Print

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

[cahwyguy]

Working on adding my maps, and I'm finding I need a map I don't have. I'm trying to resolve the following:

*SR* *TRANSCORR* In 1991, SB 732, Chapter 775 redefined Route 261 as “Route 5 near the border of the Cities of Tustin and Irvine to Route 231”, using a routing transferred from former Route 231.

In 1996, Chapter 1154 changed the origin from “Route 5 near the border of the Cities of Tustin and Irvine” to “Walnut Avenue in the City of Irvine” (Walnut Avenue and Jamboree); the transferred portion of the route went to Route 133. It also changed the terminus to reflect the renumbering of Route 231 to Route 241: “Walnut Avenue in the City of Irvine to Route 241.” This is part of the "Eastern Toll Road", a toll road that is part of the Orange County Transportation Corridors.

So the question is: How did the southern end of Route 261 change between 1991 and 1996. I know that in 1996, it moved to its present terminus. But I also know the former 231 appeared to be where 261 is now. So what is this odd part about the transferred portion of Route 261 moving to Route 133?

Does anyone have maps that might explain? The Rumsey collection jumps from 1990 to 2005; I have a 1991 Thomas Brothers state map, but that (of course) doesn't show the route as it was printed before the legislative definition.

Thanks,

Daniel

[NE2]

What is that odd part about 133? What was your source for it?

[cahwyguy]

Don't know -- I didn't always keep good records in the past. I'm thinking that's an error and should be deleted. Then everything seems to make sense.

[sparker]

The original plans for the toll road network in eastern OC did not include what is now CA 261.  The tolled portion of CA 133 north of I-5 and what is now CA 241 between present CA 133 and CA 91 was designated as CA 231; CA 241 was where it is today southeast of the present 133/241 interchange.  When the Irvine spur, originally intended to interchange with I-5 as well as empty out onto Jamboree Road into central Irvine, was first planned, the 231 designation was moved onto that facility and 241 was extended northeast from present 133 to the realigned 231.  The original plans were to maintain the designations of the tolled facilities as completely separate entities from the existing non-tolled freeways -- which is why, in the original iteration, 133 wasn't simply extended north to 241 but changed at the I-5 junction to 231 (the intention was to keep all the tolled facilities northeast of I-5 as 2X1 numbers for system cohesion).  But rather than sign the 133 extension as a short 2X1, it was decided to retain the 133 designation, figuring that segment to be more or less just an extra-long "feeder ramp" to 241.  However, when it was decided to eliminate the 5/231 interchange near Jamboree in order to keep that tollway branch as a strictly Irvine server without the addition of I-5 traffic to the mix, signing the full section from Irvine to CA 91 as CA 231 was deemed inappropriate, as OCTA, the "parent" of the toll road authority, changed their priorities to emphasize the full CA 91 to I-5 at San Clemente routing as the "main trunk" (with the other segments being branches thereof).  Now -- why OCTA and Caltrans didn't just maintain the Irvine "spur" as CA 231 is a matter of conjecture; Caltrans proposed "261" for the Irvine designation and OCTA "rubber-stamped" it, making the toll road "family" just as it is today.  The last segments of the system to be done -- the 241 connector to CA 91 and the entirety of present 261 -- were opened to traffic in late 1998.

At that time (mid-late 1996) I was traveling monthly between Portland, OR and Anaheim Hills, CA; both my parents were ill at the time (my dad in early-stage Alzheimer's and my mom undergoing treatment for MDA*), so I was winding down my Portland time while working on my dissertation.  The OCTA discussions concerning the configuration of the toll system were in full swing at the time; as some of the issues "dovetailed" with my dissertation topics, I decided to sit in on as many meetings, held at OCTA's Orange HQ, as I could while bringing my dad along just to keep his mind in action (after all, he was largely responsible for my being a roadgeek; I was simply returning the favor).   Some of the discussions got a bit heated; in particular the one to eliminate the (eventual) 5/261 interchange; the rationale was that Irvine traffic heading toward Inland Empire housing was growing at such a high rate that a dedicated corridor eliminating much of the potential for intervening traffic from other arterial routes was considered optimal.  The owner/developers of the shopping area at I-5 and Jamboree were up in arms about the interchange elimination; while they didn't reach their original goal of reinstating the tollway-to-freeway interchange, they did get major upgrades to the I-5/Jamboree interchange through the process (a partial victory for them), including expedition of traffic coming in both directions on the new CA 261 corridor to their businesses via changes in local ramp configurations.  The final system configuration was presented in December 1996; CA 261 was opened to traffic 21 months later (which for CA must be some sort of record!).  Of course, the whole system has never reached full fruition due to the truncation of the southern reaches of CA 241 for largely environmental reasons.

