News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

California SR 213 (Western Ave.)

Started by M3100, June 28, 2020, 07:54:12 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

M3100

This route is on a city street - Western Avenue - for its entire length.  Its northern end is at I-405; the I-405 exit signs for Western Ave. do not include the route number.  Here are some pics, from north to south:

1. Facing south in Torrance, just south of the Carson St. intersection.  It may be intentional that they didn't post the shield at the intersection of 213th Street. [1st street is in downtown Los Angeles].


2. Intersection with California SR 1, Pacific Coast Highway, facing south.  In California, highway numbers at junctions are frequently posted in rural settings but not so much in the city (unless it is an interchange with a freeway or toll road).


3. This was the furthest southbound shield I saw, faded almost beyond recognition.  Water-based paint?


4. This postmile in the San Pedro area was actually on the northbound side; there was also one nearby on the southbound side.


5. This is the southern end of the route, facing north, with no shields in sight.  25th Street is a major east-west street but AFAIK it was never a numbered highway. In this case, 1st Street is in San Pedro; it is a different 'number series' from picture #1. Western Ave. continues further south to Paseo del Mar, though I don't think that last segment is part of the state highway.


RZF

It's interesting how certain high-volume arterials in LA County are still signed as state routes (i.e., CA 187 in Venice/West LA, CA 107 in the South Bay, CA 213 in the South Bay, CA 22 in Long Beach, CA 19/164, CA 39, CA 2 in West LA/Santa Monica). I guess none of them are following CA 42 in relinquishing complete control and decommissioning the route.

Max Rockatansky

Quote from: RZF on June 29, 2020, 11:44:50 AM
It's interesting how certain high-volume arterials in LA County are still signed as state routes (i.e., CA 187 in Venice/West LA, CA 107 in the South Bay, CA 213 in the South Bay, CA 22 in Long Beach, CA 19/164, CA 39, CA 2 in West LA/Santa Monica). I guess none of them are following CA 42 in relinquishing complete control and decommissioning the route.

Considering how worn out some of those signs on CA 213 I wouldn't say it isn't due to a lack of try by the state to relinquish it.  Surprisingly the California Transportation Commission hasn't made a recommendation to relinquish:

https://www.cahighways.org/209-216.html#213

mrsman

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 29, 2020, 11:49:53 AM
Quote from: RZF on June 29, 2020, 11:44:50 AM
It's interesting how certain high-volume arterials in LA County are still signed as state routes (i.e., CA 187 in Venice/West LA, CA 107 in the South Bay, CA 213 in the South Bay, CA 22 in Long Beach, CA 19/164, CA 39, CA 2 in West LA/Santa Monica). I guess none of them are following CA 42 in relinquishing complete control and decommissioning the route.

Considering how worn out some of those signs on CA 213 I wouldn't say it isn't due to a lack of try by the state to relinquish it.  Surprisingly the California Transportation Commission hasn't made a recommendation to relinquish:

https://www.cahighways.org/209-216.html#213
As this is a long only one Street in an entirely urban area, I would not miss California 213.  Plus, and then the number itself could be confusing as it is the number for the area code serving Central Los Angeles.  At one time highway 213 was in area code 213 but it's not true anymore.  If it were up to me I would totally retire this highway designation.

Nexus 5X


sparker

Quote from: mrsman on June 29, 2020, 12:04:30 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 29, 2020, 11:49:53 AM
Quote from: RZF on June 29, 2020, 11:44:50 AM
It's interesting how certain high-volume arterials in LA County are still signed as state routes (i.e., CA 187 in Venice/West LA, CA 107 in the South Bay, CA 213 in the South Bay, CA 22 in Long Beach, CA 19/164, CA 39, CA 2 in West LA/Santa Monica). I guess none of them are following CA 42 in relinquishing complete control and decommissioning the route.

Considering how worn out some of those signs on CA 213 I wouldn't say it isn't due to a lack of try by the state to relinquish it.  Surprisingly the California Transportation Commission hasn't made a recommendation to relinquish:

https://www.cahighways.org/209-216.html#213
As this is a long only one Street in an entirely urban area, I would not miss California 213.  Plus, and then the number itself could be confusing as it is the number for the area code serving Central Los Angeles.  At one time highway 213 was in area code 213 but it's not true anymore.  If it were up to me I would totally retire this highway designation.

