn't garner much attention from D8; they were more intent on fully completing the 210/215 interchange than upgrading the section east of there. Besides the question of what to do with the chargeable former I-210 segment now signed as CA 57 (which has been cited as one possible reason for the delay/inability to deploy I-210 east of the original chargeable segment), the lack of full directional access to southward I-215 (corrected a few years back) was additionally mentioned as a rationale for non-signage. But it appears that the final obstacle is simply that substandard section in eastern San Bernardino and Highland -- and a couple of bridges, including the Highland Ave. (old CA 30) overpass, may themselves have to be widened as well, probably by "filling in" the gap between the directional overpasses. In any case, until these projects are let and subsequently completed, any extension of I-210 is still "on hold".
I do remember that remaining work in San Bernardino et. was cited in the 2018 blurb on why the eastern part of 210 is still awaiting to be fully marked out as Interstate. It's similar to how Route 15 south of I-8 and all of Route 905 are still not signed as Interstates either (the former due to the substandard 94/15 junction, the latter due to forthcoming interchange construction) - but when something like I-80 in SF has been signed as an interstate continuously for decades (even though it may not even be part of the system technically!), it seems like these are a bit of a hangup as opposed to just focusing on navigational continuity.
Then again, California is not alone in this kinda scenario: witness how long it took for TN 840 to become I-840, and similarly how long I-295 in Fayetteville, NC has been on the back burner despite a segment existing already. Much closer to this state, I-580 was designated for the southern US 395 freeway in Reno as far back as the 1970s, yet not signed until recent years.
Quote from: TheStranger on June 12, 2019, 11:09:39 AM
Quote from: sparker on June 12, 2019, 05:20:44 AM
^^^^^^^^^
Re the 210 freeway: some of the older 4-lane (2+2) sections of the E-W portion in San Bernardino did have, at least the last time I used that facility back in 2012, substandard inner shoulders, well under the minimum 4-foot system criterion. That portion dated from the late '60's and early '70's; the newer section that included the CA 330 interchange, the Santa Ana River bridge, and the I-10 Redlands interchange, opened in early 1992 and was constructed to Interstate standards. But with the concentration on completing the freeway from San Dimas to San Bernardino in big chunks (out to I-15 by 2002 and to I-215 in mid-2007), that older section didn't garner much attention from D8; they were more intent on fully completing the 210/215 interchange than upgrading the section east of there. Besides the question of what to do with the chargeable former I-210 segment now signed as CA 57 (which has been cited as one possible reason for the delay/inability to deploy I-210 east of the original chargeable segment), the lack of full directional access to southward I-215 (corrected a few years back) was additionally mentioned as a rationale for non-signage. But it appears that the final obstacle is simply that substandard section in eastern San Bernardino and Highland -- and a couple of bridges, including the Highland Ave. (old CA 30) overpass, may themselves have to be widened as well, probably by "filling in" the gap between the directional overpasses. In any case, until these projects are let and subsequently completed, any extension of I-210 is still "on hold".
I do remember that remaining work in San Bernardino et. was cited in the 2018 blurb on why the eastern part of 210 is still awaiting to be fully marked out as Interstate. It's similar to how Route 15 south of I-8 and all of Route 905 are still not signed as Interstates either (the former due to the substandard 94/15 junction, the latter due to forthcoming interchange construction) - but when something like I-80 in SF has been signed as an interstate continuously for decades (even though it may not even be part of the system technically!), it seems like these are a bit of a hangup as opposed to just focusing on navigational continuity.
Then again, California is not alone in this kinda scenario: witness how long it took for TN 840 to become I-840, and similarly how long I-295 in Fayetteville, NC has been on the back burner despite a segment existing already. Much closer to this state, I-580 was designated for the southern US 395 freeway in Reno as far back as the 1970s, yet not signed until recent years.
The solution I (and certain others) have proposed for dealing with the "orphan" chargeable section along CA 57 is simply to legislatively designate it as a different x10 3di (I-510 comes to mind) but, like I-305 in Sacramento or I-595 in MD, just don't post Interstate signage. Keeps the segment in the system, eliminating any controversy about reimbursement of construction $$ (after 47-48 years of existence!) without disturbing the current signage, which has been there since late 2002.
Quote from: sparker on June 12, 2019, 12:49:25 PM
The solution I (and certain others) have proposed for dealing with the "orphan" chargeable section along CA 57 is simply to legislatively designate it as a different x10 3di (I-510 comes to mind) but, like I-305 in Sacramento or I-595 in MD, just don't post Interstate signage. Keeps the segment in the system, eliminating any controversy about reimbursement of construction $$ (after 47-48 years of existence!) without disturbing the current signage, which has been there since late 2002.
It's interesting to think of how we have at least two current routes not signed as Interstate but part of the system (US 50/midtown segment of Route 51, which is I-305, and Route 57 between 210 and 10/71, the old I-210) in California, and at the same time have two freeway segments that are not officially part of the system but have been signed as such for decades! (I-80 along old US 40/50 in San Francisco, I-110 along the southbound Harbor Freeway between US 101 and I-10 and the northbound portion from I-10 to James M. Wood Boulevard)
There is precedent for the latter in at least one other state (the segment of the Baltimore Beltway that is signed as I-695 but officially is MD 695).
Even in the age of GPS I still think navigational value should be the overriding factor as to how a route is signed, but obviously in real practice it doesn't always work that way out here. Though one could argue that removing Business 80 on the US 50 segment in West Sacramento/Sacramento was done entirely for navigational reasons (with the side effect of making it slightly harder to figure out 99's northbound routing between 12th Avenue and I-5).
^^^^^^^^^
When it comes to the "former" Business Loop 80 freeway sequence in Sacramento, it seems that D3, at least with the E-W portion of the loop (the old "W-X" freeway plus the Pioneer Bridge and the West Sacramento portion), has reverted to the "one road/one number" criterion introduced back in '64. Unfortunately, continuity (particularly NB) on CA 99 has suffered as a result. The first ramp sign on NB 99 at the Oak Park interchange is fine; it indicates that CA 99 takes the exit; the following sign at the split of the E & W ramps omits any CA 99 directional information and solely references US 50. To me, that is unacceptable; at least a "TO CA 99" shield should be appended to that second sign for WB 50. Since a traveler needs to make two 90-degree turns plus some multiplexed/silent running to access the two separate CA 99 segments, the precise routing needs to be clarified; that being said, CA 99 trailblazer signage is better southbound than northbound.
Quote from: sparker on June 12, 2019, 12:58:34 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 11, 2019, 06:14:16 PM
I could be wrong but I don't believe the Legislative Route Numbers ever had anything pre-renumbering in their legislative description that dictated what they would be signed as. Daniel probably could elaborate more on what the legislative minutes used to say regarding the matter.