*MDA=myelodysplastic anemia; the bone marrow starts underproducing red blood cells.  Still no cure; my mom got a few experimental treatments that, plainly, didn't work.  Same disease that felled Carl Sagan.

[cahwyguy]

But if you think about that, part of it doesn't make sense. Specifically, there is no evidence that I can find, other than my cryptic entry, that 231 was moved from the route connecting to Laguna Canyon (Rte 133) to the Jamboree routing (now 261). If they did that at the same time they extended 241 to go all the way to the 91, then what number was used for 133 NE of I-5? If it was 133, then why subsequently renumber 261 as 231? There was no need. It wouldn't be 261, as then there would have been no need to renumber 231 as 261. The only thing that makes any sort of sense is extending 133 to the 241, renumbering all of the foothill corridor as 241, and making the jamboree routing 261. If that's the case, then all the change in 1996 did was to extend the route from I-5 to Walnut.

[sparker]

But if you think about that, part of it doesn't make sense. Specifically, there is no evidence that I can find, other than my cryptic entry, that 231 was moved from the route connecting to Laguna Canyon (Rte 133) to the Jamboree routing (now 261). If they did that at the same time they extended 241 to go all the way to the 91, then what number was used for 133 NE of I-5? If it was 133, then why subsequently renumber 261 as 231? There was no need. It wouldn't be 261, as then there would have been no need to renumber 231 as 261. The only thing that makes any sort of sense is extending 133 to the 241, renumbering all of the foothill corridor as 241, and making the jamboree routing 261. If that's the case, then all the change in 1996 did was to extend the route from I-5 to Walnut.

I'm going by what I saw in the OCTA maps in the '96 Orange meetings as well as the meetings' content.  The Irvine branch was an "add-on", and not in the first iteration of the toll road plans; but traffic levels in central Irvine heading for the Inland Empire (and invariably stacking up on CA 55 to the west) resulted in the corridor paralleling the northern reaches of Jamboree down to I-5; the initial plans were for a stack interchange with I-5, with the part extending south merging with Jamboree right at the Metrolink overpass southwest of I-5.  Since it was the most direct corridor from I-5 to CA 91 and would function as an alternative (albeit tolled) to the perpetually congested 55/91 composite corridor, it was originally to receive a single number (231), which was moved from the extension of CA 133 west to the new route circa late 1994.  This was a two-step process including a northern extension of 241 to (then) 231 at the present 241/261 interchange.  When it was decided (by OCTA) to jettison the I-5 interchange in favor of a direct segue to Jamboree, the functional N-S "main drag" of Irvine's commercial district -- it was posited (and this was one of the prime discussion topics in the 1996 meetings) that the toll system should be configured more as relief routes for OC commuter traffic rather than serving as "shortcuts" from I-5 to CA 91 for intercity traffic.  That in itself was the principal reason for removing the proposed 5/231 interchange.  It was reasoned that the through/intercity traffic still choosing to pay the tolls and take the shortcut could use CA 133 as their access point; and that the Jamboree "spur" should be solely dedicated to traffic destined for and originating in the Irvine commercial area.  Once this had been decided, a joint OCTA/Caltrans decision was made to make CA 241 -- as it exists today -- the "spine" of the east county toll network; 133 was the access to and from I-5, while the Jamboree spur was to expedite Irvine-Corona (and beyond) commuter traffic.  To that end, the number "241" was only then applied to the northernmost section intersecting CA 91, and Caltrans withdrew the number 231 from consideration.  At the last meeting I attended in December 1996, the number "261" was introduced by the Caltrans representative; he stated that they wanted the "241" spine number to be the lowest in the 2X1 series (although the inclusion of the 133 extension sort of disrupted the numbering continuum), so the next available 2X1 was 261.  No one objected, so the route became 261 (not that anyone in OCTA gave a shit what the number would be!).  Since CA state highway designations are determined legislatively, the CT/OCTA resolutions, including the substitution of 261 for 231, were tacked onto the 1997 transportation funding bill as an effective "rider" in order to formalize the designations.  Convoluted process -- but it's what happens when project authority is divided between state and local agencies with their own agendas.  But it all worked out as cahwyguy stated; with the present signage as cited.   