Nexus 5X



CA 213 was a post-'64 "hanger-on"; was an undefined LRN corridor but without an adopted route.  Actual adoption and signage began in the '80's, at about the same time that CA 187 shields started appearing on Venice Blvd.   The actual Western Avenue adoption occurred ca. 1984, at the behest of Union Oil, who have major refinery facilities along its length and wanted to ensure state maintenance (some county facilities along refinery perimeters in the area, particularly in Carson and Harbor City, had long been deteriorating because of L.A. County "deferred maintenance" policies of the time) of the major truck access route.  Also, Palos Verdes interests wanted to ensure the same maintenance standards for the principal N-S corridor serving as a connector to its eastern egress points (see the southern terminus picture above).  So CA 213 was formally adopted and has subsequently been maintained for over three decades. 

M3100

Thanks for some of the back story.  What is interesting is that the route number does appear on my 1976 Rand McNally atlas, but it is not shown on my 1978 Gousha Los Angeles County atlas (Western Ave. has no number at all on the Gousha atlas).  The Gousha maps are likely older ones that were compiled into a "Thomas Guide-type book" in 1978.

That must be one of the challenges of keeping atlases up to date: staying current on sign posting changes vs. legislative changes.

Max Rockatansky

Quote from: M3100 on July 01, 2020, 11:03:20 AM
Thanks for some of the back story.  What is interesting is that the route number does appear on my 1976 Rand McNally atlas, but it is not shown on my 1978 Gousha Los Angeles County atlas (Western Ave. has no number at all on the Gousha atlas).  The Gousha maps are likely older ones that were compiled into a "Thomas Guide-type book" in 1978.

That must be one of the challenges of keeping atlases up to date: staying current on sign posting changes vs. legislative changes.

The actual Division of Highways Maps and later Caltrans maps should provide more accuracy in terms of when Western was actual assumed state maintenance:

http://www.davidrumsey.com/ll/thumbnailView.html?startUrl=%2F%2Fwww.davidrumsey.com%2Fluna%2Fservlet%2Fas%2Fsearch%3Fos%3D0%26lc%3DRUMSEY~8~1%26q%3DCALTRANs%26sort%3DPub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No%26bs%3D10

sparker

^^^^^^^^^
CA 213 shields first started showing up in the 1965 editions of the local Thomas Brothers guides.  But then they also showed CA 42 shields on Imperial Highway through Norwalk and La Habra (a locally maintained arterial then and now) and CA 249 shields on Angeles Forest Highway as well.  That persisted for a few years until D7 informed them of the mistake(s).  So unwarranted shields on maps is certainly not limited to isolated instances. 

cahwyguy

This discussion doesn't explain everything.

First, SParker indicates that the Western Avenue adoption occurred in 1984, with this being an undefined corridor before then. But the 1963 definition of the route included Western: "25th Street in San Pedro to Route 405 via Western Avenue", and additionally, the 1961 definition of LRN 291 had the same words, "via Western Avenue". So it appears the corridor was defined.

Secondly, the 1963 definition of the route added: "The commission may allocate from the State Highway Fund the necessary funds for the construction of all or any portion of said route when the County of Los Angeles and the Cities of Los Angeles and Torrance have entered into a co-operative agreement with the department wherein the said cities and county shall furnish to the state of California without charge all right-of-way necessary and agree to pay one-half the cost of plans and construction.""

So what is the backstory behind this, and why are these words still present in the route definition. Western Avenue to San Pedro existed before 1961.
Daniel - California Highway Guy ● Highway Site: http://www.cahighways.org/ ●  Blog: http://blog.cahighways.org/ ● Podcast (CA Route by Route): http://caroutebyroute.org/ ● Follow California Highways on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/cahighways

mrsman

At one time, it seemed that every defined state highway in LA County was to be a proposed freeway. 