You aren't wrong; up to 1964 the only numbers that were legislatively "vetted" (more like "sign here" for routes submitted by the Division) were LRN's. SSR's were decided jointly by the various districts and/or HQ in Sacramento; the decision to number and what the number would be could be initiated at either level; as long as Sacramento signed off on the decision. That's one of the reasons why so many Valley connecting routes went unsigned until '64; the district offices didn't think overall navigation could be helped by signing certain routes -- and they didn't want to spend any additional manpower to post and maintain signage than was absolutely necessary. Of course AASHTO (and its single-A predecessor) had something to say regarding US highways -- but for SSR's, it was solely at the discretion of the Division of Highways.
Of course, since 1964 all state highways are legislatively designated (and relinquished!), regardless of shield type!
I'd be curious to see how something that plays in other states. It seems to me that having the flexibility for a local Caltrans district to decide on what a route would be signed as would be much more useful in a post-1964 numbering environment.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 13, 2019, 12:23:32 AM
Quote from: sparker on June 12, 2019, 12:58:34 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 11, 2019, 06:14:16 PM
I could be wrong but I don't believe the Legislative Route Numbers ever had anything pre-renumbering in their legislative description that dictated what they would be signed as. Daniel probably could elaborate more on what the legislative minutes used to say regarding the matter.
You aren't wrong; up to 1964 the only numbers that were legislatively "vetted" (more like "sign here" for routes submitted by the Division) were LRN's. SSR's were decided jointly by the various districts and/or HQ in Sacramento; the decision to number and what the number would be could be initiated at either level; as long as Sacramento signed off on the decision. That's one of the reasons why so many Valley connecting routes went unsigned until '64; the district offices didn't think overall navigation could be helped by signing certain routes -- and they didn't want to spend any additional manpower to post and maintain signage than was absolutely necessary. Of course AASHTO (and its single-A predecessor) had something to say regarding US highways -- but for SSR's, it was solely at the discretion of the Division of Highways.
Of course, since 1964 all state highways are legislatively designated (and relinquished!), regardless of shield type!
I'd be curious to see how something that plays in other states. It seems to me that having the flexibility for a local Caltrans district to decide on what a route would be signed as would be much more useful in a post-1964 numbering environment.
To that extent, relinquishments seem to be a direct result of the "shield = state maintenance" concept - cities want to maintain roads to urban standards (more bike lanes, decorative lighting, etc.) that don't always jive with CalTrans state highway standards, and most often (i.e. Route 160 between Freeport and Alkali Flat going through downtown Sacramento) this results in full shield removal.
But in comparison, US 101 along Van Ness Avenue in San Francisco has had a couple of years of work to provide new Bus Rapid Transit lanes and yet is definitively staying under state maintenance!
One example IMO where local routing decisions could potentially be better than the existing state-maintained/signed route is out in Woodland, where Route 113 uses the old Route 24/Alternate US 40 pathway towards Knights Landing, even though the parallel Yolo County Road 102 is newer, faster, and more direct.
Another thought is the 70/99 routings in the Feather River area: with 99 no longer being considered for bypasses of cities like Live Oak and Gridley, 70/149 has been the primary corridor for through traffic the last few years; logically that would all be one number from Natomas to Oroville rather than 3.
And then there's Richmond Parkway, locally acknowledged as the corridor for proposed Route 93, but not signed as such as it is not state maintained at this time - though currently kept up to a higher standard than say, another East Bay arterial in Route 185! It is a key connector between I-80 and I-580.
I always liked the example of Massachussetts, where route numbering signage is specifically not indicative of state maintenance at all (I've seen it mentioned on the forums how sections within towns have END STATE MAINTENANCE and BEGIN STATE MAINTENANCE signs).
^^^
In that regard that's what I find so fascinating about the early signed highway era in California. It was clear that a signed route was going to be signed where it was needed and not as a trailblazer for indicating something the state was maintaining. Pre-1933 that was certainly true of the US Routes in the big cities but ever afterward there was certain state highways that definitely had signs posted on County maintained highways.
To that end I've heard the notion that signage doesn't matter much for navigation anymore. While that might be somewhat true to a degree in a sprawling suburban expanse it definitely is not the case in the more rural parts of the state. There are plenty of places just in the Sierras alone that can't be found out of the blue without proper signage and a GPS won't necessarily help either.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 13, 2019, 11:55:56 AM
^^^
In that regard that's what I find so fascinating about the early signed highway era in California. It was clear that a signed route was going to be signed where it was needed and not as a trailblazer for indicating something the state was maintaining. Pre-1933 that was certainly true of the US Routes in the big cities but ever afterward there was certain state highways that definitely had signs posted on County maintained highways.
The US 66 posts/thread itself highlights this to some degree - it seems like signing US and state sign routes in the 1934-1936 period along city streets and county roads was a precursor to that policy change where state maintenance could be applied to urban areas after 1935 or so; essentially a placeholder period for navigational purposes, certainly to get people used to the routes being there in the first place.
With mapmikey's note that US 48 may have never been signed, I am now wondering like if there was a time period where US routes were signed pre-1934.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 13, 2019, 11:55:56 AM
To that end I've heard the notion that signage doesn't matter much for navigation anymore. While that might be somewhat true to a degree in a sprawling suburban expanse it definitely is not the case in the more rural parts of the state. There are plenty of places just in the Sierras alone that can't be found out of the blue without proper signage and a GPS won't necessarily help either.
I still recall how odd it was to see no trailblazers for 128 between Monticello and Winters ca. 2009 or on 18 between Palmdale area and US 395 back in 2011-2012. Those seem like exactly the type of rural road that benefits a ton from trailblazers.
In the early days post-renumbering (1964-1976) - as seen in those San Diego videos from 1970 - signage was certainly priority beyond anything before seen, as noticed by the 395/163 concurrency and by (State Route) 15 being well-posted only a year into its existence in the city!
^^^^^^^^^
Some Caltrans districts are notoriously parsimonious with reassurance signage, particularly on relatively straight roads where there are few if any major intersecting arterials or other highways. CA 18 is an unusual case; its western end at CA 138 is in L.A. County, maintained by D7, while the San Bernardino county line, part of D8, crosses 18 a couple of miles east of the terminus. The route split is clearly marked, but once in SB County/D8, the signage simply isn't there -- but neither are there obvious opportunities for a route deviation from the straight alignment. I will acknowledge that the CA 18/US 395 junction in west Victorville is sparsely (some would say poorly) marked, with a single crossing-route sign for each route's direction right before the intersection -- no advance warning or the "old standard" array showing that the route you were on continued forward while the intersecting route crossed. D8 is one that's stingy with signage on surface facilities; their freeway signage, including trailblazers, seems to be consistent with what's found statewide. And CA 128 between Monticello Dam and Winters is a straight-line facility as well; the last time I was there (there's a really nice farmers' market just west of Winters on the north side of the road) the only reassurance signs, besides the END 128 sign at the I-505 interchange, were at the old LRN 90 route through Winters itself; one per 128 direction). West of Monticello Dam, there were a few along the more mountainous part of the route; the 121/128 junction was very clearly marked (128 shifts alignments at that point; WB 128>SB 121 is the "through" route (following the old LRN 6).
