Saw this at cahighways:
QuoteRoute 1 in Oxnard is currently undegoing extensive construction at the Pleasant Valley Road Interchange. When this construction is complete in June 2003, Route 1 will be routed onto Rice Ave vice Oxnard Blvd. In 2008, the Ventura County Star reported that on January 1, 2009, the designation of Route 1 will be moved from Oxnard Boulevard to Rice Avenue. That will give the Port of Hueneme a more efficient and direct route to US 101, As part of the Route 1 redesignation, the California Transportation Commission provided $30.5 million to improve and expand the Rice Avenue-US 101 interchange. That project is expected to be completed in 2012. Having control of Oxnard Boulevard will enable the city to undertake a variety of traffic improvement and beautification measures. The city will sequence traffic signals to allow traffic to flow more smoothly and will also install a computerized sensor system to reduce waiting times at intersections, he said. The redesignation of Route 1 also will allow the city to move heavy trucks off Oxnard Boulevard, which also will improve traffic. New landscaping, sidewalks and parking along the main thoroughfare downtown are also in the works.
The interchange work at Route 1 Exit 112 (Pleasant Valley) has been completed, with the freeway now aligning towards Rice rather than to the rest of the alignment towards Channel Islands Boulevard.
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Rice+Ave+%26+Pleasant+Valley,+Oxnard&hl=en&ll=34.165724,-119.144819&spn=0.012339,0.016479&sll=34.171876,-119.154968&sspn=0.006205,0.00824&hnear=S+Rice+Ave+%26+E+Pleasant+Valley+Rd,+Oxnard,+Ventura,+California+93033&t=h&z=16
(Interestingly, there's a small sign gantry at Channel Islands Boulevard that is similar in dimensions to the late 1950s/early 1960s signs along US 101 in downtown Los Angeles - http://maps.google.com/maps?q=S+Oxnard+Blvd,+Oxnard,+CA&hl=en&ll=34.171832,-119.154893&spn=0.006169,0.00824&sll=34.17192,-119.155043&sspn=0.006205,0.00824&hnear=S+Oxnard+Blvd,+Oxnard,+California&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=34.171877,-119.154967&panoid=J0Kkmg3HnQamUZUuwLY3Iw&cbp=12,321.1,,1,-0.29 )
Google Street View shows this construction activity at 101/Rice:
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Rice+Ave+%26+Pleasant+Valley,+Oxnard&hl=en&ll=34.222573,-119.140794&spn=0.012331,0.016479&sll=34.171876,-119.154968&sspn=0.006205,0.00824&hnear=S+Rice+Ave+%26+E+Pleasant+Valley+Rd,+Oxnard,+Ventura,+California+93033&t=h&z=16&layer=c&cbll=34.222573,-119.140794&panoid=mdVyLj1wNAPHempWVlodnA&cbp=12,5.74,,0,14.06
How close is the rerouting to being finished, and when are new signs slated for posting?
The onramp to South 101 is open, but the western half of the Rice/Santa Clara overcrossing still needs work. Once that's finished, CA 1 will be re-routed onto Rice instead of the rather confusing "exit at Pleasant Valley and cross the bridge to turn right on Oxnard Blvd." turn people have to make to stay on CA 1.
Also, the city of Oxnard is slowly removing CA 1 references as they replace the street signs at traffic lights. For example, the signal at Channel Islands and Dupont also pointed towards "1 North." Now it's just "Oxnard Blvd" with no mention of CA 1 whatsoever.
The interchange work at 101 and Rice appears to be finished, but not sure if Route 1 has officially been moved to the new alignment yet:
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Rice+Avenue+and+Auto+Center+Drive,+Oxnard,+CA&hl=en&ll=34.222555,-119.142169&spn=0.007159,0.009484&sll=37.269174,-119.306607&sspn=14.095009,19.423828&hnear=Auto+Center+Dr+%26+Rice+Ave,+Oxnard,+Ventura,+California+93036&t=h&z=17
A little surprised that the ramp from 101 southbound to Rice Avenue southbound - the future Route 1 through movement - didn't maintain the old offramp's large radius, making me wonder if that parcel of land will be sold off for development in the future.
I guess all that's left is one more maintenance routine on Oxnard Blvd and the city can take it over. CalTrans is also going to relinquish CA 232 from soon-to-be old CA 1 to US 101, and roll back CA 32 to new CA 1.
Quote from: emory on October 15, 2013, 08:16:45 PM
I guess all that's left is one more maintenance routine on Oxnard Blvd and the city can take it over. CalTrans is also going to relinquish CA 232 from soon-to-be old CA 1 to US 101, and roll back CA 32 to new CA 1.
Route 34 you mean.
I know a 2003 map had 232 realigned to a logical parallel routing of Santa Clara Avenue - would this still be the case? Would be very navigationally useful for those heading to Oxnard via 118.
Quote from: TheStranger on October 16, 2013, 11:32:18 AM
I know a 2003 map had 232 realigned to a logical parallel routing of Santa Clara Avenue - would this still be the case? Would be very navigationally useful for those heading to Oxnard via 118.
Was this an official Caltrans map or another map source?
Regards,
Andy
2005 Caltrans map:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Frumseysid.lunaimaging.com%2Fmrsid%2Fbin%2Fimage_jpeg.pl%3Fclient%3DRumsey%26amp%3Bimage%3DSIDS%2FD5005%2F6355002.sid%26amp%3Bx%3D950%26amp%3By%3D11050%26amp%3Bwidth%3D700%26amp%3Bheight%3D450%26amp%3Blevel%3D1&hash=956f236135436034558c114eb46a3567263e2c99)
The dashed purple for 232 is "unconstructed (general routing determined)".
http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~238649~5511602:-Verso---California--State-Highway-
http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~238640~5511601:-California--State-Highway-Map-2005
Yup, that looks like the Caltrans map. Thanks for sharing that, NE2.
I didn't realize 232 was to be realigned like that, but yes it would make the route much more useful to relocate it to match up with "future" California 1 (Rice Ave) and California 118.
Speaking of the Caltrans map (it says 2005 but I thought the last Caltrans-produced map was from 2003 - I could be wrong and am too lazy to click the Rumsey Maps link), I wonder if that 118 or 23 realignments shown on that map will ever happen. 23 especially is a crazy road heading north into Fillmore, and 118/Los Angeles Ave is a busy two-lane road that would gain quite a bit of traffic if upgraded to four-land expressway or freeway. 257 along the coast seems like an impossible dream given the desire to push freeways away from the coast.
Regards,
Andy
Definitely says 2005 in various places on the map: http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~238640~5511601:-California--State-Highway-Map-2005
Perhaps it was never published?
Quote from: andy3175 on October 16, 2013, 11:47:14 PM
Yup, that looks like the Caltrans map. Thanks for sharing that, NE2.
I didn't realize 232 was to be realigned like that, but yes it would make the route much more useful to relocate it to match up with "future" California 1 (Rice Ave) and California 118.
Interestingly, I might be driving both Rice and Santa Clara tomorrow (heading into the area to visit a friend), so I'll see what all that looks like at present.
Will the section of the PCH freeway northwest of Rice Avenue be eventually downgraded to city street (much like the former Route 275 freeway east of Jefferson Boulevard in West Sacramento was a few years back)? Obviously, the signage marking Route 1 exiting off of itself there will need to be replaced too once Rice becomes the official route.
I also noticed that CA 34 is routed down what appears to be Lewis Road and somewhere near CSUCI, it makes the jump to Las Posas Road where it meets PCH near Point Mugu. I still see CA 34 ending at 5th and Rice, though.
Also, I never understood why Vineyard was signed as 232 when all it is is a short cut for Oxnardians to get to the 126 to more inland destinations. Seems to me that if truck traffic on the 118 is going to go to the ports, then 232 should be signed along Santa Clara Avenue, though it would probably require widening the road.
Quote from: NE2 on October 17, 2013, 12:23:08 AM
Definitely says 2005 in various places on the map: http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~238640~5511601:-California--State-Highway-Map-2005
Perhaps it was never published?
It probably was published and I never knew it existed. I'll check with a friend to see if there were others issued after 2005. It's possible that the 2005 map was the last one produced, but it's also possible more maps have come out since then.
Regards,
Andy
Quote from: JustDrive on October 17, 2013, 03:44:22 PM
Also, I never understood why Vineyard was signed as 232 when all it is is a short cut for Oxnardians to get to the 126 to more inland destinations. Seems to me that if truck traffic on the 118 is going to go to the ports, then 232 should be signed along Santa Clara Avenue, though it would probably require widening the road.
Vineyard (which I actually drove down today) is basically a connector from 118 to 101, as Santa Clara Avenue would also be. It ended up being a handy shortcut when eastbound 118 from Saticoy towards Santa Clara Avenue was a mess in the afternoon.
If the 118 freeway had been extended west past Moorpark, 232 along Vineyard would be much more useful (creating a seamless, complete parallel corridor to the Ventura Freeway). Could even make the argument that existing 118 east of Saticoy plus Santa Clara Avenue should be all one numbered road.
Quote from: TheStranger on February 21, 2012, 05:21:37 PM
Saw this at cahighways:
QuoteRoute 1 in Oxnard is currently undegoing extensive construction at the Pleasant Valley Road Interchange. When this construction is complete in June 2003, Route 1 will be routed onto Rice Ave vice Oxnard Blvd. In 2008, the Ventura County Star reported that on January 1, 2009, the designation of Route 1 will be moved from Oxnard Boulevard to Rice Avenue. That will give the Port of Hueneme a more efficient and direct route to US 101, As part of the Route 1 redesignation, the California Transportation Commission provided $30.5 million to improve and expand the Rice Avenue-US 101 interchange. That project is expected to be completed in 2012. Having control of Oxnard Boulevard will enable the city to undertake a variety of traffic improvement and beautification measures. The city will sequence traffic signals to allow traffic to flow more smoothly and will also install a computerized sensor system to reduce waiting times at intersections, he said. The redesignation of Route 1 also will allow the city to move heavy trucks off Oxnard Boulevard, which also will improve traffic. New landscaping, sidewalks and parking along the main thoroughfare downtown are also in the works.
The interchange work at Route 1 Exit 112 (Pleasant Valley) has been completed, with the freeway now aligning towards Rice rather than to the rest of the alignment towards Channel Islands Boulevard.
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Rice+Ave+%26+Pleasant+Valley,+Oxnard&hl=en&ll=34.165724,-119.144819&spn=0.012339,0.016479&sll=34.171876,-119.154968&sspn=0.006205,0.00824&hnear=S+Rice+Ave+%26+E+Pleasant+Valley+Rd,+Oxnard,+Ventura,+California+93033&t=h&z=16
(Interestingly, there's a small sign gantry at Channel Islands Boulevard that is similar in dimensions to the late 1950s/early 1960s signs along US 101 in downtown Los Angeles - http://maps.google.com/maps?q=S+Oxnard+Blvd,+Oxnard,+CA&hl=en&ll=34.171832,-119.154893&spn=0.006169,0.00824&sll=34.17192,-119.155043&sspn=0.006205,0.00824&hnear=S+Oxnard+Blvd,+Oxnard,+California&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=34.171877,-119.154967&panoid=J0Kkmg3HnQamUZUuwLY3Iw&cbp=12,321.1,,1,-0.29 )
Google Street View shows this construction activity at 101/Rice:
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Rice+Ave+%26+Pleasant+Valley,+Oxnard&hl=en&ll=34.222573,-119.140794&spn=0.012331,0.016479&sll=34.171876,-119.154968&sspn=0.006205,0.00824&hnear=S+Rice+Ave+%26+E+Pleasant+Valley+Rd,+Oxnard,+Ventura,+California+93033&t=h&z=16&layer=c&cbll=34.222573,-119.140794&panoid=mdVyLj1wNAPHempWVlodnA&cbp=12,5.74,,0,14.06
How close is the rerouting to being finished, and when are new signs slated for posting?