BTW, the decision to extend "261" down to Walnut Ave. was part of the deal worked out with the developers of the commercial/shopping center properties adjacent to the 5/Jamboree interchange; Jamboree in that area would be brought out to 4 NB lanes, 2 of which would be dedicated to the beginning of the CA 261 tollway; the other two continued north as Jamboree across I-5 directly into the shopping area north of the Interstate freeway.  Since the original formal description of CA 261, unchanged from its "231" days specified I-5 as the southern end of the designated route -- and the revised plans called for the extension south to Walnut Ave., about a half-mile south,  the 1997 designation "rider" derived from the 1996 meetings simply specified that street as the southern terminus of CA 261.  For funding & maintenance purposes, these agencies certainly cross their T's and dot their I's!  The city of Irvine and OCTA jointly maintain the Jamboree extension (functionally a freeway and shown as such on the McNally L.A. atlas pages) down to Barranca, where it becomes a 8-lane arterial maintained by the city of Irvine.  There are CA 261 trailblazers on the freeway extension, including overhead BGS' at the 261/Jamboree "split" at the Walnut Ave. exit. 

When I was managing the stocking warehouse in Ontario, I had to make regular trips to the corporate HQ a block west of Jamboree and a half-block south of Barranca (fortunately, they supplied me with a transponder).  By about 2004, the backup on the ramp from NB CA 241 to EB CA 91 extended back well onto 261 starting at about 2:30 in the afternoon and not letting up until about 7 p.m.  They built it -- and everybody came!  Fortunately, after a couple of times of not getting back to the Ontario office until near closing time the meetings were rescheduled for 11 a.m. and lasting no later than 12:30 p.m.; the other branch offices (Gardena and Rancho Bernardo) had similar issues, so this was simply a matter of timing.  I haven't been on the toll roads for about seven years -- but the last time I used them they were functioning no different than the regional freeways (if you had a transponder and didn't have to stop at the toll booths!).         

[cahwyguy]

I understand the order things were added, but it is numbering and routing I'm trying to confirm, and without some maps showing the specifcs in the time period, it's difficult.

Here's what I've got on Route 231:

In 1988, Chapter 1364 defined a new routing: “Route 5 near the border of the Cities of Tustin and Irvine to Route 91.”

In 1991, Chapter 775 was extended by transfer from Route 241 (Route 261 to Route 241): “Route 5 near the border of the Cities of Tustin and Irvine at Route 133 to …”. At the same time, the portion from Route 5 near Tustin and Irvine to Route 241 was transferred to Route 261.  [So this appears to be the creation of 261, and the moving of  old 231 to the Route 133 leg.]

In 1996, Chapter 1154 deleted the routing. The portion of the route from Route 133 to Route 241 was transferred to Route 133. The portion from Route 241 to Route 91 was transferred to Route 241, making Route 241 run from Route 133 to Route 91. [This extends 133 to the toll road, and creates 241]

For 241, I have:

In 1988, Chapter 1363 defined Route 241 as “Route 231 near the Cities of Tustin and Irvine to Route 5 south of San Clemente.”

In 1996, Chapter 1154 extended the route by transfer from former Route 231: “Route 5 south of San Clemente to Route 91 in the City of Anaheim Route 231 near the Cities of Tustin and Irvine”. [This is the extension of Route 241 over former 231]

For 261, I have:

In 1991, SB 732, Chapter 775 defined Route 261 as “Route 5 near the border of the Cities of Tustin and Irvine to Route 231”, using a routing transferred from former Route 231.

In 1996, Chapter 1154 changed the origin from “Route 5 near the border of the Cities of Tustin and Irvine” to “Walnut Avenue in the City of Irvine” (Walnut Avenue and Jamboree). It also changed the terminus to reflect the renumbering of Route 231 to Route 241: “Walnut Avenue in the City of Irvine to Route 241.” [I also have the line: "the transferred portion of the route went to Route 133.", but this seems to make no sense as nothing was ever transferred from Route 261 to another route. This is why I need to see a map from 1992-1995 showing 261.]

So, after 261 was created, was anything ever transferred from the route to another route, other than the lengthening to Walnut, and the correction of the connection from Route 231 to Route 241?

Additionally, this appears to indicate that the Jamboree leg was created first, as the border between Tustin and Irvine near near Jamboree/261, whereas 133 is squarely in Irvine. Both 231 (Jamboree version) and 241 were created in 1988; the leg for 133 was created in 1991 as 231 (and old 231 became 261), and 231 was deleted in 1996 becoming 133 and 241.