This actually leads to a bit of a philosophical question:
What is a good interval for a route to be considered decently-signed? Of course it can depend too on whether the route is rural or urban/suburban.
i.e. US 101 is well-marked with trailblazers between Marina Boulevard and Duboce Avenue, approximately one trailblazer every 2 blocks or so. (I even did a walking photo tour of that surface street alignment along Van Ness and Lombard several years ago where I attempted to photograph every US 101 shield that was up at the time) Route 1 is similarly well marked along 19th Avenue. In both cases, there are no overhead signs or even medium-sized green signs to add additional information, so sometimes the trailblazers get lost in the clutter of urban route signage, nothing too bad.
Route 35 is pretty sparsely signed along the east-west Sloat segment now, though not as much as the examples of 18 and 128 in this thread.
Route 77 is shockingly well marked on its short freeway portion (the entirety of the route really) in Oakland even though it is not signed at all from any intersecting routes.
Route 82 between I-880 and San Francisco is decently signed, maybe like shields every mile or so give or take.
Route 262 along Mission Boulevard in Warm Springs was not signed or acknowledged in any form pre-2002, but since then has been mostly signed only in references from I-680 southbound (both at the exit and along the 680 carpool lane) - somewhat similar to 221's treatment in Napa.
Route signage IMO ought to always include reassurance shields at the following intervals:
- At the start/end of the route.
- At and after every Signed Highway junction.
- At every major junction along said Signed Highway
- At every major attraction like a state park.
- At every control city sign on surface routes.
There should always be a junction assembly from every connecting highway no matter what. Personally I really think "end" placards have value so I would include those as well.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 13, 2019, 08:06:51 PM
Route signage IMO ought to always include reassurance shields at the following intervals:
- At the start/end of the route.
- At and after every Signed Highway junction.
- At every major junction along said Signed Highway
- At every major attraction like a state park.
- At every control city sign on surface routes.
There should always be a junction assembly from every connecting highway no matter what. Personally I really think "end" placards have value so I would include those as well.
Absolutely agree with the above -- and that's essentially how the Division of Highways would sign the routes under their jurisdiction until they "morphed" into the multitasking Caltrans. Considering the recent state of signage in general, it's difficult to reach any conclusion other than signage has been pushed significantly down the priority list -- and they've now had 46 years to internalize that change. Either the districts, which set specific signage policy within their jurisdictions, have had their budgets slashed to the point where they just can't afford to dispatch crews to put up surface-street/road signage or -- more ominously -- they've been ordered to de-emphasize the role of surface state highways (even rural ones) in the overall schemes as part of a broader push to discourage general/private automotive travel -- or even declining to enable such travel by providing navigational assistance for such. Forgive me for detouring into what might be construed as "conspiracy theory" :confused: -- but as one who observed the blatantly anti-car Gianturco years, it's not at all hard to see such sentiments creeping back into the Caltrans HQ executive arena via consistent and/or regular political pressure if not necessarily at the district level. And that would manifest itself, at least initially, as simple lack of initiative regarding consistent and useful signage.
Quote from: sparker on June 13, 2019, 08:32:21 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 13, 2019, 08:06:51 PM
Route signage IMO ought to always include reassurance shields at the following intervals:
- At the start/end of the route.
- At and after every Signed Highway junction.
- At every major junction along said Signed Highway
- At every major attraction like a state park.
- At every control city sign on surface routes.
There should always be a junction assembly from every connecting highway no matter what. Personally I really think "end" placards have value so I would include those as well.
Absolutely agree with the above -- and that's essentially how the Division of Highways would sign the routes under their jurisdiction until they "morphed" into the multitasking Caltrans. Considering the recent state of signage in general, it's difficult to reach any conclusion other than signage has been pushed significantly down the priority list -- and they've now had 46 years to internalize that change. Either the districts, which set specific signage policy within their jurisdictions, have had their budgets slashed to the point where they just can't afford to dispatch crews to put up surface-street/road signage or -- more ominously -- they've been ordered to de-emphasize the role of surface state highways (even rural ones) in the overall schemes as part of a broader push to discourage general/private automotive travel -- or even declining to enable such travel by providing navigational assistance for such. Forgive me for detouring into what might be construed as "conspiracy theory" :confused: -- but as one who observed the blatantly anti-car Gianturco years, it's not at all hard to see such sentiments creeping back into the Caltrans HQ executive arena via consistent and/or regular political pressure if not necessarily at the district level. And that would manifest itself, at least initially, as simple lack of initiative regarding consistent and useful signage.
I tend to at least partially agree with this consiparicy given California politics as of late. Certainly in many cities, you have some very old signage of parking regulations and street names that have not been moved for decades, yet the state highway shields that once adorned those routes are now missing. When a state highway is decomissioned, the state law often directs that the shields should be maintained for continuity purposes, and yet they are almost never there. I think they must have been actively removed. If they just left the signs alone, we would be in much better shape.
For reassurance signage purposes, I like Max's criteria. Signage is also critical anytime the highway makes a significant bend. I would also agree to a sign every mile in rural areas and every half-mile in urban areas.
IIRC, it seemed that surface level state highways had shields at every signalized intersection in urban and suburban areas. Drive on Beach Blvd, and you definitely knew you were on CA-39.
^^^^^^^^^
At least as of late 2012, there still was ample reassurance for CA 39 on Beach Blvd. During the early-mid 2000's, there also was trailblazer signage for most crossing arterials as well -- including both instances of surface intersection with another state route: PCH/CA 1 at the south terminus of CA 39 and CA 72 at Whittier Blvd. in La Habra. But by about 2010 many of those "crossing" trailblazers had vanished -- whether taken down by the local jurisdiction or simply removed because of age (some dated from the late '60's) isn't known in these quarters. Of all the surface routes in SoCal -- other than PCH -- CA 39/Beach Blvd. is one of the most iconic, as the major route inland from "Surf City" -- and arguably the archetype for commercial strips anywhere! Also one of the most regularly congested corridors in OC if not all of SoCal, particularly from I-405 south to the beach. That was one freeway corridor that absolutely should not have been deleted back in '76; office "scuttlebutt" within Caltrans (as related by my cousin who still works there) seems to imply that singular action -- the deletion of the CA 39 freeway corridor from I-5 south to HB -- precipitated the breakaway of District 12 from District 7 a few years later -- OC wanted a bit more autonomy from the rest of greater L.A.
Bringing this topic back up because of new information...