Drove through this area on our road trip from LA to San Francisco a few weeks ago. As someone from the east coast who was just "following route 1" the whole way, I have to say the signage at these interchanges is terrible. Unless I missed it I never saw a single sign for Route 1 once we hit Rice Ave and there was nothing to indicate that to stay on Route 1 North we should join the 101. So instead we stayed on Rice (as it turned into Santa Clara Ave) until we hit Central Ave and realized we were not at all headed in the right direction. Maybe we missed a sign, but I never saw anything after the Pleasant Valley interchange.
Quote from: jcroyer80 on August 14, 2014, 12:12:16 PM
Drove through this area on our road trip from LA to San Francisco a few weeks ago. As someone from the east coast who was just "following route 1" the whole way, I have to say the signage at these interchanges is terrible. Unless I missed it I never saw a single sign for Route 1 once we hit Rice Ave and there was nothing to indicate that to stay on Route 1 North we should join the 101. So instead we stayed on Rice (as it turned into Santa Clara Ave) until we hit Central Ave and realized we were not at all headed in the right direction. Maybe we missed a sign, but I never saw anything after the Pleasant Valley interchange.
I'm not sure if Route 1 has been completely moved off of Oxnard Boulevard yet, even though the through lane setup on the south end of Rice Avenue already has 1 continuing to Rice.
Also, northbound on 101, some (but not all) of the Oxnard Boulevard exit advance signage for Route 1 has greenout on it as of last weekend.
In any case, past Oxnard Boulevard or Rice, Route 1 signage becomes very sporadic (save for the short section that used to be 101 along the beach near Exit 78) until the split in Las Cruces.
Quote from: TheStranger on August 14, 2014, 01:03:39 PM
Quote from: jcroyer80 on August 14, 2014, 12:12:16 PM
Drove through this area on our road trip from LA to San Francisco a few weeks ago. As someone from the east coast who was just "following route 1" the whole way, I have to say the signage at these interchanges is terrible. Unless I missed it I never saw a single sign for Route 1 once we hit Rice Ave and there was nothing to indicate that to stay on Route 1 North we should join the 101. So instead we stayed on Rice (as it turned into Santa Clara Ave) until we hit Central Ave and realized we were not at all headed in the right direction. Maybe we missed a sign, but I never saw anything after the Pleasant Valley interchange.
I'm not sure if Route 1 has been completely moved off of Oxnard Boulevard yet, even though the through lane setup on the south end of Rice Avenue already has 1 continuing to Rice.
Also, northbound on 101, some (but not all) of the Oxnard Boulevard exit advance signage for Route 1 has greenout on it as of last weekend.
In any case, past Oxnard Boulevard or Rice, Route 1 signage becomes very sporadic (save for the short section that used to be 101 along the beach near Exit 78) until the split in Las Cruces.
It was as if Route 1 through the area didn't exist. Not being famaliar with the area I would have never known to get off the Pleasant Valley interchange to stay on Route 1 (if it hasn't moved yet) because (as you stated) the through lane set up has 1 continuing onto Rice. Once on Rice you better know to take the 101 or you'll get the scenic tour. Not a big deal to us as we weren't in a hurry and were on a road trip anyway. But for someone trying to simply follow Route 1 it would prove very difficult through there.
Historically, the Coast route used to be two separate state highways: CA-1 from north of Santa Barbara to San Francisco and beyond and CA-3 from Oxnard to Dana Point. Later, CA-3 was designated as Alternate US 101. Since 1964, the routing from Oxnard to Dana Point became CA-1.
By the legislative definition, even though they share the same highway number, they are two separate highways. CA-1 stops at US 101 and then begins again at US 101 a few miles later and then stops again and starts again, etc.
There has never been consistently good signage of CA-1 between Las Cruces and Oxnard. Technically, US 101 and CA-1 do not multiplex. Occasionally you will see some BGSes on US 101 in the area with both US 101 and CA-1, but for the most part only US 101 is posted.
You are right that there needs to be some better signage for people along the lines that CA-1 ends use US 101 north for Ventura and Santa Barbara because there are many tourists who would assume that they can ride CA-1 all the way up the coast. But they don't need to sign CA-1 along the stretch between Oxnard and Las Cruces.
Quote from: mrsman on August 14, 2014, 08:06:34 PM
Historically, the Coast route used to be two separate state highways: CA-1 from north of Santa Barbara to San Francisco and beyond and CA-3 from Oxnard to Dana Point. Later, CA-3 was designated as Alternate US 101.
Route 3 IIRC only lasted 3 years before becoming US 101A.
Quote from: mrsman on August 14, 2014, 08:06:34 PM
Technically, US 101 and CA-1 do not multiplex.
For that matter, concurrency/multiplex situations are not reflected in legislative definitions at all - thus leaving it to local CalTrans districts to choose whether to be diligent about having them signed, or (more commonly) to have them not acknowledged.
Quote from: mrsman on August 14, 2014, 08:06:34 PM
You are right that there needs to be some better signage for people along the lines that CA-1 ends use US 101 north for Ventura and Santa Barbara because there are many tourists who would assume that they can ride CA-1 all the way up the coast. But they don't need to sign CA-1 along the stretch between Oxnard and Las Cruces.
I would agree with that (even though the roadgeek side of me would love to see 101/1 consistently signed together). The tricky part in telling travelers to "take 101 to Las Cruces" from Oxnard is that there IS the one separate section of Route 1 west of Ventura that diverges from 101 (a pre-freeway routing of 101 that got added to today's Route 1 in the early 1980s) for a few miles.
Quote from: TheStranger on August 14, 2014, 09:55:28 PM
Quote from: mrsman on August 14, 2014, 08:06:34 PM
Historically, the Coast route used to be two separate state highways: CA-1 from north of Santa Barbara to San Francisco and beyond and CA-3 from Oxnard to Dana Point. Later, CA-3 was designated as Alternate US 101.
Route 3 IIRC only lasted 3 years before becoming US 101A.
If all of the sections of CA-1 were once Alt US 101, then it would really make sense as to see why there is no multiplex. Is there a need to see both US 101 and Alt US 101 on the same sign? Of course not.
Even if the northern sections of CA-1 were not officially part of Alt US 101, the whole of CA-1 from Dana Point to Leggett acts as an Alt 101. (In pre-interstate era, US 101 extended along I-5 from LA to Mexico.)
So by my count starting from Mexico, you have US 101: Dana Point SPLIT. Oxnard JOIN. Las Cruces SPLIT. Pismo Beach JOIN. San Luis Obispo SPLIT. San Francisco JOIN. Marin City SPLIT. Leggett JOIN. So there are 4 places where CA-1 separates from US 101 between Dana Point and Leggett. And there are three main sections where the routes are joined: Oxnard to Las Cruces is the longest section. Pismo to SLO and SF to Marin are very short sections, and I beleive that those sections are better signed as multiplexes.
Quote from: TheStranger on August 14, 2014, 09:55:28 PM
Quote from: mrsman on August 14, 2014, 08:06:34 PM
Technically, US 101 and CA-1 do not multiplex.
For that matter, concurrency/multiplex situations are not reflected in legislative definitions at all - thus leaving it to local CalTrans districts to choose whether to be diligent about having them signed, or (more commonly) to have them not acknowledged.
Quote from: mrsman on August 14, 2014, 08:06:34 PM
You are right that there needs to be some better signage for people along the lines that CA-1 ends use US 101 north for Ventura and Santa Barbara because there are many tourists who would assume that they can ride CA-1 all the way up the coast. But they don't need to sign CA-1 along the stretch between Oxnard and Las Cruces.
I would agree with that (even though the roadgeek side of me would love to see 101/1 consistently signed together). The tricky part in telling travelers to "take 101 to Las Cruces" from Oxnard is that there IS the one separate section of Route 1 west of Ventura that diverges from 101 (a pre-freeway routing of 101 that got added to today's Route 1 in the early 1980s) for a few miles.
Ah, Sea Cliff. I know that it is now signed as CA-1, but when I was growing up in the 80's it wasn't. There is no need for this road to be a state highway, it's just a local frontage road, essentially for beach access. But it is useful as a way around a jam up on a holiday weekend. There are only small signs from the freeway that indicate that this is a routing for CA-1, there are no BGSes with CA-1 over here. I would get rid of the CA-1 signage here.
I don't think it's necessary to mention go to Las Cruces to take CA-1 again. I believe that mentioning Ventura and Santa Barbara are well known to be right on the Coast and north of that point. The coastal tourist will want to go through those cities and probably has never heard of Las Cruces.
Have one very good sign along Rice and save the necessity of signing the many miles between Rice Ave and Las Cruces.
There's only one sign that tells you to get off at Pleasant Valley Road to stay on CA 1, and that's a roadside sign north of Nauman Road. And should you stay on Rice and miss the Pleasant Valley exit, there's another sign on NB Rice at a Channel Islands Blvd saying "TO 1 NORTH."
And ditto on the PCH portion north of Ventura being unnecessary. It's not signed at all northbound except for a lone shield at the beach side of the subway tunnel at Exit 72. Southbound has a sign saying "1 WEST (??) PCH" and one lone shield at the foot of the offramp. There's a "TO 1/101" sign in Seacliff headed northbound, but after that, CA 1 is erased until you pass the Gaviota Tunnel.
And very briefly when the Oxnard Blvd interchange with US 101 was completed, there was a sign on the NB 101 offramp pointing to South 1 and North 1, even though CA 1 isn't defined on Oxnard Blvd north of US 101. There's a greenout right now, though I suspect with the rerouting of CA 1 onto Rice Avenue, that sign will disappear.
Quote from: mrsman on August 15, 2014, 01:29:35 AM
Quote from: TheStranger on August 14, 2014, 09:55:28 PM
Quote from: mrsman on August 14, 2014, 08:06:34 PM
Historically, the Coast route used to be two separate state highways: CA-1 from north of Santa Barbara to San Francisco and beyond and CA-3 from Oxnard to Dana Point. Later, CA-3 was designated as Alternate US 101.
Route 3 IIRC only lasted 3 years before becoming US 101A.
If all of the sections of CA-1 were once Alt US 101, then it would really make sense as to see why there is no multiplex. Is there a need to see both US 101 and Alt US 101 on the same sign? Of course not.
To be clear...
Only the section of 1 from Oxnard to Dana Point was 101A. All of the rest are part of the 1934-present Route 1, though the Presidio routing in SF comes from a few years later (before the tunnel, 1 took surface streets to connect from 19th Avenue to Van Ness Avenue) and in Castroville, portions of Route 156 and Route 183 are the original Route 1.
one other routing that was never part of the original Route 1: the section concurrent with the Route 135 freeway in Orcutt.
Quote from: mrsman on August 15, 2014, 01:29:35 AM
Even if the northern sections of CA-1 were not officially part of Alt US 101, the whole of CA-1 from Dana Point to Leggett acts as an Alt 101. (In pre-interstate era, US 101 extended along I-5 from LA to Mexico.)
To continue from my previous thought (and I see you basically said the same thing in your post so we're in agreement) -
The extended segment from San Luis Obispo to the Golden Gate Bridge, and from the Golden Gate Bridge north, really serves as an entirely separate coastline corridor from 101. On the other hand...the portion from Arroyo Grande to Las Cruces easily functions as an alternate (and would be even more such if a signed routing for 227 is ever developed between 1 and Arroyo Grande).