PS: If it helps any, here is the Final EIR for the Eastern Corridor: http://www.dot.ca.gov/d12/DEA/241-91/0K9700/ETCEIS/FinalETCEIR.pdf

[sparker]

If it helps, here's the route status at the time I started attending the OCTA meetings (about June 1996):  231 was still on the Jamboree leg, after being transferred from the 241/133 continuum into east Irvine, 241 extended north to the then-planned interchange up the hill near Lake Irvine, and 133 was where it is today.  By the time the meetings concluded at the end of that year, 231 was gone, 241 had been extended up to CA 91, and, at the last minute, the Jamboree leg, now without a direct connection to I-5, was designated as CA 261.  The "toggling" of 231 from the Jamboree alignment over to 133 and back again occurred prior to my attendance; whatever timeline for that I recall comes from maps supplied to me by OCTA (unfortunately, gone via misplacement of things moved to and from a storage space several years later).  All I can recall is that the 261 number wasn't even in play until late 1996, at least during the public discussion period. 

Also check early mapped iterations of the toll road network plans; I seem to recall that the initial 1988 iteration of the west corridor showed it a bit further east, between Culver and Jeffrey Roads (both parallel to Jamboree and east of the Tustin/Irvine city line.  This might indicate that when the final Jamboree-based alignment, to the west of the original was chosen, the now-133 arm was added so that both ends of Irvine could be served (heavy commercial development at both ends of town).   That would "dovetail" into the concept that the toll network should principally serve OC commute traffic rather than as a general-purpose bypass.   

[cahwyguy]

So, I think, we're back to the original question: Does anyone have scans of state highway maps between 1991 and 1995 that might illustrate this?

[sparker]

So, I think, we're back to the original question: Does anyone have scans of state highway maps between 1991 and 1995 that might illustrate this?

Good luck with that.  Official CA state highway maps after the '60's were published and released only once every few years.  The best bet for something specific would be for someone with a bit of spare time to get up to Caltrans HQ in Sacramento, head for the basement, and peruse the state maps that showed the location of funded projects on a yearly basis.  They're certainly there; in the late '80's, while working on my masters' thesis, I was down there at least once a week for the 6-month writing time for that work.  The librarians were exceptionally helpful (at least back then) and a real font of detailed knowledge.  Even with the possibility that things may be a bit less hospitable today, it's a recommended method of gaining inside information about pretty much all things Caltrans. 

[cahwyguy]

Given all the folks in this particular group, there's a good chance someone has a map from that era that shows a proposed routing. We tend to keep old Thomas Brothers; I just have one from 1991 and 1998.

[sparker]

Given all the folks in this particular group, there's a good chance someone has a map from that era that shows a proposed routing. We tend to keep old Thomas Brothers; I just have one from 1991 and 1998.

Seeing as how those folks certainly kept up their research, that's likely as accurate a source as one's going to get absent actual state documents.  OTOH, I'm old enough to remember their editions in and around the '64 renumbering effort -- they tended to jump the gun a bit by applying state highway markers on streets that closely matched the proposed routings -- CA 42 shields being applied to all of Imperial Highway east of its Norwalk intersection with the then-real CA 42, Firestone Blvd being a prime example of that.  They got it right by the '67 edition, but for a couple of years the Thomas Guides seemed to engage in speculative practices in that regard. 

[NE2]

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tsip/hseb/products/state_highway_routes_selected_information_1995_revised.pdf

[sparker]

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tsip/hseb/products/state_highway_routes_selected_information_1995_revised.pdf