US 66 apparently had a different early endpoint than has been discussed in this thread. Per the AASHO database (https://grmservices.grmims.com/vsearch/portal/public/na4/aashto/default), within the 1931 CA Other (https://na4.visualvault.com/app/AASHTO/Default/documentviewer?DhID=3269f497-4be6-ea11-a98a-ff9beffbfef8&hidemenu=true) document, a couple things:
1. On pg. 5, it shows US 66 was posted to Santa Monica prior to April 1931 at the approval of Los Angeles County before being rebuffed by the state. Correspondence implies endpoint is US 101.
2. However, on page 28 of the same document, a discussion of making an alternate routing for US 66 to reach the Plaza occurs. Pg. 46 shows a map that clearly indicates California says the US 66 endpoint is Fletcher at San Fernando (US 99)
Separately, I was able to access Los Angeles County minutes (http://clkrep.lacity.org/oldcfidocs/), which has a terrible search function. So far I have found two references to US 66:
1. 2/5/30, it is noted that none of the US routes are marked within the city. They decide to sign US 99 (though not all of it) and US 101 (full through route) but not US 66 because "due to the uncertainty as to the location of this Federal Highway, we recommend that no markers be placed at the present time."
2. 12/30/30, the Auto Club requested US 66 be signed at its expense out to Santa Monica. Referred to planning committee and I did not find another reference.
Quote from: Mapmikey on January 21, 2022, 05:34:25 PM
Bringing this topic back up because of new information...
US 66 apparently had a different early endpoint than has been discussed in this thread. Per the AASHO database (https://grmservices.grmims.com/vsearch/portal/public/na4/aashto/default), within the 1931 CA Other (https://na4.visualvault.com/app/AASHTO/Default/documentviewer?DhID=3269f497-4be6-ea11-a98a-ff9beffbfef8&hidemenu=true) document, a couple things:
1. On pg. 5, it shows US 66 was posted to Santa Monica prior to April 1931 at the approval of Los Angeles County before being rebuffed by the state. Correspondence implies endpoint is US 101.
2. However, on page 28 of the same document, a discussion of making an alternate routing for US 66 to reach the Plaza occurs. Pg. 46 shows a map that clearly indicates California says the US 66 endpoint is Fletcher at San Fernando (US 99)
Separately, I was able to access Los Angeles County minutes (http://clkrep.lacity.org/oldcfidocs/), which has a terrible search function. So far I have found two references to US 66:
1. 2/5/30, it is noted that none of the US routes are marked within the city. They decide to sign US 99 (though not all of it) and US 101 (full through route) but not US 66 because "due to the uncertainty as to the location of this Federal Highway, we recommend that no markers be placed at the present time."
2. 12/30/30, the Auto Club requested US 66 be signed at its expense out to Santa Monica. Referred to planning committee and I did not find another reference.
I've been dreading touching on those AASHO documents. There is so much fluidity with where/when US 66 was signed that it really brings into question the actual narrative of signage in downtown. I'm tempted to reexplore the topic given I've read the same documents you have but I want to sort out early US 99 between Los Angeles-San Bernardino (largely multiplexed on US 66) first.
The California official 1930 map shows US-66 taking the route later signed as 118 from Pasadena to San Fernando:
https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239599~5511899
Later maps don't label it as US-66 any more, but do show the route in more detail, apparently going up Foothill, down Osborne, up Glenoaks, and down Maclay, ending at US-99 right in the center of San Fernando.
https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239594~5511896
Quote from: pderocco on January 22, 2022, 03:34:56 AM
The California official 1930 map shows US-66 taking the route later signed as 118 from Pasadena to San Fernando:
https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239599~5511899
Later maps don't label it as US-66 any more, but do show the route in more detail, apparently going up Foothill, down Osborne, up Glenoaks, and down Maclay, ending at US-99 right in the center of San Fernando.
https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239594~5511896
The 1934 DOH city insert implies 99 was down San Fernando Road and Fletcher just like the minutes above imply. The simplest explanation is that the signage for 66 was not following what the AASHO had for the definition of the highway. It is probably pretty likely all that 66 signage to Santa Monica was never removed and stayed in place until it became the official terminus in 1937. For whatever reason the 1932 DOH didn't have City Insert.
I thought that I snipped the AASHTO documents being and posted on Gribblenation, turns out I did:
https://www.facebook.com/72868503020/posts/10157782941838021/?d=n
I kind of like the idea of bypassing Pasadena mostly by way of Huntington to downtown Los Angeles.
Alright, I went back and added all the relevant AASHTO information to the Gribblenation blog:
https://www.gribblenation.org/2019/06/the-arroyo-seco-parkway-and-early.html
I have found the posted US 66 routing through LA that was approved by the Council 1/12/31:
The City Planning Committee reported as follows;
"In the matter of cosnunlcatlon from the Automobile Club of Southern CallfornlSt
555
Monday - Januar y 12 , 193 1
ft
stating that It had been requested by the Santa Monica-Ocean Park Chamber of Commerce to erect
at its own expense. Federal highway markers designating the following doscribed route:
-Beginning at the Intersection of Colorado Boulevard with the boundary line between
Los Angeles and Pasadena, and extending along Colorado Boulevard to Eagle Hock
Boulevard (formerly Glassell Avenue), to Fletcher Drive, Glendale Boulevard,
Rowena Avenue, Hyperion Avenue, Fountain Avenue, Myra Avenue, Viaduct under Sunset
Boulevard to and along Santa Monica Boulevard to the easterly boundary line of the
City of Santa Monica*;
as United States Highway #66, and advising that they desire direct request from the City council
to place the necessary markers at the Club's own expense:
Tho file in this matter shows that the Council at Its meeting of December 15,
1930, granted permission to the Santa Monica-Ocean Park Chamber of Commerce to place markers
without expense to the City, indicating National Highway #66, where said highway passes through
the City of Los Angeles.
There is also a very detailed description of all state highway route numbers running within/through the City in the 2/8/34 minutes, though no mention of the US route numbers.
Quote from: Mapmikey on January 23, 2022, 11:15:49 AM
I have found the posted US 66 routing through LA that was approved by the Council 1/12/31:
The City Planning Committee reported as follows;
"In the matter of cosnunlcatlon from the Automobile Club of Southern CallfornlSt
555
Monday - Januar y 12 , 193 1
ft
stating that It had been requested by the Santa Monica-Ocean Park Chamber of Commerce to erect
at its own expense. Federal highway markers designating the following doscribed route:
-Beginning at the Intersection of Colorado Boulevard with the boundary line between
Los Angeles and Pasadena, and extending along Colorado Boulevard to Eagle Hock
Boulevard (formerly Glassell Avenue), to Fletcher Drive, Glendale Boulevard,
Rowena Avenue, Hyperion Avenue, Fountain Avenue, Myra Avenue, Viaduct under Sunset
Boulevard to and along Santa Monica Boulevard to the easterly boundary line of the
City of Santa Monica*;
as United States Highway #66, and advising that they desire direct request from the City council
to place the necessary markers at the Club's own expense:
Tho file in this matter shows that the Council at Its meeting of December 15,
1930, granted permission to the Santa Monica-Ocean Park Chamber of Commerce to place markers
without expense to the City, indicating National Highway #66, where said highway passes through
the City of Los Angeles.