Quote from: mrsman on August 15, 2014, 01:29:35 AM
Ah, Sea Cliff. I know that it is now signed as CA-1, but when I was growing up in the 80's it wasn't. There is no need for this road to be a state highway, it's just a local frontage road, essentially for beach access. But it is useful as a way around a jam up on a holiday weekend. There are only small signs from the freeway that indicate that this is a routing for CA-1, there are no BGSes with CA-1 over here. I would get rid of the CA-1 signage here.
If anything, that section of Route 1/former US 101 would make a great short Alternate US 101.
Quote from: mrsman on August 15, 2014, 01:29:35 AM
I don't think it's necessary to mention go to Las Cruces to take CA-1 again. I believe that mentioning Ventura and Santa Barbara are well known to be right on the Coast and north of that point. The coastal tourist will want to go through those cities and probably has never heard of Las Cruces.
Have one very good sign along Rice and save the necessity of signing the many miles between Rice Ave and Las Cruces.
IMO that "one sign", if it were created, needs to list the exit number for the Las Cruces split to provide some perspective as to how far one needs to go down 101 north.
Drove up to Santa Barbara today via CA 1 out of Santa Monica. Unlike the last time I drove it last year, I didn't see a reference to exit at Pleasant Valley to stay on 1 North. But there was one at the top of the Pleasant Valley offramp to turn left. I didn't notice any reference to 1 on Rice. Southbound 1 is still signed to exit US 101 at Oxnard Blvd.
By the way, CA 192 was a nice, empty alternative to a jammed 101 between east Santa Barbara and CA 150.
I went through the area on US 101 both directions and found no current reference to State 1. It was rather annoying to see. I understand if the route was relinquished to remove it from the signage, but to remove signage even to get to the continuation is a bad move. Caltrans/Ventura County should upgrade Rice Ave to State standards and get on with it. Otherwise, there is no clear signed route to get to State 1 south of Oxnard. At least northbound you will find your way to US 101.
Does this mean that SR 232 will end at the 101 now? The NB 101 off ramp at Vineyard Avenue used to have SR 232 point in both directions, but as of last weekend, 232 only points towards Saticoy (though there is a lone 232 shield where Vineyard crosses the train tracks).
So I was driving on the 101 south from Santa Barbara and the CA 1 shield on the SB BGS at the 126 split has been scraped off. Apparently, the relinquishment of CA 1 in Oxnard is tantamount to the decommissioning of the route.
Quote from: JustDrive on October 24, 2014, 12:11:07 AM
So I was driving on the 101 south from Santa Barbara and the CA 1 shield on the SB BGS at the 126 split has been scraped off. Apparently, the relinquishment of CA 1 in Oxnard is tantamount to the decommissioning of the route.
Holy fucking stupid. Oxnard is required to maintain signs:
Quote(3) For portions of Route 1 relinquished under this subdivision, the City of Oxnard shall maintain within its jurisdiction signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 1.
but Caltrans can make it as discontinuous as it wants.
The only CA 1 shield still left up in Oxnard is at the five points intersection with Wooley and Saviers Roads. There is no signage directing motorists from the 101 to the 1 freeway.
Quote from: JustDrive on October 24, 2014, 12:11:07 AM
So I was driving on the 101 south from Santa Barbara and the CA 1 shield on the SB BGS at the 126 split has been scraped off. Apparently, the relinquishment of CA 1 in Oxnard is tantamount to the decommissioning of the route.
I noticed that. There's a more direct connection from 1 to 101 that bypasses the city to the east along Rice. I wondered if that may be the intended future of 1. NB exiting at Oxnard, there was no signage along 1 itself indicating the exit, but there were a handful of signs once I got off the exit.
Quote from: Alps on October 25, 2014, 01:15:39 AM
There's a more direct connection from 1 to 101 that bypasses the city to the east along Rice. I wondered if that may be the intended future of 1.
It indeed is - which makes me wonder why no signage upgrades have been made to make this more clear.
There was a dedication ceremony in August:
http://www.oxnardnews.org/page.aspx?id=885
Quote from: McConaughey on October 25, 2014, 01:38:15 PM
When will 252 be built? I need a faster route from Malibu to Montalvo.
257...likely isn't going to be constructed ever (thus the dotted black line).
Quote from: sdmichael on September 16, 2014, 01:19:23 AM
I went through the area on US 101 both directions and found no current reference to State 1. It was rather annoying to see.
I was coming southbound on US 101 a little over a week later, intending to take SR 1 from Port Hueneme to Santa Monica. I missed the turn in Oxnard because there was no sign for SR 1, so yes I agree it is annoying, although I got a look at Topanga Canyon Blvd. (SR 27) out of it.
Quote from: J N Winkler on October 25, 2014, 08:47:55 PM
Quote from: sdmichael on September 16, 2014, 01:19:23 AM
I went through the area on US 101 both directions and found no current reference to State 1. It was rather annoying to see.
I was coming southbound on US 101 a little over a week later, intending to take SR 1 from Port Hueneme to Santa Monica. I missed the turn in Oxnard because there was no sign for SR 1, so yes I agree it is annoying, although I got a look at Topanga Canyon Blvd. (SR 27) out of it.
I looked on Google Street View and US-101 exit 62B has a 1 shield in each direction. Has that changed?
Quote from: kendancy66 on October 26, 2014, 10:44:39 PMI looked on Google Street View and US-101 exit 62B has a 1 shield in each direction. Has that changed?
StreetView (dated July 2012) for gantry just upstream of Exit 62B on US 101 southbound (https://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&hq=&ll=34.242069,-119.18885&spn=0.009667,0.01929&t=m&z=16&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=34.2423,-119.189485&panoid=wuPNEhszHjccAfahpVGr8g&cbp=12,117.71,,0,10.48)
What I remember (I didn't video the trip, not having picked a suitable device or addressed the storage issues) is that the regulatory sign on left (advising of truck restrictions on SR 1 south of SR 23) was still present, but there was no SR 1 shield on the Oxnard Blvd. lane-drop advance guide sign, so I assumed the message pertained to an upcoming SR 1 exit. I was some distance beyond the Los Angeles county line before I realized that the exit I was waiting for did not in fact exist.
I did not know what street to look for since I was using a single-sheet state map (AAA 2003) for navigation, that being easier and safer to handle at speed than Google Maps on my phone. It shows a short freeway section of SR 1 curving to the coast south of US 101, so I was half-expecting a system interchange and was not prepared for SR 1 not to be signed.
Quote from: J N Winkler on October 26, 2014, 11:27:48 PM
It shows a short freeway section of SR 1 curving to the coast south of US 101, so I was half-expecting a system interchange and was not prepared for SR 1 not to be signed.
Even before the Rice Avenue project, the Route 1 freeway south of Oxnard was always separate from any other nearby freeways (though prior to about 2012, it continued more directly onto Oxnard Boulevard/soon to be former Route 1, as opposed to north onto Rice).
If I'm not mistaken, that was the only segment of the proposed Oxnard-Dana Point route of the Pacific Coast Freeway to ever be constructed.
I'm curious, has anyone here actually asked Caltrans? They are a public agency and do give out information. I put in a call to Caltrans asking about the signage problem. I'll see what happens when they call back.
Apparently the reroute onto Rice was discussed in a Ventura County Transportation Commission meeting in August 2014:
http://www.goventura.org/sites/default/files/TTAC%20Agenda%20Aug.%20%202014.pdf
I haven't been back on the road since summer 2014 so I don't have any updates as to whether 1 shields have started appearing on Rice.
Quote from: TheStranger on October 07, 2015, 02:20:30 PM
Apparently the reroute onto Rice was discussed in a Ventura County Transportation Commission meeting in August 2014:
http://www.goventura.org/sites/default/files/TTAC%20Agenda%20Aug.%20%202014.pdf
I haven't been back on the road since summer 2014 so I don't have any updates as to whether 1 shields have started appearing on Rice.
I was there over Memorial Day and no signs.
Quote from: sdmichael on September 16, 2014, 01:19:23 AM
I went through the area on US 101 both directions and found no current reference to State 1. It was rather annoying to see. I understand if the route was relinquished to remove it from the signage, but to remove signage even to get to the continuation is a bad move. Caltrans/Ventura County should upgrade Rice Ave to State standards and get on with it. Otherwise, there is no clear signed route to get to State 1 south of Oxnard. At least northbound you will find your way to US 101.
From Dan Faigin's site (http://www.cahighways.org/001-008.html (http://www.cahighways.org/001-008.html)) "For those relinquished former portions of Route 1, the Cities of Dana Point, Newport Beach, Santa Monica, and Oxnard shall maintain within their respective jurisdictions signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 1." For the better part of a year, there has been
no reference to route 1 in any of the signage on SB US-101 where route 1 used to exit onto Oxnard Blvd., or where the new Rice Ave. exit is, or anywhere along Oxnard Blvd., or anywhere along Rice Ave.
There are, however, a couple of these white signs that hint that people might be interested in getting to route 1 further south, and telling them how not to get there: https://goo.gl/maps/Xgf1En243Xx (https://goo.gl/maps/Xgf1En243Xx).
Quote from: pderocco on October 08, 2015, 12:55:12 AM
Quote from: sdmichael on September 16, 2014, 01:19:23 AM
I went through the area on US 101 both directions and found no current reference to State 1. It was rather annoying to see. I understand if the route was relinquished to remove it from the signage, but to remove signage even to get to the continuation is a bad move. Caltrans/Ventura County should upgrade Rice Ave to State standards and get on with it. Otherwise, there is no clear signed route to get to State 1 south of Oxnard. At least northbound you will find your way to US 101.
From Dan Faigin's site (http://www.cahighways.org/001-008.html (http://www.cahighways.org/001-008.html)) "For those relinquished former portions of Route 1, the Cities of Dana Point, Newport Beach, Santa Monica, and Oxnard shall maintain within their respective jurisdictions signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 1." For the better part of a year, there has been no reference to route 1 in any of the signage on SB US-101 where route 1 used to exit onto Oxnard Blvd., or where the new Rice Ave. exit is, or anywhere along Oxnard Blvd., or anywhere along Rice Ave.
There are, however, a couple of these white signs that hint that people might be interested in getting to route 1 further south, and telling them how not to get there: https://goo.gl/maps/Xgf1En243Xx (https://goo.gl/maps/Xgf1En243Xx).
This makes no sense at all. The signs should lead CA-1 along Oxnard Blvd until Rice Ave is ready
Quote from: mrsman on October 08, 2015, 11:26:04 PM
This makes no sense at all. The signs should lead CA-1 along Oxnard Blvd until Rice Ave is ready
Rice is as "ready" as Oxnard is. I've been preferring Rice for years now, because there are fewer lights on it, and in the evenings when I'm usually on my way back to L.A., there's almost no traffic on it. So even if it's not technical route 1 yet, it would make more sense to direct route 1 traffic along Rice.
What's the hold-up at this point? They've even rolled back CA 34 to end at Rice Ave.
Quote from: emory on October 10, 2015, 09:16:18 PM
What's the hold-up at this point? They've even rolled back CA 34 to end at Rice Ave.
Is the plan to make CA-34 a purely north-south route still going to happen? Seems at one point, it was going to continue southward onto Lewis Road -> Hueneme Road -> Las Posas Road -> CA-1.
I've been on Rice Avenue many times now and there are no CA-1 signs anywhere. In fact, the way signage currently is, CA-1 seems to simply end at the Pleasant Valley/Rice interchange entirely, then picks up via a relatively hidden concurrency with US-101 west of Ventura. Driving on Rice Avenue, it seems like construction is done, just a matter of getting the signage up. That also means CA-232 is supposed to be moved onto Santa Clara Avenue between CA-1/US-101 and CA-118.
