News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

Name of Interstate 605 in California

Started by stevenliu96, January 11, 2017, 01:36:25 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

stevenliu96

Many of the freeways in the Los Angeles area have names. Interstate 605 is known as the San Gabriel River Freeway... or is it just the San Gabriel Freeway? Here is what I found: https://www.google.com/maps/@33.8778652,-118.100674,3a,27.9y,300.09h,87t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sj_iJOF0sqICNMCarDQl4gg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656


coatimundi

Quote from: stevenliu96 on January 11, 2017, 01:36:25 AM
Many of the freeways in the Los Angeles area have names. Interstate 605 is known as the San Gabriel River Freeway... or is it just the San Gabriel Freeway? Here is what I found: https://www.google.com/maps/@33.8778652,-118.100674,3a,27.9y,300.09h,87t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sj_iJOF0sqICNMCarDQl4gg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

http://www.cahighways.org/466-740.html#605

Quote
The portion of this segment from Route 405 to Route 10 is officially designated as the "San Gabriel River Freeway." It was named by Senate Bill 99, Chapter 1101, in 1967. The first segment opened in 1964; the last in 1971.

It's just shortened on signs sometimes.

Occidental Tourist

Quote from: stevenliu96 on January 11, 2017, 01:36:25 AM
Many of the freeways in the Los Angeles area have names. Interstate 605 is known as the San Gabriel River Freeway... or is it just the San Gabriel Freeway? Here is what I found: https://www.google.com/maps/@33.8778652,-118.100674,3a,27.9y,300.09h,87t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sj_iJOF0sqICNMCarDQl4gg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

San Gabriel River Freeway.  That sign is just another D7 signage screw-up.

AndyMax25

Other signs along the route show the correct full name. This one is NB just north of CA-91.

J N Winkler

General rule of thumb:  Southern California freeway names are usually (not always) based on a destination the freeway goes to or toward, or a feature (usually a river or other drainage) the freeway parallels.  E.g., the Long Beach Freeway was at one point known as the Los Angeles River Freeway.  Exceptions (like the Allesandro Freeway) are rare.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

TheStranger

#5
Quote from: J N Winkler on January 15, 2017, 09:03:41 PM
General rule of thumb:  Southern California freeway names are usually (not always) based on a destination the freeway goes to or toward, or a feature (usually a river or other drainage) the freeway parallels.  E.g., the Long Beach Freeway was at one point known as the Los Angeles River Freeway.  Exceptions (like the Allesandro Freeway) are rare.

There's those dual cases where the route shares its name with a parallel street/boulevard that happens to also go to a particular destination (Garden Grove Freeway/Route 22, Ventura Freeway/US 101, Artesia Freeway/Route 91, Foothill Freeway/210).  The historic usage of parallel surface streets to generate the newer freeway alignment's name also explains the former Sepulveda Freeway/Route 7 (now San Diego Freeway/I-405) and the Colorado Freeway (was part of Route 134 on its west end).  The Golden State Freeway is a little bit of a different case as while US 99 was the Golden State Highway overall, unlike in the Central Valley the surface roads through the San Fernando Valley were not named as such.

(In NorCal, the Bayshore and Eastshore Freeways each got their names via existing parallel road, as did to some extent MacArthur and Junipero Serra; otherwise, honorary names (Nimitz, Warren, John Muir) popped up.  Guadalupe Parkway/Route 87 in San Jose used the previous surface street's name entirely when the freeway alignment took over all but two blocks of the original road's right of way.)

Isn't "Century Freeway" a colloquial name for I-105 due to it paralleling that corridor leading to LAX?

Chris Sampang

mrsman

Quote from: TheStranger on January 16, 2017, 02:44:08 AM

Isn't "Century Freeway" a colloquial name for I-105 due to it paralleling that corridor leading to LAX?
.
Absolutely.  The Century Freeway is parallel to Century Blvd.  It is more closely parallel to Imperial Highway, but I think it would have been confusing to have both an Imperial Fwy and an Imperial Hwy.  If Imperial Hwy were instead known as Imperial Blvd, I think this would have been the Imperial Fwy.