Looks like Caltrans had the CA 261 designation in mind for the Jamboree spur well before the OCTA meetings I attended; the OCTA folks' display maps still showed it as 231 (this was while the interchange with I-5 was still in play), along with the northernmost section up to CA 91; the local agency clearly saw the Irvine-CA 91 corridor segment as being a singular entity -- and signed that way.  Let's put it this way -- by the time the meetings concluded (12/96), the maps were covered with different color revisions and numbers scratched out and others applied in their place.  OCTA seemed always to be on a different page than Caltrans in the process; while the former actually proposed the elimination of the 5/231(261) interchange and Caltrans initially demurred regarding that concept, it didn't take too long for the D11 folks to realize that the elimination saved them about $350M for their share of the interchange cost.  When I started attending in June, Caltrans still showed full-stack interchange plans for that junction (quite similar to 10/15 out in Ontario), but the OCTA no-direct-access concept was accepted by the middle of August.  The rest of the meetings concerned the "give-and-take" between the local mall owners and the two public agencies; the matters of numbering were dealt with in short order during the last meeting, when D11 essentially declared that the Jamboree "leg" would be numbered 261.  From the above information, that designation was determined internally the previous year -- although OCTA still considered the west Irvine-CA 91 leg to be a continuous CA 231 until the final configuration of the Jamboree leg, sans interchange, emerged from the discussions.  Wouldn't be the first time that Caltrans and local planners were initially on different pages -- but eventually arrived at a solution that saved the state agency a substantial amount of money!  From the tone of the arguments, D11 never wanted two legs coming down off the hill into Irvine (which would have -- and did -- require the expense of constructing an interchange (current 241/261) up on the hill (the present 241/133 interchange is at the bottom of the grade taking 241 up the hill NB; it's located in a relatively flat area).  But between the initial 1988 plans and 1996, employment within Irvine had nearly doubled, resulting in massive commute nightmares on the adjacent freeways, particularly CA 55 through Tustin and Orange.  The new employment was divided between "tech" workers in the west segment and vast new warehousing/distribution development near the 5/405/133 "triangle" at the east end of town (and a major shopping area was planned for the triangle itself!).  Thus the two-branch plan emerged by about 1991, with actual configuration TBD at that time.  The intent of the '96 series of meetings was to reconcile the different concepts posited by Caltrans' D11, OCTA, and the commercial stakeholders in the area prior to the final stages of construction (grading had already begun on the part of 261 coming down the hill; until it was decided whether or not to implement a I-5 interchange, only preliminary clearing had occurred south of Irvine Blvd).  Full construction started a couple of weeks after the interchange issue was settled -- this project was "fast-tracked" from the beginning; as soon as issues were resolved, construction commenced.     

[cahwyguy]

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tsip/hseb/products/state_highway_routes_selected_information_1995_revised.pdf

Heh. I should have remembered this document. It's where all the statistics on my site came from; I have a hard copy and typed them all in, but it's out in the garage and I didn't even think to go look there. Thanks. I'll see if this resolves it.

[NE2]

1988:
Route 133 is from Route 1 near Laguna Beach to Route 5 near Irvine.
Route 231 is from Route 5 near the border of the Cities of Tustin and Irvine to Route 91.
Route 241 is from Route 231 near the Cities of Tustin and Irvine to Route 5 south of San Clemente.

This is modern 133 south of 5, 231 on modern 261 north of 5 and 241 north of 261, and modern 241 south of 261.

1991:
Route 133 is from Route 1 near Laguna Beach to Route 5 near Irvine.
Route 231 is from Route 5 at Route 133 to Route 91.
Route 241 is from Route 231 near the Cities of Tustin and Irvine to Route 5 south of San Clemente.
Route 261 is from Route 5 near the border of the Cities of Tustin and Irvine to Route 231.
One segment was added to the state highway system: modern 133 north of 5. 231 was realigned to follow this piece and 241 north of 133. 261 was created from former 231 on its modern alignment north of 5, and 241 was truncated to modern 133, with former 241 north of 133 becoming realigned 231.

1996:
Route 133 is from Route 1 near Laguna Beach to Route 241.
Route 241 is from Route 5 south of San Clemente to Route 91 in the City of Anaheim.
Route 261 is from Walnut Avenue in the City of Irvine to Route 241.
This is the modern layout. Only the short piece of 261 south of 5 was added to the system; otherwise it was just a renumbering of 231 as extensions of 133 and 241 (including a piece that had been 241 from 1988 to 1991).

[cahwyguy]

Translation: I think I've got it right. Take a look at my pages on 133, 231, 241, and 261 to confirm. I'll note the mapping project is nearing completion -- I have added maps and uploaded through Route 710. I only have 6 left to do: 740, 780, 805, 880, 905, and 980. But 805 needs to be put in postmile order, and I think I need to postmile 805 and 880, and 905 probably has some cleaning and history to do. I'm not sure I'll need that much history on 880; most of it is with 17.

[sparker]

Given the fact that 241, now considered the system "spine", is simply now a single-ended tollway from the CA 133 junction down through Rancho Santa Margarita to its southern end at Oso Parkway -- and CA 261 is also a single-ended server designed to collect and deliver traffic to and from west Irvine, the 1991 designation iteration presently would be the most appropriate, defining the "spine" as connecting the two major arteries in separate parts of OC, while the other two are individual branches thereof.  But as the present numbering system has been in operation for about 20 years now -- and was set back in the day when it was expected that 241 would eventually connect with I-5 at or near the south end of OC, it's unlikely to be changed.   