Google Maps is now identifying Rice Avenue as CA 1.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FbCxDMrG.png&hash=dae13fcea3f8f3d0f6e49cf5e2c02ad3c64129c7)
The last time i was in Oxnard. The only place going north on US 101 that would indicate CA 1 was on sign on exit 62B Oxnard Blvd. It was greened out but you could tell there was CA route shield underneath it. Good luck finding it otherwise. The part that makes me upset is that this is covered up but Rice exit is not signed yet. Also that it is a new sign that has the route on there and they still chose to cover it before resigning it elsewhere. I can understand not signing a lesser class route. But this route is one of the main scenic routes in the whole state
Might have been asked, but what will happen with the former freeway alignment of CA-1 that transitioned into Oxnard Blvd? Last I checked, it still has numbered exits, which would be incorrect now as it's no longer part of the state highway system. I assume the freeway will be reclassified as an expressway, officially part of Oxnard Blvd?
Also, according to a 2003 planning map, the realignment of CA-1 along Rice Avenue was also supposed to coincide with the moving of CA-232 from Vineyard Avenue onto Santa Clara Avenue, as that would create a seamless connection between CA-1/US-101 and CA-118. And finally, the same planning map also showed CA-34 being changed to a north-south route, as it would no longer follow Fifth Avenue, but farther south on Lewis Road down to Las Posas Road.
Quote from: Quillz on January 04, 2016, 10:32:44 PM
Might have been asked, but what will happen with the former freeway alignment of CA-1 that transitioned into Oxnard Blvd? Last I checked, it still has numbered exits, which would be incorrect now as it's no longer part of the state highway system. I assume the freeway will be reclassified as an expressway, officially part of Oxnard Blvd?
Was that section of CA-1 decommissioned? I thought it was just the portion of Oxnard Blvd. north of Rice Ave.
I drove through the area. A few observations:
- The "CA 1 North" was greened out on NB PCH at Pleasant Valley Road (though not at the offramp itself)
- There is a standalone TO US 101 shield on NB 1 where it transitions onto Rice Avenue
- The END CA 34 sign is still up on WB 5th approaching Oxnard Blvd
No real indication as to whether CA 1 shields will be put up on Rice anytime soon.
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on January 07, 2016, 03:42:38 PM
Quote from: Quillz on January 04, 2016, 10:32:44 PM
Might have been asked, but what will happen with the former freeway alignment of CA-1 that transitioned into Oxnard Blvd? Last I checked, it still has numbered exits, which would be incorrect now as it's no longer part of the state highway system. I assume the freeway will be reclassified as an expressway, officially part of Oxnard Blvd?
Was that section of CA-1 decommissioned? I thought it was just the portion of Oxnard Blvd. north of Rice Ave.
My understanding is Rice Avenue is now carrying CA-1 from where the freeway alignment ends, north to US-101. This leaves a "stub" freeway that seamlessly turns into Oxnard Boulevard, and still has exit numbers as far as I know. My assumption is that this freeway will simply be known as Oxnard Boulevard and be locally maintained, although this require a slight recalculation of the mile markers, which would have to be moved to Rice Avenue.
On a related note, is there any updates on moving CA-232 onto Santa Clara Avenue so it now meets CA-1 and CA-118 a bit more to the east? And there is also plans to move CA-34 onto a southern alignment (likely Las Posas Road) to give access to Pt. Mugu.
Quote from: sdmichael on October 27, 2014, 03:17:38 PM
I'm curious, has anyone here actually asked Caltrans? They are a public agency and do give out information. I put in a call to Caltrans asking about the signage problem. I'll see what happens when they call back.
I just drove through there today and it is sad that folks are missing the Rice Ave turnoff to continue south on Hwy 1. It's like Hwy 1 just disappears after 300 miles of good signage.
NB is not as bad but still confusing.
Caltrans has done the first step in removing the shields at the Oxnard Blvd interchange. Now they need the shields at the Rice Ave interchange. There are large new signs here that should be accommodating. There should also be dual signage in both directions between Rice Ave and the State Beaches exit. Finally there should be reassurance shields along Rice.
I will put in an email to my D7 contact next week to see what the hold up is, if any.
Quote from: AndyMax25 on August 05, 2016, 11:51:56 PM
Quote from: sdmichael on October 27, 2014, 03:17:38 PM
I'm curious, has anyone here actually asked Caltrans? They are a public agency and do give out information. I put in a call to Caltrans asking about the signage problem. I'll see what happens when they call back.
I just drove through there today and it is sad that folks are missing the Rice Ave turnoff to continue south on Hwy 1. It's like Hwy 1 just disappears after 300 miles of good signage.
NB is not as bad but still confusing.
Caltrans has done the first step in removing the shields at the Oxnard Blvd interchange. Now they need the shields at the Rice Ave interchange. There are large new signs here that should be accommodating. There should also be dual signage in both directions between Rice Ave and the State Beaches exit. Finally there should be reassurance shields along Rice.
I will put in an email to my D7 contact next week to see what the hold up is, if any.
I think I mentioned last time I was out there, what is now the freeway segment of Oxnard Boulevard (and thus no longer part of the state highway network) still has CA-1 exit numbers. While Rice Avenue has no mile markers at all.
Quote from: AndyMax25 on August 05, 2016, 11:51:56 PM
I just drove through there today and it is sad that folks are missing the Rice Ave turnoff to continue south on Hwy 1. It's like Hwy 1 just disappears after 300 miles of good signage.
I blame the Malibu people who don't want drives cutting around the 101.
"STAY OUT OF MALIBU, LEBOWSKI!"
Quote from: coatimundi on August 06, 2016, 12:28:08 AM
Quote from: AndyMax25 on August 05, 2016, 11:51:56 PM
I just drove through there today and it is sad that folks are missing the Rice Ave turnoff to continue south on Hwy 1. It's like Hwy 1 just disappears after 300 miles of good signage.
I blame the Malibu people who don't want drives cutting around the 101.
"STAY OUT OF MALIBU, LEBOWSKI!"
I find that's actually the quickest way to get to LAX from the valley these days. CA-27 to CA-1 to LAX.
A couple of years ago, I got into LAX from Asia and the rental car took so long to get that I finally got on the road at rush hour. I was shocked to see basically no traffic on the 405, but didn't want to press my luck, so I got off on 90 and took 1 the rest of the way up to Oxnard. If anything, it's a much more pleasant drive, especially around sunset. It's hard not to just stop and admire some of the scenery.
Back about 30 years ago I was driving a friend's older Dodge van from San Jose to the City of Industry to pick up some merchandise. Decided to use 101 south, since the vehicle didn't like steep grades. But at the last moment I remembered that the Conejo grade south (east) on 101 had about a 8-9% upgrade for about 2 miles, so I actually got off on Rice Ave. and headed south to CA 1/PCH, taking that SE through Malibu to I-10 and thence to CA 60 for the remainder of the trip. CA 1/PCH is about the only way to get from Northern California to the L.A. area if you need to avoid heavy and/or sustained gradients (OK, I suppose you can use CA 126 to I-5 then south and avoid most grades -- but the scenery's a lot nicer and you avoid the 5/14/210/405 mess).
Return trip (van loaded with about a half-ton of speaker cabinets and drivers): 101 north to 1 at SLO, 1 north to 41 at Morro Bay, and 41 east back to 101 at Atascadero (avoiding the Cuesta grade north of SLO!). Worked like a charm!
Hi Everyone,
I just came through this area yesterday and was thoroughly frustrated that nothing has changed. So I have put together the attached draft recommendations to submit to Caltrans D7 staff. Please send me your comments/suggestions before the end of the week and then I'll send it off to my contacts there the following week.
Myosh, if you have some time, it would be great to have some mocked up signs to include in the document. At least for the new roadside one on page 3.
Thank you all in advance for your input.
https://smgov365-my.sharepoint.com/:b:/g/personal/andrew_maximous_smgov_net/EY5JcnrJC3lAibS_QjJu15kB8rR8i7ji2GoTEEaCHrVOPw?e=bMu7VY (https://smgov365-my.sharepoint.com/:b:/g/personal/andrew_maximous_smgov_net/EY5JcnrJC3lAibS_QjJu15kB8rR8i7ji2GoTEEaCHrVOPw?e=bMu7VY)
^^^^^^^
It'll be interesting to see how your suggestion is received at D7. If for some reason you fail to receive a satisfactory reply within 3 weeks to a month, it might be appropriate to submit a copy to Caltrans HQ in Sacramento. At this point, any action certainly couldn't hurt!
Quote from: AndyMax25 on September 04, 2018, 12:29:49 AM
Hi Everyone,
I just came through this area yesterday and was thoroughly frustrated that nothing has changed. So I have put together the attached draft recommendations to submit to Caltrans D7 staff. Please send me your comments/suggestions before the end of the week and then I'll send it off to my contacts there the following week.
Myosh, if you have some time, it would be great to have some mocked up signs to include in the document. At least for the new roadside one on page 3.
Thank you all in advance for your input.
https://smgov365-my.sharepoint.com/:b:/g/personal/andrew_maximous_smgov_net/EY5JcnrJC3lAibS_QjJu15kB8rR8i7ji2GoTEEaCHrVOPw?e=bMu7VY (https://smgov365-my.sharepoint.com/:b:/g/personal/andrew_maximous_smgov_net/EY5JcnrJC3lAibS_QjJu15kB8rR8i7ji2GoTEEaCHrVOPw?e=bMu7VY)
I think it's a great idea ... thanks Andy for preparing the document and showing how the signage could (should?) be posted to demonstrate route continuity for SR 1.
Quote from: AndyMax25 on September 04, 2018, 12:29:49 AM
Hi Everyone,
I just came through this area yesterday and was thoroughly frustrated that nothing has changed. So I have put together the attached draft recommendations to submit to Caltrans D7 staff. Please send me your comments/suggestions before the end of the week and then I'll send it off to my contacts there the following week.
Myosh, if you have some time, it would be great to have some mocked up signs to include in the document. At least for the new roadside one on page 3.
Thank you all in advance for your input.
https://smgov365-my.sharepoint.com/:b:/g/personal/andrew_maximous_smgov_net/EY5JcnrJC3lAibS_QjJu15kB8rR8i7ji2GoTEEaCHrVOPw?e=bMu7VY (https://smgov365-my.sharepoint.com/:b:/g/personal/andrew_maximous_smgov_net/EY5JcnrJC3lAibS_QjJu15kB8rR8i7ji2GoTEEaCHrVOPw?e=bMu7VY)
I'm not sure how I missed this but I'm game for doing some mockups (if you still want them).
Sure that would be great. I already submitted it to them but have not heard back.
Quote from: AndyMax25 on October 18, 2018, 04:15:34 PM
Sure that would be great. I already submitted it to them but have not heard back.
Just wondering if the District 7 folks ever responded. Kinda amazing that the realignment has been in place for about 5 years now yet signage has been sporadic at best for the majority of that time!
^^^^^^^^
Went through there on SB 101 on 12/30/18; not a hint of CA 1 signage. Wonder if D7's lack of response is due to simple embarassment or just plain apathy. Question: has anyone seen any evidence (the usual county milepost paddles or bridge inventory markings) that Caltrans has actually assumed maintenance of Rice Avenue between PCH and US 101? :confused:
Legislatively Route 1 in Oxnard stops at Pleasant Valley Road (and resumes north of Ventura). I don't expect D7 to adopt Rice Ave. until the RR grade separation at Rice Ave. and Fifth St. is completed.
