News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

CA 103 (Terminal Island Freeway) - still signed north of CA 1 (PCH)

Started by M3100, June 22, 2020, 12:09:43 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

NE2

Quote from: cahwyguy on January 09, 2022, 03:44:15 PM
So where was LRN 231? It doesn't fit the routing of Route 103.
Seaside Boulevard AKA Seaside Parkway: http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015021207892&seq=46

Quote from: cahwyguy on January 09, 2022, 03:44:15 PM
And (although I think we know the answer to this) was there any LRN for what became Route 103? There may not have been until Route 103 was defined in 1984 (it was part of Route 47 before then, although the TI Freeway portion of the route does not fit LRN 270, which was the Industrial Freeway)
LR 270 could very well have been routed along the TI Freeway. Maps through 1969 show LR 270/SR 47 separate and parallel to the TI Freeway, but with dots ("routing not determined"). When routing was finally determined on 1970, it's on the TI Freeway, which was apparently not state maintained until 1977-79.

Note that the 1958 MTEB freeway map shows the Industrial Freeway feeding directly into the TI Freeway.
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".


mrsman

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 03, 2022, 04:23:09 PM
Confirming 103 is very much field sign after driving it yesterday.  The locally maintained portion north of 1 to Willows Street is beat to shit and reminded me of some freeways I’ve driven in Jalisco:

https://www.flickr.com/gp/151828809@N08/6Z82jW

That said, what a weird combination heading southbound onto Terminal Island.  The switch over to CA 47 and the sudden westerly direction on the Vincent Thomas Bridge is bizarre.  I get it that 47 is built nowhere to planned scale but the whole situation is really confusing from a signage stand point.  It seems like it would be simpler to redefine the Vincent Thomas Bridge as CA 710, extend CA 103 to Terminal Island and truncated CA 47 to the unbuilt portion.

I agree.  I even had the following suggestion for renumbering upthread:

Quote

I believe the layout of the highways in TI is needlessly confusing.  part of the problem is that certain routes, namely I-710 and CA-47, change directions.  There should be one E-W highway, CA-47, from San Pedro to Downtown LB.  I-710 should either end at the CA-47 ramps or whatever point the freeway ramps end toward the Queen Mary.  The N-S TI Fwy should be CA-103 from the island to at least PCH.  The CA-47 along surface streets does not need to be signed, but bettter signage along the "TO ALAMDEA STREET" would be wonderful there.


If for some reason, CA-47 needs to be numbered on the Alameda Corridor, then the E-W routing from San Pedro to Downtown LB should be a brand new unused number.  That still leaves 710 completely off TI, one higway routing for the main E-W along the VT and GD bridges (new number), one highway routing for the freeway (103), and one routing for Henry Ford and Alameda (47).  Far simpler and less confusion.

In my view, there is definitely some worth to rectifying the highway routings to something that makes sense and to make it easier for navigation.  Despite the historical routings of 7, 47, and 11 in this area, it will make it easier to navigate this area if each natural highway routing were its own number, as opposed to the current routing of 47, which exits the E-W roadway, silently joins 103, and then continues again with another exit onto Henry Ford.  That is needlessly confusing.

Such highway rectification did occur in the past.  In San Dimas area, back in the 1980's, I-210 turned south from the Foothill Freeway to meet I-10 at the Kellogg Interchange.  The stub continuation of the Foothill Freeway took on CA-30.  When the Foothill Freeway was extended to San Bernardino in the 2000's, Caltrans rightfully renamed the CA-30 freeway to be part of the 210 freeway (CA-210, and we are still waiting for I-210) and renamed the N/S I-210 as an extension of CA-57.  This was the right thing to do and makes the overall navigation in the area simpler.

In a similar vein, I'm watching what is happening in the Otay Mesa area.  Yes, 905 is basically an east-west highway that historically made a final turn south to reach the border crossing.  Of course, with the constructions of new highways in the area (CA-11, by sheer coincidence, and CA-125), we now have the appearance of 905 basically turning at the new interchange and 125 and 11 basically ending at it.  I understand that many of the connectors of this interchange are still being constructed, but IMO it would make sense to have one E-W 905 through the interchange that will lead to the new border crossing and one N-S 125  leading to the existing border crossing.  In my view, this would rectify the routings and make navigation simpler.   [And it will also leave CA-11 open for the next new highway, maybe the E-W routing through TI.]

