Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^
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. 

[Max Rockatansky]

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. 

[TheStranger]

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).

[Max Rockatansky]

^^^

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.

[TheStranger]

^^^

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.

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!

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^
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).   

[TheStranger]

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.

[Max Rockatansky]

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. 

[sparker]

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"    -- 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.     

[mrsman]

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"    -- 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.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^
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.   

[Mapmikey]

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, within the 1931 CA Other 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, 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.

[Max Rockatansky]

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, within the 1931 CA Other 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, 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. 

[pderocco]

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

[Max Rockatansky]

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. 

[Max Rockatansky]

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.

[Max Rockatansky]

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

[Mapmikey]

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.


 

[Max Rockatansky]

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?

[NE2]

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):

PROPOSED 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.

[Max Rockatansky]

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):

PROPOSED 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.

[Mapmikey]

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.

[Max Rockatansky]

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.

[Mapmikey]

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

[Max Rockatansky]

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.