There is also a very detailed description of all state highway route numbers running within/through the City in the 2/8/34 minutes, though no mention of the US route numbers.
By chance is there a link to those minutes? That certainly explains how the ACSC signed 66 west to Santa Monica.
Also, open question I'm looking for opinions on. Is there actually any real evidence that US 66 was signed anywhere on Broadway? Truth be told I've never seen a photo or a map suggesting it ever was. Given what the AASHTO database, CHPW and now the LA City Council are saying I'm starting to think 66 was never actually signed to Broadway. I know Sparker wrote the article I linked which gives Broadway the only ounce of credibility it has left IMO.
If anyone has any photo or map evidence showing US 66 ending anywhere on Broadway please let me know so I can include it. There has to be at least at ACSC or CSAA map of downtown before 1931 out there?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 23, 2022, 11:28:00 AM
If anyone has any photo or map evidence showing US 66 ending anywhere on Broadway please let me know so I can include it. There has to be at least at ACSC or CSAA map of downtown before 1931 out there?
Other_CA_1938__.pdf pages 15 and 16 (actual letter from 1935):
QuotePROPOSED EXTENSION OF US 66 DISTRICT VII TO SANTA MONICA
Beginning at the intersection of North Broadway and Sunset Boulevard, the junction of US 66, US 99, and US 101, in the City of Los Angeles; thence, northwesterly over Sunset Boulevard (State Highway Route 2) and US 101 to Santa Monica Boulevard; thence, westerly over Santa Monica Boulevard (a city street) to Myra Avenue, the junction of State Highway 162 and Sign Route (2); thence, continuing westerly over Santa Monica Boulevard (State Highway Route 162) and Sign Route (2) through the Cities of Los Angeles and Beverly Hills to the intersection of Santa Monica Boulevard and Lincoln Boulevard, in the City of Santa Monica; thence, southerly along Lincoln Boulevard to the terminus at Pennsylvania Avenue, a total distance of approximately 13.00 miles.
It's possible that the state and city had different ideas about where it went.
Quote from: NE2 on January 23, 2022, 12:19:33 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 23, 2022, 11:28:00 AM
If anyone has any photo or map evidence showing US 66 ending anywhere on Broadway please let me know so I can include it. There has to be at least at ACSC or CSAA map of downtown before 1931 out there?
Other_CA_1938__.pdf pages 15 and 16 (actual letter from 1935):
QuotePROPOSED EXTENSION OF US 66 DISTRICT VII TO SANTA MONICA
Beginning at the intersection of North Broadway and Sunset Boulevard, the junction of US 66, US 99, and US 101, in the City of Los Angeles; thence, northwesterly over Sunset Boulevard (State Highway Route 2) and US 101 to Santa Monica Boulevard; thence, westerly over Santa Monica Boulevard (a city street) to Myra Avenue, the junction of State Highway 162 and Sign Route (2); thence, continuing westerly over Santa Monica Boulevard (State Highway Route 162) and Sign Route (2) through the Cities of Los Angeles and Beverly Hills to the intersection of Santa Monica Boulevard and Lincoln Boulevard, in the City of Santa Monica; thence, southerly along Lincoln Boulevard to the terminus at Pennsylvania Avenue, a total distance of approximately 13.00 miles.
It's possible that the state and city had different ideas about where it went.
Based off the exchanges between the DOH, AASHO and ACSC in 1931 about the Santa Monica signage that's essentially academic. Suffice to say all of this is incredibly unclean compared to the terminus histories of most US Routes, much less California.
BTW that's for pointing out the Santa Monica stuff from 1935 was in the 1938 file. I could find it last night but I only looked up to 1936.
There do not appear to be links to individual meeting minutes.
Easiest thing to do is go here - http://clkrep.lacity.org/oldcfidocs/
Search for 'markers' and give the date range 1/1/31 to 2/1/31 and the site's link to it will be among the results. Then scroll to page 8 on the 1/12/31 minutes.
Quote from: Mapmikey on January 23, 2022, 01:30:28 PM
There do not appear to be links to individual meeting minutes.
Easiest thing to do is go here - http://clkrep.lacity.org/oldcfidocs/
Search for 'markers' and give the date range 1/1/31 to 2/1/31 and the site's link to it will be among the results. Then scroll to page 8 on the 1/12/31 minutes.
Awesome, I appreciate the link. I'll probably just snip the minutes and add an embedded link.
found an interesting 1932 texaco map of LA that shows US routes to but not through LA.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/mytravelphotos/3483285749
To add further confusion, here is a 1936 photo of Fletcher and San Fernando with no US 66 shield (so was it moved or were signs taken down pending actual extension to Santa Monica)?
https://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/attachments/upload_2019-5-28_12-54-5-png.4297947/
comes from https://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/threads/vintage-shots-from-days-gone-by.428585/page-6630
Captured all the above information in a blog update. I also added AASHTO Database information I found from 1927 when the western terminus of US 66 was up for debate. It seems that the suggestion by the AASHO was to just sign US 66 via US 99/San Fernando Road somewhere to get it into Los Angeles via technicality.
May have found photographic proof that US 66 was de-posted from Santa Monica Blvd after AASHO took notice.
This is 1935 - there are spades visible in both directions: https://digitallibrary.usc.edu/asset-management/2A3BF1BHRTW?WS=SearchResults
Here is the same location in Sept 1937, it appears the spade shield is now a US shield - https://digitallibrary.usc.edu/asset-management/2A3BF1BHN25?WS=SearchResults
Quote from: Mapmikey on January 25, 2022, 09:28:28 PM
May have found photographic proof that US 66 was de-posted from Santa Monica Blvd after AASHO took notice.
This is 1935 - there are spades visible in both directions: https://digitallibrary.usc.edu/asset-management/2A3BF1BHRTW?WS=SearchResults
Here is the same location in Sept 1937, it appears the spade shield is now a US shield - https://digitallibrary.usc.edu/asset-management/2A3BF1BHN25?WS=SearchResults
I have known for a while that the 1934-1936 designation for Santa Monica Boulevard (as is the 1964-present, depending on one how interprets route relinquishments) is Route 2. This is likely proof of 2 being signed in the field in that time period, before 66 was made official west of downtown Los Angeles.
What is tricky (and the main topic of this thread) - were those spade shields put up on poles that had formerly held 66 signs from 1931-1934? Hard to tell.
When I get an opportunity over the weekend I'll add the two above photos to the blog.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 27, 2022, 11:24:22 PM
When I get an opportunity over the weekend I'll add the two above photos to the blog.
