California

[Max Rockatansky]

1 has the way better through route in SF via 19th and Park Presidio Boulevard. 

[pderocco]

Last signal light was removed in Santa Barbara in 1992. Every mile of 101 between Los Angeles and San Francisco is either freeway or expressway. North of there, there was once talk of a Eureka bypass but the city didn't want it. (A bypass around Willits was built some years ago).

It hadn't occurred to me that when they built the Willits Bypass, the southernmost traffic light on US-101 moved north by 132 miles. But there are a couple dozen or more in Eureka, and a few more in Crescent City.

Bypassing Eureka would provoke even more vicious resistance than bypassing Willits did, because it would be a bigger project.

I'm wondering if some of the other towns along US-101 will actually start asking for a traffic light, like Hopland or Laytonville. Or even the north end of route 1. But I don't see anything like that happening south of San Fran, because all the little towns have been bypassed already.

[Quillz]

Last signal light was removed in Santa Barbara in 1992. Every mile of 101 between Los Angeles and San Francisco is either freeway or expressway. North of there, there was once talk of a Eureka bypass but the city didn't want it. (A bypass around Willits was built some years ago).

It hadn't occurred to me that when they built the Willits Bypass, the southernmost traffic light on US-101 moved north by 132 miles. But there are a couple dozen or more in Eureka, and a few more in Crescent City.

Bypassing Eureka would provoke even more vicious resistance than bypassing Willits did, because it would be a bigger project.

I'm wondering if some of the other towns along US-101 will actually start asking for a traffic light, like Hopland or Laytonville. Or even the north end of route 1. But I don't see anything like that happening south of San Fran, because all the little towns have been bypassed already.

Rather than traffic lights, they might go for roundabouts. These tend to work well in fairly rural locations.

And the southernmost traffic light on the 101 would be in San Francisco, so the Willits bypass didn't change anything there.

[Quillz]

Although 101 is still a few bypasses short of a freeway.

All of 101 south of San Francisco is 4-lane expressway at this point. I don't even think there is a light along that stretch.

There isn't. Last signal light was removed in Santa Barbara in 1992. Every mile of 101 between Los Angeles and San Francisco is either freeway or expressway. North of there, there was once talk of a Eureka bypass but the city didn't want it. (A bypass around Willits was built some years ago).

What gets me is the fact very few follow US 101 straight through SF.  The ramp from Van Ness to the Central is hardly used with motorists and that particular ramp is US 101 proper to transition from arterial to freeway for the last time SB.

I think it's just the result of traffic patterns changing over time. There are numerous instances where trying to follow a single highway number is more convoluted and time consuming than doing some alternates. (CA-115 comes to mind). I think relinquishment of certain highways in urban areas is sometimes the result of this.

[cl94]

Nobody normal is going to follow 101 through SF unless they really want to see the sights of San Francisco (Lombard Street is only a couple blocks east). 880-580 is the same distance and freeway the entire way. 85-280-1 is the better option if you want to stay west of the bay and cross the Golden Gate.

[TheStranger]

Although 101 is still a few bypasses short of a freeway.

All of 101 south of San Francisco is 4-lane expressway at this point. I don't even think there is a light along that stretch.

There isn't. Last signal light was removed in Santa Barbara in 1992. Every mile of 101 between Los Angeles and San Francisco is either freeway or expressway. North of there, there was once talk of a Eureka bypass but the city didn't want it. (A bypass around Willits was built some years ago).

What gets me is the fact very few follow US 101 straight through SF.  The ramp from Van Ness to the Central is hardly used with motorists and that particular ramp is US 101 proper to transition from arterial to freeway for the last time SB.

I think it's just the result of traffic patterns changing over time. There are numerous instances where trying to follow a single highway number is more convoluted and time consuming than doing some alternates. (CA-115 comes to mind). I think relinquishment of certain highways in urban areas is sometimes the result of this.

