Regional Boards > Pacific Southwest

What Will Become of Orange County's Toll Roads

<< < (12/12)

mrsman:
Bringing together  all of the above Pasadena discussion, I guess it is fair to ask:

If Caltrans re-signed all of the controls on the 710, south of the 5, from Pasadena to Los Angeles (and put in either Alhambra or Valley Blvd north of the 5), would there now be the "need" to have any further Pasadena signage on this corridor? 

(I believe the need to sign for Pasadena would no longer be "necessary".  The local cities have never adequately taken on the responsibility to sign traffic appropriately here anyway.)

And if that were done, and we got rid of the Pasadena control heading to 10 east at the 10/710 interchange and the control for Pasadena at I-10's Rosemead exit would that have any effect on traffic patterns?  I.e. If there is no longer any mention of Pasadena, would any traffic from 710 still try to make their way along the surface streets to get to Pasadena and/or the 210?

(I believe that the traffic patterns won't change.  This is already ingrained in too many people to drive along these streets to make the connection.)

I think it would also be nice to see supplemental signage for all the freeway routings that sparker had suggested.  So on I-710 north approaching I-5, and CA-60, and I-10, have supplemental signs saying "Pasadena use 5 north to 110 or 2" and other similar signs at all the junction points.

------

In a similar vein, there is also the issue of how the city of Los Angeles signs for traffic from westbound I-10 (coming out of Downtown LA) trying to reach Century City.  The city's favored way would be 10 east to 405 north to Santa Monica Blvd, but given the heavy traffic and the backtracking they know that few would do that.  The more direct route would be to take 10 to National Blvd and then head straight from the exit on Manning with a right turn onto Motor.  This would put traffic on a residential street through a wealthy neighborhood.  They certainly don't want that and there are many bumps and other traffic calming obstructions along the way to discourage that routing.  So the city established two other routings along the surface streets: 1) I-10 to Robertson to Pico to Ave of the Stars OR 2) I-10 to Overland to Pico to Ave of the Stars.



sparker:
Maybe it's not on "the list" (or even in the foreword!)*, but it might behoove D7 to simply change the control city on NB I-710 to Los Angeles until the I-5 interchange, then Alhambra northward from there, including the ramps at I-5 and CA 60.  That would remove Pasadena from the equation, hence the multi-facility "detour" on Rosemead or other N-S arterials.  Since Rosemead (erstwhile signed CA 19, really hidden CA 164 if not relinquished) actually does enter Pasadena, albeit a half-mile west of the east city limits, putting small green signs to that effect at the I-10 interchange is helpful for general navigation, but with resignage on I-710 it pretty much removes it from its rather convoluted role as an alternate throroughfare to the unfinished freeway segment.

* :-D

GaryA:

--- Quote from: sparker on March 08, 2021, 02:48:21 PM ---Maybe it's not on "the list" (or even in the foreword!)*, but it might behoove D7 to simply change the control city on NB I-710 to Los Angeles until the I-5 interchange, then Alhambra northward from there, including the ramps at I-5 and CA 60.  That would remove Pasadena from the equation, hence the multi-facility "detour" on Rosemead or other N-S arterials.  Since Rosemead (erstwhile signed CA 19, really hidden CA 164 if not relinquished) actually does enter Pasadena, albeit a half-mile west of the east city limits, putting small green signs to that effect at the I-10 interchange is helpful for general navigation, but with resignage on I-710 it pretty much removes it from its rather convoluted role as an alternate throroughfare to the unfinished freeway segment.

--- End quote ---

Yes, but signing CA-19 for Pasadena is like signing CA-22 for Long Beach -- it may enter the city limits, but if you're heading for the majority of locations within that city (especially "downtown"), it's not likely to be the best route.

skluth:

--- Quote from: GaryA on March 08, 2021, 04:33:29 PM ---
--- Quote from: sparker on March 08, 2021, 02:48:21 PM ---Maybe it's not on "the list" (or even in the foreword!)*, but it might behoove D7 to simply change the control city on NB I-710 to Los Angeles until the I-5 interchange, then Alhambra northward from there, including the ramps at I-5 and CA 60.  That would remove Pasadena from the equation, hence the multi-facility "detour" on Rosemead or other N-S arterials.  Since Rosemead (erstwhile signed CA 19, really hidden CA 164 if not relinquished) actually does enter Pasadena, albeit a half-mile west of the east city limits, putting small green signs to that effect at the I-10 interchange is helpful for general navigation, but with resignage on I-710 it pretty much removes it from its rather convoluted role as an alternate throroughfare to the unfinished freeway segment.

--- End quote ---

Yes, but signing CA-19 for Pasadena is like signing CA-22 for Long Beach -- it may enter the city limits, but if you're heading for the majority of locations within that city (especially "downtown"), it's not likely to be the best route.