I think I can also narrow down something else on your very thorough examinaion of Los Angeles US routes:
You have this passage:
Much of the early US Route system around Los Angeles was heavily altered after 1933. Sometime between late 1934/early 1935 the route of US 101 was realigned through downtown Los Angeles via Sunset Boulevard and Macy Street. This in turn truncated US 66 from 7th Street to US 101 at Sunset Boulevard
If you take a look at page 19 of the 2/8/34 LA council minutes, it describes the route of LSR 2 using Sunset and Macy, with no mention of 7th St. At the end of that list, the newer state route also don't use 7th which is corroborated by the 1935 map of state routes (https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/workspace/handleMediaPlayer?lunaMediaId=RUMSEY~8~1~247303~5515362) which you have excerpted a little further down in the discussion.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 22, 2022, 09:35:30 AM
I thought that I snipped the AASHTO documents being and posted on Gribblenation, turns out I did:
https://www.facebook.com/72868503020/posts/10157782941838021/?d=n
I kind of like the idea of bypassing Pasadena mostly by way of Huntington to downtown Los Angeles.
I do too. If traffic between San Bernardino County and LA used Huntington, they could avoid some of the curvy hilly routes that connect Pasadena to Los Angeles.
One thing that is interesting is that the gribblenation article listed one of the early US 66 alignments as using Fair Oaks-Huntington-Mission-Brooklyn. If that routing were still the routing of US 66 when the map with the red, blue ,and yellow lines was made (in the AASHO - DOH correspondence referenced in the article), then the main 66 and the Huntington Dr bypass would intersect at Fair Oaks-Huntington. Perhaps, if 66 were still running Fair Oaks-Huntington at the time of th 1931 correspondence, a 66 alt would have met AASHO's requirements of main routes and alt routes rejoining and would have actually been signed.
The history of US routes in the early period around LA is so complicated. The routes kept getting moved around every couple of years. I wonder how people could possibly give directions.
Quote from: mrsman on February 03, 2022, 02:07:02 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 22, 2022, 09:35:30 AM
I thought that I snipped the AASHTO documents being and posted on Gribblenation, turns out I did:
https://www.facebook.com/72868503020/posts/10157782941838021/?d=n
I kind of like the idea of bypassing Pasadena mostly by way of Huntington to downtown Los Angeles.
I do too. If traffic between San Bernardino County and LA used Huntington, they could avoid some of the curvy hilly routes that connect Pasadena to Los Angeles.
One thing that is interesting is that the gribblenation article listed one of the early US 66 alignments as using Fair Oaks-Huntington-Mission-Brooklyn. If that routing were still the routing of US 66 when the map with the red, blue ,and yellow lines was made (in the AASHO - DOH correspondence referenced in the article), then the main 66 and the Huntington Dr bypass would intersect at Fair Oaks-Huntington. Perhaps, if 66 were still running Fair Oaks-Huntington at the time of th 1931 correspondence, a 66 alt would have met AASHO's requirements of main routes and alt routes rejoining and would have actually been signed.
The history of US routes in the early period around LA is so complicated. The routes kept getting moved around every couple of years. I wonder how people could possibly give directions.
That alignment for sure was part of the National Old Trails Road. The NOTR even had a terminus at 7th and Broadway which makes me think that's why people believe US 66 ended there:
https://archive.org/details/nationaloldtrail00autorich/page/n7/mode/1up?view=theater
Pertaining to the early US Route madness in L.A. it wasn't much better with US 99 either in its original corridor:
https://www.gribblenation.org/2022/01/the-1926-1934-los-angeles-redlands.html?m=1
All this US Route wonkiness seemingly played a huge roll in why the DOH was allowed to pick up urban mileage beginning in 1933. The blurb by the Pasadena Chamber of Commerce pertaining to the Colorado Street Extension in 1932 really highlights the issue for me.
Quote from: mrsman on February 03, 2022, 02:07:02 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 22, 2022, 09:35:30 AM
I thought that I snipped the AASHTO documents being and posted on Gribblenation, turns out I did:
https://www.facebook.com/72868503020/posts/10157782941838021/?d=n
I kind of like the idea of bypassing Pasadena mostly by way of Huntington to downtown Los Angeles.
I do too. If traffic between San Bernardino County and LA used Huntington, they could avoid some of the curvy hilly routes that connect Pasadena to Los Angeles.
I usually leave central LA using Huntington or Valley Blvd and connecting roads to Arrow Highway or Foothill to avoid the freeways during rush hour. It's about as fast as using the freeways at rush hour, more interesting, and less stressful. This is especially true on Fridays.
Quote from: skluth on February 03, 2022, 02:26:55 PM
Quote from: mrsman on February 03, 2022, 02:07:02 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 22, 2022, 09:35:30 AM
I thought that I snipped the AASHTO documents being and posted on Gribblenation, turns out I did:
https://www.facebook.com/72868503020/posts/10157782941838021/?d=n
I kind of like the idea of bypassing Pasadena mostly by way of Huntington to downtown Los Angeles.
I do too. If traffic between San Bernardino County and LA used Huntington, they could avoid some of the curvy hilly routes that connect Pasadena to Los Angeles.
I usually leave central LA using Huntington or Valley Blvd and connecting roads to Arrow Highway or Foothill to avoid the freeways during rush hour. It's about as fast as using the freeways at rush hour, more interesting, and less stressful. This is especially true on Fridays.
The old routings are for the most part all still there, even if the main traffic corridors are now along the freeways. The pre-freeway corridors that were once state highways often have certain features that make them superior to an average street. They are likely wider, may have a median, may parallel a railroad (so there would be fewer cross streets) and may be more direct. They are great alternates when the freeways were busy.
As a kid, my uncle lived generally in the Pomona/La Verne/Upland area [moved a few times]. Back in the 1980's the Foothill Freeway terminated in La Verne, so to reach his house, we'd often have to use Foothill Blvd (old 66) to reach the areas that weren't yet transversed by freeway. This was less common, when they moved to Upland, as I-10 went there. Occasionally, my father would entertain me on the way back by driving along the old 66 instead of the freeways, given my interest in the historic roads. So the stretch of Foothill/Alosta/Colorado between Pasadena and Upland were at least somewhat familiar. Even as late as the 1980's, there were small portions that had a bit of a rural feel.
Once in Pasadena, my father would always take the freeways the rest of the way toward Hollywood/West Hollywood, where we lived, given that the old 66 routings were too circuitous and would take too long to trasverse Downtown on city streets with lights. But as our home was only 3 blocks from Santa Monica Blvd, we'd certainly use parts of 66 on an almost daily basis.
Arrow Highway is really a gem of a route through the area as well. While I do not believe it was ever a state highway, I'm sure it was a known route that seemed to be even more "straight as an arrow" to L.A. from the Inland Empire than either Foothill/66 or Valley/60-70-99. As you've stated, it's still a good shortcut, even today.