Quote from: richardwm15 on January 16, 2019, 11:04:05 PM
Legislatively Route 1 in Oxnard stops at Pleasant Valley Road (and resumes north of Ventura). I don't expect D7 to adopt Rice Ave. until the RR grade separation at Rice Ave. and Fifth St. is completed.
How far along is the construction of that separation -- and is there an estimated time frame for completion?
Quote from: sparker on January 17, 2019, 12:55:34 AM
Quote from: richardwm15 on January 16, 2019, 11:04:05 PM
Legislatively Route 1 in Oxnard stops at Pleasant Valley Road (and resumes north of Ventura). I don't expect D7 to adopt Rice Ave. until the RR grade separation at Rice Ave. and Fifth St. is completed.
How far along is the construction of that separation -- and is there an estimated time frame for completion?
To also tie into this:
Reading Dan Faigin's Cahighways page, the definition of the Dana Point-Oxnard segment is as follows:
"(a) Route 5 south of San Juan Capistrano to Route 101 near El Rio except for the portion of Route 1 relinquished:
(1) Within the city limits of the City of Dana Point between the western edge of the San Juan Creek Bridge and Eastline Road at the city limits of the City of Laguna Beach.
(2) Within the city limits of the City of Newport Beach between Jamboree Road and Newport Coast Drive.
(3) Within the city limits of the City of Santa Monica between the southern city limits and Route 10.
(4) Within the city limits of the City of Oxnard between Pleasant Valley Road and Route 101."
Rice Avenue for the most part is not in the Oxnard city limits, so I always interpreted #4 to refer to the original Oxnard Boulevard layout as opposed to the Rice realignment - and the fact the definition still includes US 101 as the north terminus of the segment also fits with this.
Quote from: TheStranger on January 15, 2019, 02:29:42 AM
Quote from: AndyMax25 on October 18, 2018, 04:15:34 PM
Sure that would be great. I already submitted it to them but have not heard back.
Just wondering if the District 7 folks ever responded. Kinda amazing that the realignment has been in place for about 5 years now yet signage has been sporadic at best for the majority of that time!
Funny, I sent them a follow up email just before you sent this. I still have not heard back. I'll try to send it to a different division as well.
Quote from: sparker on January 17, 2019, 12:55:34 AM
Quote from: richardwm15 on January 16, 2019, 11:04:05 PM
Legislatively Route 1 in Oxnard stops at Pleasant Valley Road (and resumes north of Ventura). I don’t expect D7 to adopt Rice Ave. until the RR grade separation at Rice Ave. and Fifth St. is completed.
How far along is the construction of that separation -- and is there an estimated time frame for completion?
Design of the separation hasn't started yet. According to the signed baseline agreement (http://www.catc.ca.gov/programs/sb1/reforms/docs/05_Signed_Baseline_Agreement-TCEP-RiceAvenueandFifthStreetGradeSeparation.pdf) construction will be complete in December 2023.
Quote from: TheStranger on January 17, 2019, 03:13:39 AM
Quote from: sparker on January 17, 2019, 12:55:34 AM
Quote from: richardwm15 on January 16, 2019, 11:04:05 PM
Legislatively Route 1 in Oxnard stops at Pleasant Valley Road (and resumes north of Ventura). I don't expect D7 to adopt Rice Ave. until the RR grade separation at Rice Ave. and Fifth St. is completed.
How far along is the construction of that separation -- and is there an estimated time frame for completion?
To also tie into this:
Reading Dan Faigin's Cahighways page, the definition of the Dana Point-Oxnard segment is as follows:
"(a) Route 5 south of San Juan Capistrano to Route 101 near El Rio except for the portion of Route 1 relinquished:
(1) Within the city limits of the City of Dana Point between the western edge of the San Juan Creek Bridge and Eastline Road at the city limits of the City of Laguna Beach.
(2) Within the city limits of the City of Newport Beach between Jamboree Road and Newport Coast Drive.
(3) Within the city limits of the City of Santa Monica between the southern city limits and Route 10.
(4) Within the city limits of the City of Oxnard between Pleasant Valley Road and Route 101."
Rice Avenue for the most part is not in the Oxnard city limits, so I always interpreted #4 to refer to the original Oxnard Boulevard layout as opposed to the Rice realignment - and the fact the definition still includes US 101 as the north terminus of the segment also fits with this.
The Caltrans system map and the Bridgelog still show Oxnard Blvd as Route 1. I wonder when they will get updated.
Quote from: TheStranger on January 17, 2019, 03:13:39 AM
Quote from: sparker on January 17, 2019, 12:55:34 AM
Quote from: richardwm15 on January 16, 2019, 11:04:05 PM
Legislatively Route 1 in Oxnard stops at Pleasant Valley Road (and resumes north of Ventura). I don't expect D7 to adopt Rice Ave. until the RR grade separation at Rice Ave. and Fifth St. is completed.
How far along is the construction of that separation -- and is there an estimated time frame for completion?
To also tie into this:
Reading Dan Faigin's Cahighways page, the definition of the Dana Point-Oxnard segment is as follows:
"(a) Route 5 south of San Juan Capistrano to Route 101 near El Rio except for the portion of Route 1 relinquished:
(1) Within the city limits of the City of Dana Point between the western edge of the San Juan Creek Bridge and Eastline Road at the city limits of the City of Laguna Beach.
(2) Within the city limits of the City of Newport Beach between Jamboree Road and Newport Coast Drive.
(3) Within the city limits of the City of Santa Monica between the southern city limits and Route 10.
(4) Within the city limits of the City of Oxnard between Pleasant Valley Road and Route 101."
Rice Avenue for the most part is not in the Oxnard city limits, so I always interpreted #4 to refer to the original Oxnard Boulevard layout as opposed to the Rice realignment - and the fact the definition still includes US 101 as the north terminus of the segment also fits with this.
Actually I think Rice Ave. is in Oxnard's city limits...I read the SB1 project details, and it said that it had to conform to certain city guidelines at the Rice Ave/CA-34 intersection. However, they shouldn't relinquish it IMO...already there are certain sections of the street that desperately need new paving, and Oxnard has neglected the street for years.
Just throwing this out there: Now that SB1 has passed, I wonder how much a full freeway would cost to connect the current CA-1 freeway portion and US-101 along Rice Ave...
Quote from: RZF on January 17, 2019, 09:02:52 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on January 17, 2019, 03:13:39 AM
Quote from: sparker on January 17, 2019, 12:55:34 AM
Quote from: richardwm15 on January 16, 2019, 11:04:05 PM
Legislatively Route 1 in Oxnard stops at Pleasant Valley Road (and resumes north of Ventura). I don't expect D7 to adopt Rice Ave. until the RR grade separation at Rice Ave. and Fifth St. is completed.
How far along is the construction of that separation -- and is there an estimated time frame for completion?
To also tie into this:
Reading Dan Faigin's Cahighways page, the definition of the Dana Point-Oxnard segment is as follows:
"(a) Route 5 south of San Juan Capistrano to Route 101 near El Rio except for the portion of Route 1 relinquished:
(1) Within the city limits of the City of Dana Point between the western edge of the San Juan Creek Bridge and Eastline Road at the city limits of the City of Laguna Beach.
(2) Within the city limits of the City of Newport Beach between Jamboree Road and Newport Coast Drive.
(3) Within the city limits of the City of Santa Monica between the southern city limits and Route 10.
(4) Within the city limits of the City of Oxnard between Pleasant Valley Road and Route 101."
Rice Avenue for the most part is not in the Oxnard city limits, so I always interpreted #4 to refer to the original Oxnard Boulevard layout as opposed to the Rice realignment - and the fact the definition still includes US 101 as the north terminus of the segment also fits with this.
Actually I think Rice Ave. is in Oxnard's city limits...I read the SB1 project details, and it said that it had to conform to certain city guidelines at the Rice Ave/CA-34 intersection. However, they shouldn't relinquish it IMO...already there are certain sections of the street that desperately need new paving, and Oxnard has neglected the street for years.
Just throwing this out there: Now that SB1 has passed, I wonder how much a full freeway would cost to connect the current CA-1 freeway portion and US-101 along Rice Ave...
The portion of Rice between US 101 and Route 34/5th Street has been pretty developed since about 2005, according to photos from Historic Aerials. (The 1994 overhead photo shows a lot less buildings in that area compared to the last 14-15 years) The segment between Latigo Avenue and Sturgis Road in particular would require at least one building to be demolished (Velocity Truck Center Ventura County) and several parking lots to be removed as well.
South of Route 34, Rice is not in Oxnard city limits at all and is surrounded by farmland, as an undivided 4 lane road leading up to the Pleasant Valley interchange.
^^^^^^^^
At this point, it's unlikely that a completely new freeway between the existing CA 1 facility and US 101 would be added to the list of projects funded through SB1; the measure was touted as "fixing" the highway system (which can be interpreted to include expansions already programmed). Adding previously unaddressed segments by proposing freeways might well raise objections from activist segments in greater L.A. -- and Ventura County is part of Caltrans' D7, based in L.A. County, which is attuned to such things. Possibly after the I-5 upgrade from Orange County north is completed, other needs such as this may be addressed. But for now it is more likely that any activity pertaining to the Rice Avenue alignment would be classified as modifications or "tweaking" of the existing facility to make it more amenable to large amounts of through traffic, including that grade separation with the Metrolink track paralleling CA 34. D7 -- and Caltrans in general these days -- treads lightly when it comes to freeway-building or enhancement activities in or near metro areas lest certain parties publicly get their hackles up.
Quote from: sparker on January 15, 2019, 03:00:52 AM
^^^^^^^^
Went through there on SB 101 on 12/30/18; not a hint of CA 1 signage. Wonder if D7's lack of response is due to simple embarassment or just plain apathy. Question: has anyone seen any evidence (the usual county milepost paddles or bridge inventory markings) that Caltrans has actually assumed maintenance of Rice Avenue between PCH and US 101? :confused:
Nothing on Rice Ave itself, but there is a brand-new lone CA 1 shield at NB Oxnard Blvd just north of Wooley Road. Very odd.
Quote from: JustDrive on January 22, 2019, 11:33:39 PM
Quote from: sparker on January 15, 2019, 03:00:52 AM
^^^^^^^^
Went through there on SB 101 on 12/30/18; not a hint of CA 1 signage. Wonder if D7's lack of response is due to simple embarassment or just plain apathy. Question: has anyone seen any evidence (the usual county milepost paddles or bridge inventory markings) that Caltrans has actually assumed maintenance of Rice Avenue between PCH and US 101? :confused:
Nothing on Rice Ave itself, but there is a brand-new lone CA 1 shield at NB Oxnard Blvd just north of Wooley Road. Very odd.
Someone down there should check the back side of the shield for a Caltrans inventory sticker; if there isn't one, the sign was likely placed there by either Oxnard or Ventura County. This happened in San Jose on The Alameda, former CA 82; back in 2013 a brand-new CA 82 sign (on a 3-di shield, no less!) was erected just west of the UP underpass without a directional shield (unusual for D4); it stayed up until early 2016 before it was removed (it was the only CA 82 shield left on the old highway, relinquished several years back south of I-880, except the "END" shield at the Blossom Hill Rd. interchange with US 101). It appears that cities occasionally elect to sporadically follow the "continuation signage" codicils by erecting random signage on the old alignments -- but never enough to actually enhance the continuation of a defunct route.
Quote from: sparker on January 23, 2019, 12:29:12 AM
It appears that cities occasionally elect to sporadically follow the "continuation signage" codicils by erecting random signage on the old alignments -- but never enough to actually enhance the continuation of a defunct route.