I always thought it was intersting that the most westerly segment of this freeway was routed along Imperial Hwy instead of Century Blvd.  For a long time (and still existing today), there is a complicated interchange structure between Century Blvd and Sepulveda Blvd that lead directly into LAX.  If the Freeway tied into that, then the freeway would have been known as the Airport Fwy and would have been the premier way to reach the Airport from practically anywhere (even the 405 north corridor).  As it is now, the freeway runs 1 mile south of this point, so Airport traffic must now exit the freeway at the always-backed up Sepulveda exit and join Sepulveda for a mile.  So while you may still take I-105 from points east, those in the know would approach the Airport on surface streets like La Tijera or Sepulveda if coming from another direction.

The freeway would have been closer to the sports facilities in Inglewood as well.  (Forum, Hollywood Park, and the future Rams Stadium).

stevenliu96

Quote from: coatimundi on January 11, 2017, 02:24:08 AM
Quote from: stevenliu96 on January 11, 2017, 01:36:25 AM
Many of the freeways in the Los Angeles area have names. Interstate 605 is known as the San Gabriel River Freeway... or is it just the San Gabriel Freeway? Here is what I found: https://www.google.com/maps/@33.8778652,-118.100674,3a,27.9y,300.09h,87t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sj_iJOF0sqICNMCarDQl4gg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

http://www.cahighways.org/466-740.html#605

Quote
The portion of this segment from Route 405 to Route 10 is officially designated as the "San Gabriel River Freeway." It was named by Senate Bill 99, Chapter 1101, in 1967. The first segment opened in 1964; the last in 1971.

It's just shortened on signs sometimes.

I know the 605 is the San Gabriel River Freeway, just thought that the sign was interesting. I'm not sure if there are other signs that say the 605 is the San Gabriel Freeway. Usually they just say THRU TRAFFIC.

andy3175

Quote from: mrsman on January 16, 2017, 08:30:02 AM
The freeway would have been closer to the sports facilities in Inglewood as well.  (Forum, Hollywood Park, and the future Rams Stadium).

I guess the Chargers are headed to that Inglewood stadium along with the Rams based on the Chargers LA relocation news last week.

Back to the topic, several freeways in LA started as parkways, sometimes with different names (most famously, Arroyo Seco Parkway became Pasadena Freeway and has since shifted back to the Arroyo Seco name, now signed as SR 110 but previously under a few other numbers such as SR 11). In the case of Arroyo Seco, the parkway parallels the Arroyo Seco waterway between Pasadena and downtown LA. So this might be a good comparison to the I-605 example?
Regards,
Andy

www.aaroads.com

DTComposer

Quote from: mrsman on January 16, 2017, 08:30:02 AM
Quote from: TheStranger on January 16, 2017, 02:44:08 AM

Isn't "Century Freeway" a colloquial name for I-105 due to it paralleling that corridor leading to LAX?
.
Absolutely.  The Century Freeway is parallel to Century Blvd.  It is more closely parallel to Imperial Highway, but I think it would have been confusing to have both an Imperial Fwy and an Imperial Hwy.  If Imperial Hwy were instead known as Imperial Blvd, I think this would have been the Imperial Fwy.

I always thought it was intersting that the most westerly segment of this freeway was routed along Imperial Hwy instead of Century Blvd.  For a long time (and still existing today), there is a complicated interchange structure between Century Blvd and Sepulveda Blvd that lead directly into LAX.  If the Freeway tied into that, then the freeway would have been known as the Airport Fwy and would have been the premier way to reach the Airport from practically anywhere (even the 405 north corridor).  As it is now, the freeway runs 1 mile south of this point, so Airport traffic must now exit the freeway at the always-backed up Sepulveda exit and join Sepulveda for a mile.  So while you may still take I-105 from points east, those in the know would approach the Airport on surface streets like La Tijera or Sepulveda if coming from another direction.

The freeway would have been closer to the sports facilities in Inglewood as well.  (Forum, Hollywood Park, and the future Rams Stadium).

I have always assumed that the traveler-related businesses on Century (hotels, car rentals, garages) have put the kibosh on anything that would keep Century from being the primary route into LAX. I wouldn't be surprised if they were behind the Green Line extension not actually making it to the terminals (so that driving would still be the preferable way to get there).

TheStranger

Quote from: andy3175 on January 16, 2017, 11:29:05 PM
Back to the topic, several freeways in LA started as parkways, sometimes with different names (most famously, Arroyo Seco Parkway became Pasadena Freeway and has since shifted back to the Arroyo Seco name, now signed as SR 110 but previously under a few other numbers such as SR 11). In the case of Arroyo Seco, the parkway parallels the Arroyo Seco waterway between Pasadena and downtown LA. So this might be a good comparison to the I-605 example?