I've used the cloverleaf from Van Ness to Central Freeway many times in the last decade and it can be a parking lot at rush hour, it's not a sparsely used ramp at all.  The main backup there is the merge between 80 west and 101 south, which can sometimes go all the way back to Van Ness too.

[cl94]

More delays with reopening SR 1 at Paul's Slide, Monterey County. The slide has been active since March and has shown no signs of stopping. Hope nobody was planning to drive 1 through Big Sur this summer, because there's a good chance the full length won't be open until 2024 at this rate.

This adds to Caltrans's long list of geotech issues caused by the wet winter, including several other places along SR 1, the 6-month Feather River Canyon closure, and SR 198 west of Coalinga.

[Plutonic Panda]

So many road closures. CA 33, The Snake on Mulholland HWY, and CA-2 in the angeles forest and still CA-1. I'm a bit worried at some point Caltrans is going to give up on this section of CA-1 at some point.

Do you know what the worst case scenario is with this? Is there a potential for a larger slide creating a necessity for a large expensive bridge to be built?

[Bruce]

I've been researching the history of US 101 over the past few days for a little project, though most of it has been California because of the overwhelming amount of stuff that needs to be covered. Note that I've only got up to 1954 so far.

If anyone has a solid source for when the CA Division of Highways wanted to turn US 101 from SF to LA into a continuous freeway or expressway. I'd be glad to put it in here. Also anything I really should cover from earlier eras.

[Max Rockatansky]

I've been researching the history of US 101 over the past few days for a little project, though most of it has been California because of the overwhelming amount of stuff that needs to be covered. Note that I've only got up to 1954 so far.

If anyone has a solid source for when the CA Division of Highways wanted to turn US 101 from SF to LA into a continuous freeway or expressway. I'd be glad to put it in here. Also anything I really should cover from earlier eras.

More or less been building that on our 101 page.  I don't have everything between between LA-SF in the CHPWs but I have a good chunk of it already data mined (a handful of blogs need to brought to our modern standard also).  More or less the observation I've had is that there was never a push for a full SF-LA US 101 freeway.  The Division of Highways had built up the corridor/or funded construction largely before the 1956 Federal Highway Aid Act.  The DOH smartly opted to ask for LRN 238 as the chargeable Interstate corridor where I-5 presently resides along the West Side Freeway.  The DOH and California Highway Commission tried to get the SF-LA corridor added as chargeable mileage in 1968 (see Daniel's site this reference) but I think it wasn't anticipated to be accepted. 

Back to our 101 page, the corridor is so large that I found the history easier to break down largely by community or geographic feature.  Each area/city blog has links that go directly to the CHPW page (perfect for Wikipedia reference tabs) or map being cited:

https://www.gribblenation.org/p/us-route-101.html?m=1

Long term I'm planning on getting out US 101 page for California fully fleshed out like US 99 is.  I'll probably pick that project up again next year starting with Conejo Pass after I get through the last couple state highway blogs we are missing for California.  In the mean time the Golden Gate Freeway blog is probably what you are wanting for the corridor Lombard Street.  The plans insinuate there would have been some sort of I-480/US 101 multiplex:

https://www.gribblenation.org/2019/03/the-embarcadero-and-history-of.html?m=1

Worth noting, the entire library of CHPWs (1924-67 and probably the best highway magazine ever published domestically) and the California Highway Bulletin can be found on archive.org if you search "California Highway Bulletin."   Every state issued State Highway map from 1918-2005 can be found on David Rumsey by search "Caltrans."    The county level Division of Highways survey maps (which I find useful for locating old alignments) published in 1935 can be found on David Rumsey by searching "California Division of Highways."

[Quillz]

So many road closures. CA 33, The Snake on Mulholland HWY, and CA-2 in the angeles forest and still CA-1. I'm a bit worried at some point Caltrans is going to give up on this section of CA-1 at some point.

Do you know what the worst case scenario is with this? Is there a potential for a larger slide creating a necessity for a large expensive bridge to be built?