--- End quote ---

I'm getting used to the California habit of not signing state routes or relinquishing routes through incorporated communities. I personally wish CA 19 was still assigned to the entire old route even if it was only signed at the freeway exits and CA 1. Showing it's a state route on interstate exits cues drivers the exit leads to a major through street, handy if drivers want to exit and use a non-freeway to avoid heavy freeway traffic. I like using Arrow Highway and Mission Blvd to leave Eastern LA County during late afternoons when returning to Palm Springs because they're less stressful if slightly slower than the freeways. Seeing a state highway sign on the freeway like CA 83 cues me that I can take that exit to get to a parallel street option. It's much easier to remember a few numbers than a bunch of street names, especially with the sheer number of exits I'm already trying to memorize as an almost-local.

sparker:

--- Quote from: skluth on March 08, 2021, 06:20:00 PM ---
--- Quote from: GaryA on March 08, 2021, 04:33:29 PM ---
--- Quote from: sparker on March 08, 2021, 02:48:21 PM ---Maybe it's not on "the list" (or even in the foreword!)*, but it might behoove D7 to simply change the control city on NB I-710 to Los Angeles until the I-5 interchange, then Alhambra northward from there, including the ramps at I-5 and CA 60.  That would remove Pasadena from the equation, hence the multi-facility "detour" on Rosemead or other N-S arterials.  Since Rosemead (erstwhile signed CA 19, really hidden CA 164 if not relinquished) actually does enter Pasadena, albeit a half-mile west of the east city limits, putting small green signs to that effect at the I-10 interchange is helpful for general navigation, but with resignage on I-710 it pretty much removes it from its rather convoluted role as an alternate throroughfare to the unfinished freeway segment.

--- End quote ---

Yes, but signing CA-19 for Pasadena is like signing CA-22 for Long Beach -- it may enter the city limits, but if you're heading for the majority of locations within that city (especially "downtown"), it's not likely to be the best route.

--- End quote ---

I'm getting used to the California habit of not signing state routes or relinquishing routes through incorporated communities. I personally wish CA 19 was still assigned to the entire old route even if it was only signed at the freeway exits and CA 1. Showing it's a state route on interstate exits cues drivers the exit leads to a major through street, handy if drivers want to exit and use a non-freeway to avoid heavy freeway traffic. I like using Arrow Highway and Mission Blvd to leave Eastern LA County during late afternoons when returning to Palm Springs because they're less stressful if slightly slower than the freeways. Seeing a state highway sign on the freeway like CA 83 cues me that I can take that exit to get to a parallel street option. It's much easier to remember a few numbers than a bunch of street names, especially with the sheer number of exits I'm already trying to memorize as an almost-local.

--- End quote ---

In full agreement that the local jurisdictions (Rosemead, Temple City, Pasadena) should maintain CA 19 signage over Rosemead Blvd, since it's the most efficient route toward Pasadena from I-10.  San Gabriel Blvd., a mile or so west and parallel to Rosemead, is a useful alternative except for the fact that it goes through San Marino and is something of a speed trap there -- but at least it puts one a bit closer to central Pasadena.  Nevertheless, there is a paucity of signed state routes between I-10 and the CA/I-210/CA 134 E-W "continuum" through the foothill communities; D7 has been eager to shed CA 39 in the Covina/Azusa "flatlands" for the last decade, so besides the I-605 and CA 57 freeways, there's just not that much in the way of signed connectors.  And since D8 and Upland decided to "86" CA 83 along Euclid, it's just gotten worse in that regard.  It's as if Caltrans has stated in blanket fashion that "we're no longer going to expedite through traffic along urban/suburban/exurban arterials; we're leaving it up to the individual jurisdictions to decide whether they want to do so on their own!" 

I fully expect D7, D12, and D8 to all but eliminate surface connectors from the state system within the next decade or two, given their proclivities to date.  A few might remain, like CA 1 along Rice Avenue in Ventura County and PCH along the Malibu/Dume coast -- even CA 27 may stick around, if the city and/or county of L.A. declines to accept maintenance (the same goes for CA 23 between CA 1 and US 101).  The routes in Ventura County's farm/rural areas will also likely survive (maybe not CA 34) to serve the agricultural zones, as well as the routes out in the desert, but that's about it -- the L.A. basin will be toast!  Ironically, I remember 1965-69, when just about everything that was owned/maintained by Caltrans received signage -- urban, rural, and in between.  Perhaps what's happening today is just a manifestation of signing by maintained facility rather than actual utility as a connector; Caltrans has so much on their plate currently that they're simply "cleaning up" by scraping the detritus off that plate!

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page

Go to full version