That being said, I look forward to your blog to bring some history over all of the numberings and renamings in the TI area.  Definitely a lot of history and definitely a lot of complication to keep track of.  Looking through some of the messages upthread, it also seems like there was a time when no part of the Long Beach Freeway, south of PCH, was defined as a numbered highway.  That seems so weird to me.  I wonder if the freeway was signed as CA-7 during that time.  Looking forward to more clarity.

DTComposer

Quote from: mrsman on January 10, 2022, 02:03:35 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 03, 2022, 04:23:09 PM
Confirming 103 is very much field sign after driving it yesterday.  The locally maintained portion north of 1 to Willows Street is beat to shit and reminded me of some freeways I've driven in Jalisco:

https://www.flickr.com/gp/151828809@N08/6Z82jW

That said, what a weird combination heading southbound onto Terminal Island.  The switch over to CA 47 and the sudden westerly direction on the Vincent Thomas Bridge is bizarre.  I get it that 47 is built nowhere to planned scale but the whole situation is really confusing from a signage stand point.  It seems like it would be simpler to redefine the Vincent Thomas Bridge as CA 710, extend CA 103 to Terminal Island and truncated CA 47 to the unbuilt portion.

I agree.  I even had the following suggestion for renumbering upthread:

Quote

I believe the layout of the highways in TI is needlessly confusing.  part of the problem is that certain routes, namely I-710 and CA-47, change directions.  There should be one E-W highway, CA-47, from San Pedro to Downtown LB.  I-710 should either end at the CA-47 ramps or whatever point the freeway ramps end toward the Queen Mary.  The N-S TI Fwy should be CA-103 from the island to at least PCH.  The CA-47 along surface streets does not need to be signed, but bettter signage along the "TO ALAMDEA STREET" would be wonderful there.


If for some reason, CA-47 needs to be numbered on the Alameda Corridor, then the E-W routing from San Pedro to Downtown LB should be a brand new unused number.  That still leaves 710 completely off TI, one higway routing for the main E-W along the VT and GD bridges (new number), one highway routing for the freeway (103), and one routing for Henry Ford and Alameda (47).  Far simpler and less confusion.

In my view, there is definitely some worth to rectifying the highway routings to something that makes sense and to make it easier for navigation.  Despite the historical routings of 7, 47, and 11 in this area, it will make it easier to navigate this area if each natural highway routing were its own number, as opposed to the current routing of 47, which exits the E-W roadway, silently joins 103, and then continues again with another exit onto Henry Ford.  That is needlessly confusing.

I would propose that 710 be designated from San Pedro, across the bridges and onto the Long Beach Freeway. The new GD bridge approaches makes it clear the mainline continues to/from the bridge to/from the LB Freeway (unlike before, where north I-710 was an exit after the bridge and the mainline continued onto Ocean Boulevard).

The Terminal Island portion of CA-47 is already signed N-S (and trends northeast/southwest), so including it as part of N-S I-710 shouldn't be confusing (much less so than N-S US-101 in the valley!). Yes, it's not Interstate standard, so sign it as a state route but keep the number consistent. This would also match the 1964 routing of CA-7.

Likewise, the exit from the Helm Bridge onto Henry Ford Ave. now makes it feel more like that could be a mainline continuation, so CA-47 could be signed from 710, across the bridge, and onto Ford then Alameda.

I don't honestly think CA-103 needs to be signed at all, or it could be signed TO CA-1 northbound and TO CA-47/I-710/Terminal Island southbound.

Max Rockatansky

Finally got to the Terminal Island Freeway in blog format.  I think the CHPW had the missing pieces which made LRN 231 and the Terminal Island Freeway extension to the Los Angeles River Freeway coherent:

https://www.gribblenation.org/2022/03/the-terminal-island-freeway-california.html

Plutonic Panda

It seems like direct connector ramps would be ideal for this freeway and the Seaside Freeway and CA-47/I-710. I like to drive this area a lot on night drives and I notice a lot of trucks going from on freeway to the other. It would prevent a lot unnecessary stopping and accelerating.



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.