Nothing is impossible, but I really don't see that happening. This isn't something like the washed out segment of TX-87, CA-1 is internationally famous and Big Sur is a major tourist destination. Just flat out abandoning that stretch of highway would be a highly unpopular move. I don't even see it being moved down to county maintenance. That stretch of CA-1 has always had issues since it was built in the 1930s, and it's always been fixed and kept open. Sometimes it's closed for long stretches, but that's the way things go sometimes. I believe there are also some businesses and remote houses that are served by that stretch.

[Max Rockatansky]

The problem with giving up on 1 in Big Sur is two fold.  The highway is the only real connective center for several communities to the rest of the state.  In particular this is the case for the Lucia area near Paul's Slide.  Secondly CA 1 in Big Sur is a huge economic driver, SLO County and Monterey County would never agree to Caltrans giving it the CA 39 treatment.

[Quillz]

The problem with giving up on 1 in Big Sur is two fold.  The highway is the only real connective center for several communities to the rest of the state.  In particular this is the case for the Lucia area near Paul's Slide.  Secondly CA 1 in Big Sur is a huge economic driver, SLO County and Monterey County would never agree to Caltrans giving it the CA 39 treatment.

Wasn't there talk of the CA-39 connection to CA-2 finally being opened soon? Or was that just more political noise?

[Max Rockatansky]

The problem with giving up on 1 in Big Sur is two fold.  The highway is the only real connective center for several communities to the rest of the state.  In particular this is the case for the Lucia area near Paul's Slide.  Secondly CA 1 in Big Sur is a huge economic driver, SLO County and Monterey County would never agree to Caltrans giving it the CA 39 treatment.

Wasn't there talk of the CA-39 connection to CA-2 finally being opened soon? Or was that just more political noise?

There was an actual presentation where the public could comment a couple months ago.

[Plutonic Panda]

I hope that happens.

[Bruce]

I've been researching the history of US 101 over the past few days for a little project, though most of it has been California because of the overwhelming amount of stuff that needs to be covered. Note that I've only got up to 1954 so far.

If anyone has a solid source for when the CA Division of Highways wanted to turn US 101 from SF to LA into a continuous freeway or expressway. I'd be glad to put it in here. Also anything I really should cover from earlier eras.

More or less been building that on our 101 page.  I don't have everything between between LA-SF in the CHPWs but I have a good chunk of it already data mined (a handful of blogs need to brought to our modern standard also).  More or less the observation I've had is that there was never a push for a full SF-LA US 101 freeway.  The Division of Highways had built up the corridor/or funded construction largely before the 1956 Federal Highway Aid Act.  The DOH smartly opted to ask for LRN 238 as the chargeable Interstate corridor where I-5 presently resides along the West Side Freeway.  The DOH and California Highway Commission tried to get the SF-LA corridor added as chargeable mileage in 1968 (see Daniel's site this reference) but I think it wasn't anticipated to be accepted. 

Back to our 101 page, the corridor is so large that I found the history easier to break down largely by community or geographic feature.  Each area/city blog has links that go directly to the CHPW page (perfect for Wikipedia reference tabs) or map being cited:

https://www.gribblenation.org/p/us-route-101.html?m=1

Long term I'm planning on getting out US 101 page for California fully fleshed out like US 99 is.  I'll probably pick that project up again next year starting with Conejo Pass after I get through the last couple state highway blogs we are missing for California.  In the mean time the Golden Gate Freeway blog is probably what you are wanting for the corridor Lombard Street.  The plans insinuate there would have been some sort of I-480/US 101 multiplex:

https://www.gribblenation.org/2019/03/the-embarcadero-and-history-of.html?m=1

Worth noting, the entire library of CHPWs (1924-67 and probably the best highway magazine ever published domestically) and the California Highway Bulletin can be found on archive.org if you search "California Highway Bulletin."   Every state issued State Highway map from 1918-2005 can be found on David Rumsey by search "Caltrans."    The county level Division of Highways survey maps (which I find useful for locating old alignments) published in 1935 can be found on David Rumsey by searching "California Division of Highways."