[cahwyguy]

Actually, given that 241 will likely never make it to the 5, extend 133 to the 91, and let 241 and 261 be branches off of it. That gives the continuity of numbering that Caltrans would want (after all, 73 doesn't change number when it is a toll, and the inner lanes of the 91 don't have a separate number although it could). But we're going into fantasy numbers, and I've always tried to give facts without opinions, and let the facts speak for themselves.

[TheStranger]

Actually, given that 241 will likely never make it to the 5, extend 133 to the 91, and let 241 and 261 be branches off of it. That gives the continuity of numbering that Caltrans would want (after all, 73 doesn't change number when it is a toll, and the inner lanes of the 91 don't have a separate number although it could). But we're going into fantasy numbers, and I've always tried to give facts without opinions, and let the facts speak for themselves.

In that vein, the old 231/133 numbering switch for one corridor isn't too common of a situation here.  The other in-the-field examples I can think of all are the result of Interstate numbering switches in the Bay Area:

Route 17 becomes I-880 at I-280 (880 is former 17)
Route 24 becomes I-980 at I-580 (980 is former Route 24 and may have been signed as such for a year)

The rest are artifacts of planning:

I-580/Route 251 technically share a terminus, 251 being an unbuilt portion of 17 going northwest, and 580 in San Rafael being former 17 before 1984
Route 213/258 share termini at I-405, but 258 never was constructed.

There's also the 1934-era Route 44/440 thing that did not last very long.

In comparison, most roads with an Interstate segment keep their number in the non-interstate sections (I-110, I-210, I-15) with one number covering the entire route, and the latter two as examples of roads that have been proposed to receive Interstate signage at some point but most likely will remain in the status quo.

[mrsman]

Actually, given that 241 will likely never make it to the 5, extend 133 to the 91, and let 241 and 261 be branches off of it. That gives the continuity of numbering that Caltrans would want (after all, 73 doesn't change number when it is a toll, and the inner lanes of the 91 don't have a separate number although it could). But we're going into fantasy numbers, and I've always tried to give facts without opinions, and let the facts speak for themselves.

Something like this would actually make sense.  133 should be the prime corridor as it's most familiar (given that it's been used in the area for many more years).  Plus, it will connect the Inland Empire to the 5, 405, and the Beach.  (From what I can tell, the closest routing to any beach with fewest surface street crossings will be 133 to Laguna.)  Control cities should also match the designations.  Laguna Beach can be the southbound control and Riverside the northern control over the whole stretch.  (Irvine can be mentioned as a secondary control at the 91).  261 can be Riverside/Irivne.  241 can be Riverside/Santa Margarita.

[sparker]

Actually, given that 241 will likely never make it to the 5, extend 133 to the 91, and let 241 and 261 be branches off of it. That gives the continuity of numbering that Caltrans would want (after all, 73 doesn't change number when it is a toll, and the inner lanes of the 91 don't have a separate number although it could). But we're going into fantasy numbers, and I've always tried to give facts without opinions, and let the facts speak for themselves.

Something like this would actually make sense.  133 should be the prime corridor as it's most familiar (given that it's been used in the area for many more years).  Plus, it will connect the Inland Empire to the 5, 405, and the Beach.  (From what I can tell, the closest routing to any beach with fewest surface street crossings will be 133 to Laguna.)  Control cities should also match the designations.  Laguna Beach can be the southbound control and Riverside the northern control over the whole stretch.  (Irvine can be mentioned as a secondary control at the 91).  261 can be Riverside/Irivne.  241 can be Riverside/Santa Margarita.

At this point, the present numbering system has been in operation for 20 years; it's unlikely that either Caltrans or OCTA, both of whom would have to sign off on any changes before the legislative means to do so were processed, would at this point entertain any changes.  The heaviest traffic pattern on the system are on the northern reaches of 241 between the CA 261 "split" and CA 91 -- it's the big "commuter corridor" of the system -- and its "241" designation has become idiomatic for both the driving public and the media that airs the daily traffic reports.  Of course, the present numbering scheme occurred prior to the decision to truncate 241 and not take it all the way down to I-5 in South County -- but while suboptimal under present circumstances, at this point it would be difficult to change. 

[Max Rockatansky]

Put something together for CA 261 (both of them).  I could swear I've seen something going into detail about CA 261 to Covelo and Mendocino Pass but I can't find it for the life of me:

https://www.gribblenation.org/2022/01/california-state-route-261.html