I recall a surprising amount of Route 91 shields on Artesia Boulevard west of the Harbor Freeway back in 2013 or so! I would even say that the signage level at the time was much better than say the entireties of Route 221 and 262, or that western section of Route 18 between Route 138 and I-15. (And of course, the aforementioned surface street portion of Route 91 is still acknowledged on exit signage from I-405)
^^^^^^^^^
Knowing the cities of Gardena, Lawndale, and Redondo Beach (through which Artesia Blvd. passes on the way to the coast), they more than likely never bothered to take down the CA 91 shields (and D7 probably didn't really want them back!). IIRC, the last time I was down there some CA 107 shields were still posted on Hawthorne Blvd. north of I-405; that has been a relinquished facility since about 1982! If they're mounted high on signal masts, they'll probably stay there until they fall off on their own!
Drove down the Ventura Freeway tonight and still no acknowledgement whatsoever of Route 1 at the Rice Avenue exit.
But the notable part to me is that the Oxnard Boulevard exit from US 101 has Route 1 shields greened out, YET...still has a Route 1 white-background truck restriction sign adjacent to it! Actually stands out a bit when one considers that the Route 1 references essentially point to (almost) nothing at the moment:
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.2411264,-119.1863973,3a,15y,111.13h,93.47t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1scOAiAbKOV556NaLCAeQ8uw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
IMO, Caltrans (and D7 for that matter) need to get going on this faster. The lack of signage not only affects southbound traffic on US-101, but it especially affects northbound traffic on SR-1. PCH is well-traveled arterial to get into LA from southern Ventura County instead of the 101. When people are coming into the Oxnard area, they must be confused as to where the SR-1 signage vanished. That's what it basically does. Once the freeway portion ends at Pleasant Valley Rd, there is no more signage at all, not even once you hit the 101.
Southbound traffic from US-101 also needs easier signage for those who need to get to Malibu/Pacific Palisades/Santa Monica as well.
Quote from: RZF on February 07, 2019, 06:36:43 PM
IMO, Caltrans (and D7 for that matter) need to get going on this faster. The lack of signage not only affects southbound traffic on US-101, but it especially affects northbound traffic on SR-1. PCH is well-traveled arterial to get into LA from southern Ventura County instead of the 101. When people are coming into the Oxnard area, they must be confused as to where the SR-1 signage vanished. That's what it basically does. Once the freeway portion ends at Pleasant Valley Rd, there is no more signage at all, not even once you hit the 101.
Southbound traffic from US-101 also needs easier signage for those who need to get to Malibu/Pacific Palisades/Santa Monica as well.
No one cares about proper signage but us road geeks; your average traveler is just using Waze or something similar.
Quote from: sparker on January 23, 2019, 06:15:31 PM
If they're mounted high on signal masts, they'll probably stay there until they fall off on their own!
So true; there are still Business CA 30 and Business CA 18 shields scattered around parts of San Bernardino.
Quote from: djsekani on February 07, 2019, 10:08:43 PM
Quote from: RZF on February 07, 2019, 06:36:43 PM
IMO, Caltrans (and D7 for that matter) need to get going on this faster. The lack of signage not only affects southbound traffic on US-101, but it especially affects northbound traffic on SR-1. PCH is well-traveled arterial to get into LA from southern Ventura County instead of the 101. When people are coming into the Oxnard area, they must be confused as to where the SR-1 signage vanished. That's what it basically does. Once the freeway portion ends at Pleasant Valley Rd, there is no more signage at all, not even once you hit the 101.
Southbound traffic from US-101 also needs easier signage for those who need to get to Malibu/Pacific Palisades/Santa Monica as well.
No one cares about proper signage but us road geeks; your average traveler is just using Waze or something similar.
To be fair, doesn't Waze use route numbers? In which case, while it can point to either "US 101 to Oxnard Blvd to Route 1" or "US 101 Rice Ave to Route 1", there is still some value in simplifying the directions to "US 101 to Route 1".
Quote from: TheStranger on February 08, 2019, 10:21:53 AM
Quote from: djsekani on February 07, 2019, 10:08:43 PM
Quote from: RZF on February 07, 2019, 06:36:43 PM
IMO, Caltrans (and D7 for that matter) need to get going on this faster. The lack of signage not only affects southbound traffic on US-101, but it especially affects northbound traffic on SR-1. PCH is well-traveled arterial to get into LA from southern Ventura County instead of the 101. When people are coming into the Oxnard area, they must be confused as to where the SR-1 signage vanished. That's what it basically does. Once the freeway portion ends at Pleasant Valley Rd, there is no more signage at all, not even once you hit the 101.
Southbound traffic from US-101 also needs easier signage for those who need to get to Malibu/Pacific Palisades/Santa Monica as well.
No one cares about proper signage but us road geeks; your average traveler is just using Waze or something similar.
To be fair, doesn't Waze use route numbers? In which case, while it can point to either "US 101 to Oxnard Blvd to Route 1" or "US 101 Rice Ave to Route 1", there is still some value in simplifying the directions to "US 101 to Route 1".
The navigation offered by Google Maps tells me to take US 101 north to Route 1 -- but they mean Oxnard Blvd, not Rice Ave. :-/
Quote from: TheStranger on February 08, 2019, 10:21:53 AM
Quote from: djsekani on February 07, 2019, 10:08:43 PM
Quote from: RZF on February 07, 2019, 06:36:43 PM
IMO, Caltrans (and D7 for that matter) need to get going on this faster. The lack of signage not only affects southbound traffic on US-101, but it especially affects northbound traffic on SR-1. PCH is well-traveled arterial to get into LA from southern Ventura County instead of the 101. When people are coming into the Oxnard area, they must be confused as to where the SR-1 signage vanished. That's what it basically does. Once the freeway portion ends at Pleasant Valley Rd, there is no more signage at all, not even once you hit the 101.
Southbound traffic from US-101 also needs easier signage for those who need to get to Malibu/Pacific Palisades/Santa Monica as well.
No one cares about proper signage but us road geeks; your average traveler is just using Waze or something similar.
To be fair, doesn't Waze use route numbers? In which case, while it can point to either "US 101 to Oxnard Blvd to Route 1" or "US 101 Rice Ave to Route 1", there is still some value in simplifying the directions to "US 101 to Route 1".
Waze uses whatever its editors add in. Sometimes that involves route numbers, sometimes it doesn't. I think it's based more on the nomenclature the locals are using as opposed to what's on Caltrans' books.
Google Maps uses route numbers far more often, so there can be issues, but I haven't run into a situation yet where it caused a legitimate navigation problem.
As a counterpoint to how Rice/Route 1 is signed in Oxnard:
I drove up all of 101 between Ventura and San Jose today and made a quick stop in San Luis Obispo at one point...where many of the local little green signs pointing back to the freeway DO completely acknowledge the 1 and 101 currency in town.
So I finally got a reply from D7 about this. Of all the 13 items identified on the original memo (https://tinyurl.com/theueth (https://tinyurl.com/theueth)), they said that only 4 overlays can be done at this time. See install order here: https://tinyurl.com/wd46hb3 (https://tinyurl.com/wd46hb3). They felt that the other items would require more substantial changes, such as full sign replacement, larger truss, or excavation required for a new roadside sign. At least it's something.
As a part 2, I'll be putting together similar recommendations for the Rice/Oxnard/Pleasant Valley interchange which I believe has similar deficiencies. Please send me any comments you may have on this location.
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.1640937,-119.1454786,15.58z (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.1640937,-119.1454786,15.58z)
Thanks everyone.
Quote from: AndyMax25 on November 13, 2019, 01:45:57 PM
As a part 2, I'll be putting together similar recommendations for the Rice/Oxnard/Pleasant Valley interchange which I believe has similar deficiencies. Please send me any comments you may have on this location.
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.1640937,-119.1454786,15.58z (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.1640937,-119.1454786,15.58z)
Thanks everyone.
Going from the northbound side, even a simple trailblazer-and-arrow setup at the split (with the arrow pointing towards the carriageway leading into Rice) would be a vast improvement over what currently exists.
The exit distance sign about a half mile south of the Pleasant Valley exit seems to still be pointing towards the Channel Islands Boulevard exit off former Route 1, and not the current Rice/Channel Islands intersection. IMO that should be replaced outright with a "Route 1 to US 101 - Rice Avenue - Left 2 lanes" sign.
I was under the impression that Caltrans wouldn't assume maintenance of Rice Avenue until improvements are made like the CA 34 rail overpass?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 13, 2019, 10:41:17 PM
I was under the impression that Caltrans wouldn't assume maintenance of Rice Avenue until improvements are made like the CA 34 rail overpass?
So exactly what agency will be fiscally responsible for the construction of said overpass as well as any other improvements to Rice Avenue necessary for state acquisition? For Ventura County it may be a matter of six of one/half-dozen of the other -- they'll be able to shift road maintenance away from themselves -- but at the cost of a steep one-time construction expense (bridges ain't cheap!) -- but much of which will be funded through Caltrans in any case (just look at the contents of the last several STIPs). It's probably more of a matter of prioritization than anything else -- and AFAIK aside from the usual maintenance and spot improvements, that area has nothing particularly big on the horizon (the Rincon upgrade of US 101 was the last "major" project -- if one doesn't count the various manifestations of Caltrans' current roundabout madness!). But this being CA, there's almost always some sticking point lurking somewhere that prevents projects from being expedited; and D7 has other fish to fry -- the CA 71 Pomona upgrade, the Gerald Desmond bridge replacement, etc. I suppose someone in the district office figures that since NB CA 1 traffic already segues right onto Rice, everything else can proceed in a leisurely fashion. Personally, I think the least they can do is erect appropriate signage on SB 101 approaching the Rice interchange and place "TO CA 1" trailblazer signage along SB and, similarly, "TO US 101" NB. At least that would be a step in the correct direction.
I agree with sparker. The least that caltrans or Ventura county could do is put up appropriate signage guiding travelers northbound to 101 and southbound to 1 along rice avenue. Such signage doesn't in any way imply maintenance responsibilities but would simply guide people to their proper destination. You don't even have to be standard trail blazers. All around the city of Los Angeles there are guide signs guiding people towards freeways but in no way would anyone assume that those roads are themselves under State maintenance. One example that comes to mind are guide signs along la Brea avenue directing people on to either sunset Hollywood or Franklin to get to the 101 freeway. Similarly there are plenty a guide signs along Ventura boulevard guiding people to the 101 freeway. Signs like those would not be confused with with a state maintenance responsibility.
Nexus 5X
Looks like CA 34 no longer reaches Oxnard Blvd. There's an END 34 sign on 5th Street just west of Rice Avenue, well within the city limits. I'm assuming the future connector between 5th and Rice will be in the southwest quadrant?
Quote from: JustDrive on February 19, 2020, 10:36:21 PM
Looks like CA 34 no longer reaches Oxnard Blvd. There's an END 34 sign on 5th Street just west of Rice Avenue, well within the city limits. I'm assuming the future connector between 5th and Rice will be in the southwest quadrant?
34 apparently is relinquished all the way back to Rice but Oxnard has continued to sign it or maintains the signs anyways.
D7 should look into putting up signs directing traffic into Oxnard off Rice Ave too. For example, going NB on Rice Ave (CA 1), there should be a "Channel Islands Harbor/Beaches NEXT LEFT" at the Channel Islands Blvd. intersection or a "Downtown Oxnard NEXT LEFT" at the 5th St./CA 34 intersection.
Quote from: RZF on February 21, 2020, 02:47:20 PM
D7 should look into putting up signs directing traffic into Oxnard off Rice Ave too. For example, going NB on Rice Ave (CA 1), there should be a "Channel Islands Harbor/Beaches NEXT LEFT" at the Channel Islands Blvd. intersection or a "Downtown Oxnard NEXT LEFT" at the 5th St./CA 34 intersection.