GribbleNation has been a great help in orienting myself in the right time period for certain events. Some of the newspaper archives available have an overwhelming number of results, but many are just real estate listings, classifieds, or other junk that is hard to sort out. I've been browsing through various issues of CHPW and have to say I'm very jealous; Washington's equivalent (which is only partially scanned) is much more bare in comparison, and has far fewer maps.

[Max Rockatansky]

The way I'm trying to write my own blogs is in a way that the actual public documents are easy to grab from the link citations.  Hopefully the CHPW information is useful for your endeavor fleshing out the US 101 Wikipedia page.  Unfortunately I couldn't link the AASHTO Database but at least the images for the most part are large enough to be legible when clicked on. 

I was fortunate a couple years ago in that I was gifted a nearly complete CHPW set by a BART Director.  For whatever reason the Oakland Public Library didn't want the donation so he reached out to me instead.  It honestly one of the most generous gifts I've personally received in this hobby.  All that was really required of me was driving to Oakland to pick them up.

I was made aware of the CHPW scans roughly around the same time.  Given the wealth of information contained within those volumes it seemed borderline criminal not to break them down into Route specific blogs. 

[Max Rockatansky]

For reasons unknown Fresno County decided to post a new County Route J40 sign at Mountain View Avenue and Bethel Avenue.  This sign was erected between 2018-2022 and I guess makes Fresno County 3/3 for actual Letter County Route signage.  I found no evidence of additional shields in Fresno County nor Tulare County today.

0 by Max Rockatansky, on Flickr

[Quillz]

Is the county shield really small, or is the directional banner really big?

[Max Rockatansky]

Standard size shield (which is small) and standard size placard.  Really speaks to how the standard County Route shield needs to be upsized. 

[Quillz]

Personally, I've never like county shields at all. Not really a fan of the pentagon, and I think black-on-white would work better. I'm of the opinion county shields should look like state shields, just in a different color scheme. I know some states do this, I think it works better.

[mgk920]

Personally, I've never like county shields at all. Not really a fan of the pentagon, and I think black-on-white would work better. I'm of the opinion county shields should look like state shields, just in a different color scheme. I know some states do this, I think it works better.

I've always liked how my home state of Wisconsin does county highways.   

Mike

[Bruce]

Another US 101 question: anyone know when the first set of HOV lanes were added to the Bayshore Freeway? Just need a backstop for where my newspaper archive searching can begin.

[kkt]

Another US 101 question: anyone know when the first set of HOV lanes were added to the Bayshore Freeway? Just need a backstop for where my newspaper archive searching can begin.

From https://www.cahighways.org/ROUTE101.html -

Commuter Lanes

In San Mateo County, a HOV lane runs (in both directions) from Whipple Avenue to the Santa Clara county line, for a length of 6.6 mi. This was opened in July 1991. It requires two or more occupants, and operates on weekdays during the following hours: 5:00-9:00AM, 3:00-7:00PM.

In Santa Clara County, a HOV lane runs (both directions) from the San Mateo county line to the vicinity of Bernal Road, for a length of approximately 25 miles. The portion between the San Mateo County Line and Guadalupe Parkway was opened in November 1986 and extended twice in 1988; the portion between Guadalupe Parkway and Route 280 was opened in April 1993; and the portion between Route 280 and Bernal Road was opened in June 1990. All require two or more occupants, and operate on weekdays during the following hours: 5:00-9:00AM, 3:00-7:00PM.

With respect to usage: A 2001 Caltrans survey showed that use of the HOV lane in the San Francisco Bay Area fell from 14,110 vehicles in 1996 to 9,093 in 2001. During the busiest hour of the morning, more than 1,500 cars used the HOV lane, which is about the same number of cars as in each non-carpool lane. Note that the 2001 survey showed that US 101 has the distinction of the slowest speed for carpoolers at 28 mph during the afternoon.

This matches my own memory of planning meetings in the early 1980s and construction in the late 1980s and early 90s.

[Bruce]

Thanks, I had found the 1991 date before in some newspaper articles but not the 1986 section.