I used to use Foothill Boulevard quite often when I-210 was backed up to get to Pasadena. I always thought it was funny I was putting along on the Colorado Street Extension when the Foothill Freeway traffic was stopped heading into Pasadena. Cajon Boulevard, Sierra Highway and The Old Road are former US Route segments I've found a lot of utility in over the years.
Another vote for Arrow Hwy/Rte. Very handy.
A question for the group that was posed to me this morning that I don't have a full answer...
Pertaining to the terminus of US 66 at US 99/San Fernando Road via Fletcher Drive (to Gassell Park) in the 1931 AASHTO minutes does anyone know exactly how that route got there from Colorado Boulevard? The 1931 map in the blog (photo 17) from the AASHTO minutes seems to indicate the routing was partially on what is now Eagle Rock Boulevard but apparently not all the way to Colorado Boulevard. I'm to understand Eagle Rock Boulevard as it is configured today took shape in 1933 or 1934. From what I'm seeing on USGS maps at the time the possible missing link is likely Ellenwood Drive between Fletcher Drive and Colorado. Would anyone be able to provide some insight into the timeframe of when modern Eagle Rock Boulevard took shape or if I'm the right track with Ellenwood Drive?
It appears that I might be overthinking this and it is Fletcher Drive through Gassell Park that I should be looking at. I noticed Gassell Avenue/Eagle Rock Boulevard is present close to the form it is seen today on the 1928 USGS Map of Los Angeles but not Fletcher Drive. Perhaps the question that I should asking is if anyone knows when Fletcher Drive was constructed from San Fernando Road east through Gassell Park to Gassell Avenue/Eagle Rock Boulevard?
https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/#15/34.1086/-118.2330
FWIW I noting in blog Photo 28 that the Los Angeles City Council does acknowledge Fletcher Drive connecting to Eagle Rock Boulevard (and Gassell Avenue being reassigned as Eagle Rock Boulevard) on January 12th, 1931.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 23, 2022, 11:03:22 PM
It appears that I might be overthinking this and it is Fletcher Drive through Gassell Park that I should be looking at. I noticed Gassell Avenue/Eagle Rock Boulevard is present close to the form it is seen today on the 1928 USGS Map of Los Angeles but not Fletcher Drive. Perhaps the question that I should asking is if anyone knows when Fletcher Drive was constructed from San Fernando Road east through Gassell Park to Gassell Avenue/Eagle Rock Boulevard?
https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/#15/34.1086/-118.2330
FWIW I noting in blog Photo 28 that the Los Angeles City Council does acknowledge Fletcher Drive connecting to Eagle Rock Boulevard (and Gassell Avenue being reassigned as Eagle Rock Boulevard) on January 12th, 1931.
The extension planning is mentioned in an LA Times article from 7/29/26 - https://www.newspapers.com/image/380314112/?terms=%22fletcher%20drive%22%20%22eagle%20rock%22&match=1
It appears to have been completed 1/26/29, see 5th item here - https://www.newspapers.com/search/#query=%22fletcher+drive+between%22&t=4312&dr_year=1929-1929
Quote from: Mapmikey on February 26, 2022, 01:15:14 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 23, 2022, 11:03:22 PM
It appears that I might be overthinking this and it is Fletcher Drive through Gassell Park that I should be looking at. I noticed Gassell Avenue/Eagle Rock Boulevard is present close to the form it is seen today on the 1928 USGS Map of Los Angeles but not Fletcher Drive. Perhaps the question that I should asking is if anyone knows when Fletcher Drive was constructed from San Fernando Road east through Gassell Park to Gassell Avenue/Eagle Rock Boulevard?
https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/#15/34.1086/-118.2330
FWIW I noting in blog Photo 28 that the Los Angeles City Council does acknowledge Fletcher Drive connecting to Eagle Rock Boulevard (and Gassell Avenue being reassigned as Eagle Rock Boulevard) on January 12th, 1931.
The extension planning is mentioned in an LA Times article from 7/29/26 - https://www.newspapers.com/image/380314112/?terms=%22fletcher%20drive%22%20%22eagle%20rock%22&match=1
It appears to have been completed 1/26/29, see 5th item here - https://www.newspapers.com/search/#query=%22fletcher+drive+between%22&t=4312&dr_year=1929-1929
Greatly appreciated. As an aside, I plan on cleaning up the timeline so it is more simplified in this blog. I've been talking to some California Historic Route 66 people regarding 7th and Broadway. Apparently 7th and Broadway was inherited from the National Old Trails Road terminus in downtown Los Angeles and the ACSC had records of 66 also being there circa 1928-1930 (not clear if this was actually signed as 66). For reference the only ACSC Map with the NOTR or 66 I could find was from 1916:
https://archive.org/details/nationaloldtrail00autorich/page/n2/mode/1up?view=theater
Keep in mind from Reply #61 that no US routes were signed within the City of Los Angeles until Feb 1930 and then only US 101 and part of US 99 were signed at that time...US 66 was intentionally not signed by the Feb 1930 action.
Quote from: Mapmikey on February 26, 2022, 02:27:59 PM
Keep in mind from Reply #61 that no US routes were signed within the City of Los Angeles until Feb 1930 and then only US 101 and part of US 99 were signed at that time...US 66 was intentionally not signed by the Feb 1930 action.
Exactly, which suggests to me that what the ACSC had going on with 7th and Broadway was just an "on paper" thing and probably was field signed as the NOTR. The initial instance of any of mention of US 66 (and US 99) was that whole Santa Monica deal where they asked for permission to pay the ACSC to sign 66 to their city limit. The AASHO and CHC caught wind of it by April 1931 (as seen in the AASHTO minutes) and had the ACSC cut 66 back to San Fernando Road and Fletcher Drive. The AASHO and CHC both seemed willing to accept San Fernando Road/Fletcher Drive as the signed terminus even no official request to move their had been submitted to the AASHO Executive Committee.
Blew up the blog:
- I added the additional Los Angeles City Council Minutes regarding the signage of early US 66 in Los Angeles.
- I refined what was in the AASHTO Database regarding early US 66 endpoint signage.
- I added what the California Historic Route 66 Association had to say.
- I added what was in the CHPW for the Arroyo Seco Parkway.
https://www.gribblenation.org/2019/06/the-arroyo-seco-parkway-and-early.html
To that end, I feel that I state the opinion of the California Historic Route 66 Association. Essentially their stance is that the terminus points of US 66 is untraceable prior to 1934. I'm to understand that their president has ACSC records which show the early terminus of US 66 overlayed on paper over what was the NOTR to 7th Street and Broadway. I certainly think with the Los Angeles City Council Minutes coupled with the AASHTO Database there is enough evidence to say that US 66 was never actually signed to 7th Street and Broadway.