IIRC what is now the Long Beach Freeway/I-710 originally was proposed as the "Los Angeles River Freeway" though I don't know if that was ever signed.

Chris Sampang

coatimundi

Quote from: DTComposer on January 17, 2017, 12:20:34 AM
I have always assumed that the traveler-related businesses on Century (hotels, car rentals, garages) have put the kibosh on anything that would keep Century from being the primary route into LAX. I wouldn't be surprised if they were behind the Green Line extension not actually making it to the terminals (so that driving would still be the preferable way to get there).

This is very conspiratorial, but I don't think it's totally outlandish. However, while nearly all of the businesses along Century out to 405 are totally dependent upon LAX, the majority are not geared toward those driving in and out. You have hotels, car rental offices and a few fast food restaurants, the majority of which I've only been to when dropping off a rental car or staying at a hotel down there (since the food options are dismal in that neighborhood).
You could make the argument that, if it were easier to get around LA as a tourist or business traveler without a car, then some of these businesses would die.
I always thought that part of the idea with creating the transportation center at LAX was to keep public buses out of there and make people use the shuttles. If the Green Line had reached the terminals, which terminal would it have reached? And what would you do with people from other terminals? The inherent issue with LAX is its lack of connectivity so I think it wouldn't have helped to get the Green or Expo Lines any closer. Maybe if they would build an inter-terminal train, it would seem more fluid but, as it stands now, LAX's relationship to the Green Line looks like a number of others airports around the country (including all of the Bay Area airports) with regards to their connectivity to rail systems, minus the ability to reach it by another rail system.

Exit58

Quote from: TheStranger on January 16, 2017, 02:44:08 AM
and the Colorado Freeway (was part of Route 134 on its west end)..

Actually, the Colorado Freeway was planned to be completely different alignment of what eventually came to be of the Ventura. IIRC, the state wanted to splice through Glendale and Eagle Rock to build it, basically over Colorado Blvd. Two stubs were built if memory serves me right, from the modern Pasadena Interchange to Colorado (hence the long ramps to Colorado from WB 134, most of this is SR 134 in modern times), and the Colorado St exit on I-5 (now the Colorado Street Freeway Extension according to Google). Ironically, Caltrans still has bridge pylons denoting that 'extension' as part of 134 legislatively, although I do not know if that is still part of the legal definition. A little confusing if it still is.

It makes me wonder if the Colorado Fwy had been built as originally planned, would the Ventura end at the Hollywood, and would the Foothill Fwy have a different legal name? I know back when the current San Bernardino Freeway was still the Ramona Freeway what's now I-210 was sketched out as either the San Bernardino Fwy or Pkwy.

TheStranger

Quote from: Exit58 on January 18, 2017, 03:20:51 AM
Quote from: TheStranger on January 16, 2017, 02:44:08 AM
and the Colorado Freeway (was part of Route 134 on its west end)..

Actually, the Colorado Freeway was planned to be completely different alignment of what eventually came to be of the Ventura. IIRC, the state wanted to splice through Glendale and Eagle Rock to build it, basically over Colorado Blvd. Two stubs were built if memory serves me right, from the modern Pasadena Interchange to Colorado (hence the long ramps to Colorado from WB 134, most of this is SR 134 in modern times), and the Colorado St exit on I-5 (now the Colorado Street Freeway Extension according to Google). Ironically, Caltrans still has bridge pylons denoting that 'extension' as part of 134 legislatively, although I do not know if that is still part of the legal definition. A little confusing if it still is.

It makes me wonder if the Colorado Fwy had been built as originally planned, would the Ventura end at the Hollywood, and would the Foothill Fwy have a different legal name? I know back when the current San Bernardino Freeway was still the Ramona Freeway what's now I-210 was sketched out as either the San Bernardino Fwy or Pkwy.

Hmm, do you have any source for this?

I was always under the impression that the original Colorado Freeway segments (that spur from 5 east to Colorado Street, and those ramps from modern 134 west from Pasadena) were built as standalone bypasses of the old Colorado Street surface routing of 134, and the spur from 5 to Colorado Street was never intended as part of the modern Ventura Freeway.