The Palos Verdes Peninsula is realtively far from the freeway system compared to other areas of urbanized LA County (south of the mountains and Antelope Valley).  A freeway here (and along CA-107 Hawthorne Blvd) would have made this area more reachable and would have been a good thing for connectivity.  But probably not good for the neighbors who do not want a freeway in their backyards.

That being said, given that the freeway is off the table, there seems to be no reason for state maintenance and control on what other wise is a normal city street.

cahwyguy

Quote from: mrsman on July 19, 2020, 08:48:57 PM
That being said, given that the freeway is off the table, there seems to be no reason for state maintenance and control on what other wise is a normal city street.

Note that there are many state routes that are not freeways. There was, at one time, a debate about whether the state should maintain routes in urban areas. I think the state has an interest in maintaining such routes when it is vital to the needs of the state, and possibly prohibitive for the local entities to maintain. In the case of Route 213, note that it is only defined from the 405 to San Pedro. This is across a number of jurisdictions, including county land, and in terrain that is subject to flooding and fires (as RPV is not heavily urban city).
Daniel - California Highway Guy ● Highway Site: http://www.cahighways.org/ ●  Blog: http://blog.cahighways.org/ ● Podcast (CA Route by Route): http://caroutebyroute.org/ ● Follow California Highways on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/cahighways

Max Rockatansky

Quote from: cahwyguy on July 19, 2020, 09:16:36 PM
Quote from: mrsman on July 19, 2020, 08:48:57 PM
That being said, given that the freeway is off the table, there seems to be no reason for state maintenance and control on what other wise is a normal city street.

Note that there are many state routes that are not freeways. There was, at one time, a debate about whether the state should maintain routes in urban areas. I think the state has an interest in maintaining such routes when it is vital to the needs of the state, and possibly prohibitive for the local entities to maintain. In the case of Route 213, note that it is only defined from the 405 to San Pedro. This is across a number of jurisdictions, including county land, and in terrain that is subject to flooding and fires (as RPV is not heavily urban city).

If I recall correctly it wasn't even until 1933 that the State could explicitly maintain roadways in incorporated cities?  Granted back then there was certainly little thought to true limited access roads as we know them now but suffice to say there definitely a State Level need.  Regarding 213 given all that has been said above it isn't too hard to see why the highway is needed to be maintained on the State Level and not local authorities. 

sparker

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 19, 2020, 09:20:10 PM
Quote from: cahwyguy on July 19, 2020, 09:16:36 PM
Quote from: mrsman on July 19, 2020, 08:48:57 PM
That being said, given that the freeway is off the table, there seems to be no reason for state maintenance and control on what other wise is a normal city street.

Note that there are many state routes that are not freeways. There was, at one time, a debate about whether the state should maintain routes in urban areas. I think the state has an interest in maintaining such routes when it is vital to the needs of the state, and possibly prohibitive for the local entities to maintain. In the case of Route 213, note that it is only defined from the 405 to San Pedro. This is across a number of jurisdictions, including county land, and in terrain that is subject to flooding and fires (as RPV is not heavily urban city).

If I recall correctly it wasn't even until 1933 that the State could explicitly maintain roadways in incorporated cities?  Granted back then there was certainly little thought to true limited access roads as we know them now but suffice to say there definitely a State Level need.  Regarding 213 given all that has been said above it isn't too hard to see why the highway is needed to be maintained on the State Level and not local authorities. 

It pretty much boils town to two factors:  north of PCH/CA 1, CA 213/Western Ave. is a major industrial server and truck conduit for the various refinery facilities in the immediate region; south of PCH, it's the principal artery serving the west (uphill) reaches of San Pedro as well as the eastern flank of the Palos Verdes peninsula.  Those alone warrant its initial addition to the state highway system as well as its retention today.

Max Rockatansky

Put something together for 213 (thanks M3100 for donating the cover photo).  I was able to track down when the first part of 213 on Western Avenue was built to State standards in the CHPWs.  Also the last two northern miles of 213 were very recently added as state maintenance approaching I-405:

https://www.gribblenation.org/2022/05/california-state-route-213.html?m=1



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