To that end I tend to disagree with the assessment of the California Historic Route 66 Association that the signage to San Fernadno Road and Fletcher Drive shouldn't count as a western terminus. Yes, the AASHO never officially approved San Fernando Road and Fletcher Drive but they certainly were aware of it after the whole signage to Santa Monica fiasco. I don't really see in the AASHTO Database the AASHO really having a ton of input as to where terminus points of early US Routes were signed, that generally seemed to be left up to the discretion of the State Highway Departments. To that end, if the California State Highway Engineer and AASHO weren't contesting San Fernando Road and Fletcher Drive then I would that it counts as a western terminus of US 66.
Now, there is still an open question as to how US 66 got from San Fernando Road/Fletcher Drive between late 1931-1934. To that end I don't have a full answer but it likely has something to do with the Legislature allowing maintenance of urban State Highways starting in 1933. To that end, if anyone has anything pertaining to the 1931-34 era with the western terminus of US 66 please share. I don't plan on widely distributing this blog outside of AAroads for awhile to allow additional evidence for the 1931-34 era to emerge.
All of the above gets more interesting as more of the historic information come to light. In many ways, cities knew that being on a signed US route would be "good for business" and thus encouraged the routings to come their way. (The Santa Monica saga that you allude to comes to mind as a good example.)
One really interesting thing about much of this is that what was good for Santa Monica (and perhaps Hollywood) would be terrible for Downtown Los Angeles. A 66 routing from Pasadena to Fletcher/San Fernando would overshoot Downtown LA and would mean a significant amount of backtracking for any travel between Pasadena and Downtown LA. Fair Oaks/Huntington or Pasadena Ave (the part of Figueroa in Eagle Rock was once part of Pasadena Ave and the roadway led to Broadway before the completion of the Figueroa street tunnels) would still be the main ways of connecting Pasadena to LA, and each had some history of being a 66 routing. Who would possibly use Fletcher to get from Pasadena to Downtown LA?
When designing any new routing, particularly in an urban environment where several main streets were already laid out, one has to decide what areas will be connected and what areas will be bypassed. This is all the more true when discussion of rerouting is also at play. Coming in from Arcadia, one could bypass Pasadena by taking Huntington or connect to Pasadena by staying on a Foothill or Colorado routing. From Pasadena, once could bypass LA by taking Fletcher or connect to LA via Pasadena Ave or Fair Oaks. The above saga seems to indicate that AASHO was strongly against bypassing LA, because that was the key destination for the western end of US 66. People were headed to LA not merely the Pacific Ocean. US 66 could be extended to Santa Monica (and it eventually was) but not at the expense of LA.
For 99, LA was not the terminus, but still an important route along the way. Connecting from San Fernando (and the Central Valley) to San Bernardino (and the Desert areas on the way to Calexico) would add a lot of distance if 99 were routed through LA. So long as 99 ran along the 66-Foothill route, 99 avoided central LA. It was only the introduction of Aliso-Garvey as a primary route to the east that allowed for a retoute of 99 to better serve central LA. FWIW, it seems that in AASHO's eyes, Downtown LA was negotiable for 99, but critical for 66. So while Fletcher was signed for 66 for a few years, it didn't remain there for long.
I have found where the Santa Monica rogue posting of US 66 went within Santa Monica:
"Straight out Santa Monica Blvd to its westrly end at Ocean Ave"
Source - column 4 of this 1/27/31 article (https://digital.smpl.org/digital/collection/sanmonnp10/id/35730/rec/3) of the Santa Monica Evening Outlook. The beginning of the article was on page 1. The description of the Los Angeles part of the rogue posting matches what I quoted from the LA Council minutes in reply #67.
This 5/19/31 article (https://digital.smpl.org/digital/collection/sanmonnp10/id/37333/rec/4) discusses the removal of the signs but does not specify where the terminus in LA was.
This 5/31/28 article (https://digital.smpl.org/digital/collection/sanmonnp10/id/16139/rec/9) and this 6/18/29 article (https://digital.smpl.org/digital/collection/sanmonnp10/id/25330/rec/1) show how early Santa Monica was trying to get US 66.
This 11/6/31 article (https://digital.smpl.org/digital/collection/sanmonnp10/id/49146/rec/2) shows Santa Monica was not going to give up on US 66.
12/15/31 article (https://digital.smpl.org/digital/collection/Test/id/1908/rec/4) lamenting sign removal.
This 7/2/35 article (https://digital.smpl.org/digital/collection/Test/id/16198/rec/26) celebrates the return of US 66 to Santa Monica and mentions the terminus was at US 99.
Another mystery may be solved in this 11/3/29 article (https://digital.smpl.org/digital/collection/sanmonnp10/id/28015/rec/3) which describes the LA routing further than previously found iterations. It takes the reverse of the quote in reply 67 (minus the underpass which wasn't there yet) and adds: ...northeasternly on Eagle Rock to York Blvd then east on York Blvd to Pasadena Ave to the ECL of LA where a connection is made to Foothill Blvd.
Noted, hopefully I can add all of this tomorrow morning.
Captured everything in an update:
https://www.gribblenation.org/2019/06/the-arroyo-seco-parkway-and-early.html
I visited the intersection of Fletcher Drive and San Fernando Road today:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52785879232_cb3859f37c_4k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2oqvqS5)IMG_0477 (https://flic.kr/p/2oqvqS5) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
Compared to 1936 when CA 2 crossed over US 99 at the same intersection. I suspect the CA 2 shield was simply placed on the same post that US 66 used to be on:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52785879157_43e58b2e45_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2oqvqQM)IMG_0601 (https://flic.kr/p/2oqvqQM) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
Notably Van Kamp's Dutch Holland Bakery is present on the left in both photos (constructed circa 1930). I haven't quite tracked down when the railroad subway on Fletcher Drive west of San Fernando Road was constructed yet.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 01, 2023, 09:30:25 PM
I visited the intersection of Fletcher Drive and San Fernando Road today:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52785879232_cb3859f37c_4k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2oqvqS5)IMG_0477 (https://flic.kr/p/2oqvqS5) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
Compared to 1936 when CA 2 crossed over US 99 at the same intersection. I suspect the CA 2 shield was simply placed on the same post that US 66 used to be on:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52785879157_43e58b2e45_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2oqvqQM)IMG_0601 (https://flic.kr/p/2oqvqQM) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
Notably Van Kamp's Dutch Holland Bakery is present on the left in both photos (constructed circa 1930). I haven't quite tracked down when the railroad subway on Fletcher Drive west of San Fernando Road was constructed yet.
What's also still there, though obviously modernized, is the Chevron (Standard) station on the western corner. With so many gas stations of that era having since shut down or changed hands when upgraded, it's impressive that it's still the same brand. Looking at GSV, the Mobil station kitty-corner to the VdK windmill is now a Burger King (just a different kind of gas station I suppose :spin: )
Yeah a couple people on our Facebook page pointed out the station is still Chevron/Standard also. That's pretty amazing that the same brand has hung on at the same intersection approaching a century.