D7 (or any Caltrans district for that matter) wouldn't have say in signage until they take formal possession of the road in question; AFAIK they still haven't adopted Rice Ave. into the state system north of the interchange with the remaining portion of actual CA 1 (PCH). Either the cities of Oxnard or Camarillo or, alternately, Ventura County in any unincorporated zones, would be responsible for such signage. That being said, the appropriate jurisdiction(s)
can request that D7's sign shop fabricate signage, but the locals would have to pay for the signs and their crews would need to install them. With most CA counties perennially scrambling to find funds for their normal operations, this would likely be well down the priority list. Signage such as suggested above will in all likelihood have to wait until such time as Rice Ave. is formally commissioned as a state facility.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 19, 2020, 10:43:44 PM
Quote from: JustDrive on February 19, 2020, 10:36:21 PM
Looks like CA 34 no longer reaches Oxnard Blvd. There's an END 34 sign on 5th Street just west of Rice Avenue, well within the city limits. I'm assuming the future connector between 5th and Rice will be in the southwest quadrant?
34 apparently is relinquished all the way back to Rice but Oxnard has continued to sign it or maintains the signs anyways.
Well, there used to be a trailblazer or two along the relinquished portion, along with an END sign at Oxnard Blvd (old CA 1),
but those have been removed and the new END sign installed just past Rice.
There are also CA 34 shields on Rice (both NB and SB) with an arrow pointing east.
I don't know why the new END is placed where it is; it might fit with leaving room for a ramp to/from Rice SB.
I just wish Oxnard would repave that section of 5th, especially between Rose and Rice. It has been accumulating a number of potholes, especially in the eastbound lane.
Quote from: GaryA on February 23, 2020, 11:23:53 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 19, 2020, 10:43:44 PM
Quote from: JustDrive on February 19, 2020, 10:36:21 PM
Looks like CA 34 no longer reaches Oxnard Blvd. There's an END 34 sign on 5th Street just west of Rice Avenue, well within the city limits. I'm assuming the future connector between 5th and Rice will be in the southwest quadrant?
34 apparently is relinquished all the way back to Rice but Oxnard has continued to sign it or maintains the signs anyways.
Well, there used to be a trailblazer or two along the relinquished portion, along with an END sign at Oxnard Blvd (old CA 1),
but those have been removed and the new END sign installed just past Rice.
There are also CA 34 shields on Rice (both NB and SB) with an arrow pointing east.
I don't know why the new END is placed where it is; it might fit with leaving room for a ramp to/from Rice SB.
I just wish Oxnard would repave that section of 5th, especially between Rose and Rice. It has been accumulating a number of potholes, especially in the eastbound lane.
This indicates that D7 has done everything except formally adopt Rice as the CA 1 alignment. The supposition that the WB end shield on CA 34 is where it is to accommodate a ramp from an overpass is probably spot on; apparently the principal obstacle to adoption is the grade crossing of the Metrolink track adjoining CA 34/5th Street, which hosts Metrolink, Amtrak, and the occasional UP freight -- in other words, quite a few trains in a 24-hour cycle. That in itself would pose a regularized backup problem at the site if Rice traffic were to increase as a result of CA 1 signage; hence the likelihood of a bridge over both the tracks and CA 34, necessitating some sort of ramp, whether a single dual-direction signalized connector or a folded diamond for Rice/"future" CA 1.
As of 2018, Caltrans makes no reference to Rice Avenue as Highway 1 (FEIR for the Rice Avenue / CA-34 UPRR overpass. (https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/district-7/documents/31780-final-eir-fonsi-051618-a11y.pdf). Oxnard, in its 2016 community plan, references Rice Avenue as Future CA-1 (https://www.oxnard.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/occtip-final-draft-report-2-15-16x.pdf). I think Google Maps is jumping the gun by tagging Rice Avenue with a CA-1 shield.
I hope it happens though. It would be a logical continuity for CA-1, provide an important freight access route, and allow for a future freeway / expressway to connect the isolated Pacific Coast Freeway to the 101 Freeway.
Quote from: don1991 on May 30, 2020, 01:37:14 AM
As of 2018, Caltrans makes no reference to Rice Avenue as Highway 1 (FEIR for the Rice Avenue / CA-34 UPRR overpass. (https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/district-7/documents/31780-final-eir-fonsi-051618-a11y.pdf). Oxnard, in its 2016 community plan, references Rice Avenue as Future CA-1 (https://www.oxnard.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/occtip-final-draft-report-2-15-16x.pdf). I think Google Maps is jumping the gun by tagging Rice Avenue with a CA-1 shield.
I hope it happens though. It would be a logical continuity for CA-1, provide an important freight access route, and allow for a future freeway / expressway to connect the isolated Pacific Coast Freeway to the 101 Freeway.
Even considering Caltrans' recent lackadaisical attitude toward route continuity and/or signage, CA 1 over Rice Avenue will, in all likelihood, eventually happen (the PCH interchange revision essentially sealed that deal). But no particular entity with a stake in the game (D7, Oxnard, Ventura County) seems to be in too much of a rush to actually get it done. But if/when it happens, I wouldn't count on the CA 1 corridor seeing any limited-access upgrades in the foreseeable future; an improved Rice Avenue with a Metrolink overpass will be considered sufficient, particularly since CA 1 south of Mugu isn't considered a major interregional arterial -- more of a well-utilized recreational route. Letting travelers know it's there and Rice Ave. is the designated access point will be considered enough; expediting high volumes of through traffic to a 3-lane facility with alternating passing lanes is something that would be counterintuitive with current Caltrans philosophy (and would likely incur the wrath of the Coastal Commission as well!).
Quote from: sparker on May 30, 2020, 07:35:51 PM
Quote from: don1991 on May 30, 2020, 01:37:14 AM
As of 2018, Caltrans makes no reference to Rice Avenue as Highway 1 (FEIR for the Rice Avenue / CA-34 UPRR overpass. (https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/district-7/documents/31780-final-eir-fonsi-051618-a11y.pdf). Oxnard, in its 2016 community plan, references Rice Avenue as Future CA-1 (https://www.oxnard.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/occtip-final-draft-report-2-15-16x.pdf). I think Google Maps is jumping the gun by tagging Rice Avenue with a CA-1 shield.
I hope it happens though. It would be a logical continuity for CA-1, provide an important freight access route, and allow for a future freeway / expressway to connect the isolated Pacific Coast Freeway to the 101 Freeway.
Even considering Caltrans' recent lackadaisical attitude toward route continuity and/or signage, CA 1 over Rice Avenue will, in all likelihood, eventually happen (the PCH interchange revision essentially sealed that deal). But no particular entity with a stake in the game (D7, Oxnard, Ventura County) seems to be in too much of a rush to actually get it done. But if/when it happens, I wouldn't count on the CA 1 corridor seeing any limited-access upgrades in the foreseeable future; an improved Rice Avenue with a Metrolink overpass will be considered sufficient, particularly since CA 1 south of Mugu isn't considered a major interregional arterial -- more of a well-utilized recreational route. Letting travelers know it's there and Rice Ave. is the designated access point will be considered enough; expediting high volumes of through traffic to a 3-lane facility with alternating passing lanes is something that would be counterintuitive with current Caltrans philosophy (and would likely incur the wrath of the Coastal Commission as well!).
True. There is no money or desire for freeway building right now. It will require a change of political philosophy which is likely decades away. Things never stay the same forever.
Likely Rice will become CA-1 and then be upgraded over time as needs require. The RR / CA-34 overpass is a safety upgrade. The rest will come once the development does. If Port Hueneme continues to grow as a freight terminal and with it, truck traffic, then the freeway will eventually become required. Given that most traffic would exist from the 1 Freeway onto Rice Road southbound (towards the Port), I do not see much danger of a lot of traffic clogging up the remainder of the Pacific Coast Freeway down to the 2 to 3 lane portion. The critical portion would be the 1 Freeway / Rice Road interchange north to the 101 Freeway.
In today's game, freeway building in urban counties only happens if the county wants it. And since counties control 75% of the few highway dollars that are available, that is key. So the Ventura County Transportation Commission will have to identify it as a priority. And, voters will likely have to approve a sales tax for transportation, which so far hasn't been possible.
Drove through the area a few days ago and the signage situation has not changed: the Oxnard Boulevard exit signs from US 101 have had the Route 1 shield scraped off, yet the truck guidelines for Route 1 are still posted alongside!
(https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/123624441_10109160398599603_141719377512053043_o.jpg?_nc_cat=108&ccb=2&_nc_sid=0debeb&_nc_ohc=XBotQqt-i5EAX8kfpmO&_nc_ht=scontent-lax3-1.xx&oh=3b532096ba02ab2575397b86e7bd8c38&oe=5FC80B62)
(https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/123714648_10109160402187413_2136922239106069613_o.jpg?_nc_cat=103&ccb=2&_nc_sid=0debeb&_nc_ohc=zOoIopnWlnoAX-U2qi-&_nc_ht=scontent-lax3-1.xx&oh=1819a390326f7b1ea662313f6e747d54&oe=5FC7CBB8)
At Pleasant Valley Road, Oxnard Boulevard southbound still has "Exit 112" signs even though the Oxnard/Pleasant Valley junction is no longer grade-separated.
(https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/123345067_10109160395246323_1208562402659698210_o.jpg?_nc_cat=105&ccb=2&_nc_sid=0debeb&_nc_ohc=uZSQ2qxxGYYAX-18vLX&_nc_ht=scontent-lax3-1.xx&oh=c1b8345a61c8c163086555390fe1dca9&oe=5FC8A26A)
Of note Oxnard Boulevard still appears in the Caltrans Postmile Tool. I don't if that's an oversight as 34 is shown terminating at Rice.
I couldn't get a picture yesterday, but as I was driving southbound on the 101 in Ventura, the overhead sign right before the Johnson Dr exit was stripped of the overlaid "Oxnard Blvd" exit. Instead the exit on the BGS is named "Oxnard Coast Hwy". So Caltrans seems to be flip-flopping on updating correct signage for the route, or maybe they are now beginning the process of updating the new signs.
Quote from: RZF on February 03, 2021, 12:00:26 PM
I couldn't get a picture yesterday, but as I was driving southbound on the 101 in Ventura, the overhead sign right before the Johnson Dr exit was stripped of the overlaid "Oxnard Blvd" exit. Instead the exit on the BGS is named "Oxnard Coast Hwy". So Caltrans seems to be flip-flopping on updating correct signage for the route, or maybe they are now beginning the process of updating the new signs.
It seems clear that they just do not know what they are doing.
It is obvious that they need to sign a connection from PCH to US 101 in the Oxnard area. The problem is that they do not sign a state highway roads not maintained by Caltrans. So you are going to have situations where roads are not going to be signed, and it is of no help to the motoring public.
THere are solutions to the problem, but it doesn't seem as if Caltrans is interested:
1) Sign Rice Ave as <1> but put in a county maintained plaque
2) Sign Rice Ave as [1] but the shield is different from the green miner spade so that it doesn't look like a state highway
3) Sign Rice Ave as TO <1> SB and TO {101} NB
4) Sign Rice Ave as TEMP <1>
5) Sign Oxnard Blvd as BUSINESS <1>
There are many roads out there that were once state highway and are now locally controlled that should get signage for continuity purposes. But CA-1, given how many tourists make the iconic drive from L.A. up the coast, should certainly be prioritized for good signage so that folks don't get lost in Oxnard.