Mike Ballard's page on those segments:
http://socalregion.com/highways/socal_unsigned/colorado_fwy/

Chris Sampang

cahwyguy

Quote from: Exit58 on January 18, 2017, 03:20:51 AM
Quote from: TheStranger on January 16, 2017, 02:44:08 AM
and the Colorado Freeway (was part of Route 134 on its west end)..

Actually, the Colorado Freeway was planned to be completely different alignment of what eventually came to be of the Ventura. IIRC, the state wanted to splice through Glendale and Eagle Rock to build it, basically over Colorado Blvd. Two stubs were built if memory serves me right, from the modern Pasadena Interchange to Colorado (hence the long ramps to Colorado from WB 134, most of this is SR 134 in modern times), and the Colorado St exit on I-5 (now the Colorado Street Freeway Extension according to Google). Ironically, Caltrans still has bridge pylons denoting that 'extension' as part of 134 legislatively, although I do not know if that is still part of the legal definition. A little confusing if it still is.

It makes me wonder if the Colorado Fwy had been built as originally planned, would the Ventura end at the Hollywood, and would the Foothill Fwy have a different legal name? I know back when the current San Bernardino Freeway was still the Ramona Freeway what's now I-210 was sketched out as either the San Bernardino Fwy or Pkwy.

Those were just some early proposed routings of Route 134. If you look at my pages on Route 134, I believe I have something on the interchange with the 2 related to this (I recall something a few months ago, but I'm at work now).
Daniel - California Highway Guy ● Highway Site: http://www.cahighways.org/ ●  Blog: http://blog.cahighways.org/ ● Podcast (CA Route by Route): http://caroutebyroute.org/ ● Follow California Highways on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/cahighways

coatimundi

Quote from: TheStranger on January 18, 2017, 06:55:23 AM
Quote from: Exit58 on January 18, 2017, 03:20:51 AM
Quote from: TheStranger on January 16, 2017, 02:44:08 AM
and the Colorado Freeway (was part of Route 134 on its west end)..

Actually, the Colorado Freeway was planned to be completely different alignment of what eventually came to be of the Ventura. IIRC, the state wanted to splice through Glendale and Eagle Rock to build it, basically over Colorado Blvd. Two stubs were built if memory serves me right, from the modern Pasadena Interchange to Colorado (hence the long ramps to Colorado from WB 134, most of this is SR 134 in modern times), and the Colorado St exit on I-5 (now the Colorado Street Freeway Extension according to Google). Ironically, Caltrans still has bridge pylons denoting that 'extension' as part of 134 legislatively, although I do not know if that is still part of the legal definition. A little confusing if it still is.

It makes me wonder if the Colorado Fwy had been built as originally planned, would the Ventura end at the Hollywood, and would the Foothill Fwy have a different legal name? I know back when the current San Bernardino Freeway was still the Ramona Freeway what's now I-210 was sketched out as either the San Bernardino Fwy or Pkwy.

Hmm, do you have any source for this?

I was always under the impression that the original Colorado Freeway segments (that spur from 5 east to Colorado Street, and those ramps from modern 134 west from Pasadena) were built as standalone bypasses of the old Colorado Street surface routing of 134, and the spur from 5 to Colorado Street was never intended as part of the modern Ventura Freeway.

Mike Ballard's page on those segments:
http://socalregion.com/highways/socal_unsigned/colorado_fwy/

I always had this impression too, just looking at maps from the time of its construction (early 50's, I think?). If you eliminate the modern freeways and leave just what was there at the time, it seemed clear what they were trying to do with it.

Exit58

Quote from: cahwyguy on January 18, 2017, 10:47:21 AM
Those were just some early proposed routings of Route 134. If you look at my pages on Route 134, I believe I have something on the interchange with the 2 related to this (I recall something a few months ago, but I'm at work now).

It must have been planned enough that they were already building segments of a to-be-completed freeway. Those ramps for Colorado off the 134 are what really show that some serious planning for that route was underway before the option to build north on the mountain ridge was selected. TBF, I don't have any real sources to quote, but I remember reading about it a while ago. If I come across the page again I'll post it here, but it showed the first proposed 'final' alignment of the Colorado Freeway to basically be built upon Colorado Blvd through Eagle Rock and Glendale.



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.