Thing is the motoring public doesn't care if Caltrans maintains Rice or not. A couple CA 1 shields would be more than sufficient on Rice or even the old alignment on Oxnard, who cares who maintains the actual road surface outside of us in the road world? It is bizarre to me why out here this is such an alien concept when it's common in other states (especially out east).
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 02, 2021, 11:05:50 AM
Thing is the motoring public doesn't care if Caltrans maintains Rice or not. A couple CA 1 shields would be more than sufficient on Rice or even the old alignment on Oxnard, who cares who maintains the actual road surface outside of us in the road world? It is bizarre to me why out here this is such an alien concept when it's common in other states (especially out east).
I think most of us on this forum would like to see the signage on the roads - it is Caltrans and other goverment groups (city, county) that will not do so adequately.
Quote from: mrsman on March 02, 2021, 06:21:21 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 02, 2021, 11:05:50 AM
Thing is the motoring public doesn't care if Caltrans maintains Rice or not. A couple CA 1 shields would be more than sufficient on Rice or even the old alignment on Oxnard, who cares who maintains the actual road surface outside of us in the road world? It is bizarre to me why out here this is such an alien concept when it's common in other states (especially out east).
I think most of us on this forum would like to see the signage on the roads - it is Caltrans and other goverment groups (city, county) that will not do so adequately.
Heh, I should do my own variation of an Auto Club (this is total sarcasm) and see if these agencies will pay me post signage like the old days when the DOH didn't want to do it. I'll even throw in continuity for CA 34 and CA 232.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 02, 2021, 11:05:50 AM
Thing is the motoring public doesn't care if Caltrans maintains Rice or not. A couple CA 1 shields would be more than sufficient on Rice or even the old alignment on Oxnard, who cares who maintains the actual road surface outside of us in the road world? It is bizarre to me why out here this is such an alien concept when it's common in other states (especially out east).
They should not have removed 1 trailblazers along Oxnard until Rice was fully adopted.
Quote from: Alps on March 02, 2021, 07:28:20 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 02, 2021, 11:05:50 AM
Thing is the motoring public doesn't care if Caltrans maintains Rice or not. A couple CA 1 shields would be more than sufficient on Rice or even the old alignment on Oxnard, who cares who maintains the actual road surface outside of us in the road world? It is bizarre to me why out here this is such an alien concept when it's common in other states (especially out east).
They should not have removed 1 trailblazers along Oxnard until Rice was fully adopted.
Amusingly it shows up as Route 1 in the Postmile Tool.
I bet that nothing will get done as far as signage goes until the Rice Ave/CA-34 interchange becomes a bridge/freeway-style exit over the train tracks.
I wish it would get upgraded to a freeway to the 101.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 03, 2021, 02:17:31 AM
I wish it would get upgraded to a freeway to the 101.
Doubtful -- Ventura County's part of D7, and after CA 71 is finished through Pomona, don't expect to see a single inch of new freeway in that district except for out in the desert (and even that's a crapshoot!). They'll do the RR separation w/ramps at CA 34, but it'll remain a 4-or-5-lane arterial for quite some time to come.
Yep. Too many driveways. It couldn't be realistically upgraded to even an expressway without massive and expensive eminent domain.
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on March 04, 2021, 12:21:24 AM
Yep. Too many driveways. It couldn't be realistically upgraded to even an expressway without massive and expensive eminent domain.
The only potential alternative would be a new-terrain freeway -- but my comments about D7 stand; that won't be happening in the foreseeable future. Besides, the area traversed is either high-ticket agriculture (mostly fruits and vegetables in that part of the county) or current/future housing. Besides, a freeway emptying out onto the 2/3-lane PCH is a tad gratuitous; the existing freeway section along the original CA 1 alignment dates from Alternate US 101 days, with deployment preceding the introduction of the California Freeway & Expressway System by a year or two. At that time Oxnard was a sleepy little agricultural town of about 25K; IIRC a bypass around the eastern side of town was planned (the usual DOH/Caltrans "circular lines" indicating a general but unadopted alignment) but obviously never saw any follow-through. And even a casual observer or visitor to the coastline to the southeast would quickly realize that the Malibu/Point Dume section of CA 1 will never, ever see freeway development (onshore or off!).
Quote from: sparker on March 04, 2021, 03:32:54 AM
At that time Oxnard was a sleepy little agricultural town of about 25K; IIRC a bypass around the eastern side of town was planned (the usual DOH/Caltrans "circular lines" indicating a general but unadopted alignment) but obviously never saw any follow-through.
Isn't Rice Avenue essentially that eastern bypass, much in the same way Cosumnes River Boulevard going towards Freeport is an adaptation of the Route 148 corridor (in Sacramento) and Richmond Parkway is functionally an adaptation of the planned Route 93?
IIRC something similar occurred with the planned Route 126 connector between I-5 and Route 14, built out as a unnumbered boulevard.
Quote from: TheStranger on March 04, 2021, 04:39:07 AM
Quote from: sparker on March 04, 2021, 03:32:54 AM
At that time Oxnard was a sleepy little agricultural town of about 25K; IIRC a bypass around the eastern side of town was planned (the usual DOH/Caltrans "circular lines" indicating a general but unadopted alignment) but obviously never saw any follow-through.
Isn't Rice Avenue essentially that eastern bypass, much in the same way Cosumnes River Boulevard going towards Freeport is an adaptation of the Route 148 corridor (in Sacramento) and Richmond Parkway is functionally an adaptation of the planned Route 93?
IIRC something similar occurred with the planned Route 126 connector between I-5 and Route 14, built out as a unnumbered boulevard.
It kind of is, but part of the problem is that Rice is a surface street. Yes, about half of it abuts farmland, south of CA-34, but if the authorities aren't on top of things, that road could become another suburban arterial filled with development and it can slow traffic down. Probably need to purchase some of that land to prevent development from encroaching on the future highway.
Quote from: mrsman on March 04, 2021, 08:34:25 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on March 04, 2021, 04:39:07 AM
Quote from: sparker on March 04, 2021, 03:32:54 AM
At that time Oxnard was a sleepy little agricultural town of about 25K; IIRC a bypass around the eastern side of town was planned (the usual DOH/Caltrans "circular lines" indicating a general but unadopted alignment) but obviously never saw any follow-through.
Isn't Rice Avenue essentially that eastern bypass, much in the same way Cosumnes River Boulevard going towards Freeport is an adaptation of the Route 148 corridor (in Sacramento) and Richmond Parkway is functionally an adaptation of the planned Route 93?
IIRC something similar occurred with the planned Route 126 connector between I-5 and Route 14, built out as a unnumbered boulevard.
It kind of is, but part of the problem is that Rice is a surface street. Yes, about half of it abuts farmland, south of CA-34, but if the authorities aren't on top of things, that road could become another suburban arterial filled with development and it can slow traffic down. Probably need to purchase some of that land to prevent development from encroaching on the future highway.
The substitute for the rescinded CA 126 connector in Santa Clarita isn't one continuous roadway but a series of arterials winding through Santa Clarita. The original CA 126 surface alignment, now relinquished, didn't actually efficiently work as a shunt between EB 126 and NB 14, since it turned south at Saugus along San Fernando Blvd. through Newhall, intersecting CA 14 southeast of town and not terribly far from the 5/14 interchange. The proposed (and at one time actually adopted) alignment resolved that issue; it was intended to be part of a continuous CA 126 freeway across the north side of Santa Clarita, intersecting CA 14 at the present Via Princessa set of ramps just south of 14's Santa Clara River crossing. But that alignment was severed during the 1994 round of rescindments, coincidentally a couple of years after the Metrolink Palmdale line through the area was initiated; it was widely opined that the desire to focus on transit rather than throughput roadway connectors such as the CA 126 extension doomed the freeway project -- that rationale basically continuing with the CA 1 situation. Although it's likely that Rice Ave.
will eventually see formal Caltrans adoption and signage -- if for no other reason than to efficiently feed traffic to and from PCH to the southeast, D7 probably won't be in any particular hurry to do so within the present sociopolitical climate that tends to see highly visible road connectors like this to be "enabling" the driving public to continue present patterns rather than curtail automotive use. Agencies such as Caltrans, with a longstanding connection to road network expansion tread lightly these days, especially within urban/suburban/exurban zones like the built-up areas of Ventura County.
BREAKING NEWS
As of today (January 24, 2023), the first ever Route 1 sign has FINALLY been placed on a BGS on southbound US 101 in Oxnard, over a decade after interchange work at Rice and 101 was completed, and over 13 years since the Ventura County Star had stated that the redesignation would occur in 2009.
Via Freeways of Los Angeles facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/FreewaysLA/posts/2614122915401837/?__cft__[0]=AZXZyOeoAwuxLqmacyQ7OH2rY5XK1KzOKvytcMZljrlkrtyDrkTYnyCCTwNCWa_BgVZ47hSws8CEs5HTVSuvKn136CPvccrpMyr0m27zowIO00glQqdcEL07MykaONxErfrTiyF36dOI0OjpMxxVZkOo61wQFcyJmhwCsIuDr38bRPuX5caO3NIFKWRL9lPQM7Y&__tn__=%2CO%2CP-R
Image courtesy Dontae Duncan:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52648180963_503feef212_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2odkFXZ)Rice Avenue Route 1 sign on 101 south - 1-24-23 (https://flic.kr/p/2odkFXZ) by Chris Sampang (https://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/), on Flickr
About damn time.
Finally. Now pave Rice between CA-34 and US-101, create the overpass by the train tracks, and we have ourselves a bonafide state route.
That sign has certainly seen better days..
Naturally, they botched the sign. The 1 shield is too big, and looks like a Mr Magoo put it in place.
Is that the only BGS that has been modified so far? Have they put up any reassurance signs along Rice?
Quote from: pderocco on January 29, 2023, 03:18:08 AM
Is that the only BGS that has been modified so far? Have they put up any reassurance signs along Rice?
Per a commenter in that Freeways of Los Angeles group post:
Ben Collins
There was no new signage on southbound Rice as of yesterday. So far the southbound 101 has two signs with CA-1 decals, this and another sign closer to the exit
Quote from: relaxok on January 28, 2023, 03:01:14 AM
That sign has certainly seen better days..
Caltrans' retroreflective crap is crap. It doesn't stand up to sun and delaminates like anything. Meanwhile the remaining enamel on steel signs just stay impervious.
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on January 29, 2023, 01:43:10 PM
Quote from: relaxok on January 28, 2023, 03:01:14 AM
That sign has certainly seen better days..
Caltrans' retroreflective crap is crap. It doesn't stand up to sun and delaminates like anything. Meanwhile the remaining enamel on steel signs just stay impervious.
Wasn't there an issue with the top layers of the anti-vandalism sheeting delaminating too quickly in the sun?
Regarding the older enamel signs, I believe they were designed with a 30 year service life. As much as modern MUTCD adherents complain about enamel signs it is hard to argue the DOH and Caltrans didn't get their money's worth.
I think I liked the "line the post with razor wire" method of anti-vandalism better than these sheetings.
Quote from: jdbx on January 30, 2023, 03:35:19 PM
I think I liked the "line the post with razor wire" method of anti-vandalism better than these sheetings.
Wasn't that only deployed in D7?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 30, 2023, 03:42:31 PM
Quote from: jdbx on January 30, 2023, 03:35:19 PM
I think I liked the "line the post with razor wire" method of anti-vandalism better than these sheetings.
Wasn't that only deployed in D7?
Yeah, I never saw it in my D4 neck-of-the-woods. Then again, I don't think we ever had nearly the vandalism problem that they did down there. It may be perception, but it seems like graffiti was a much bigger problem back in the 90's than it is today. I guess if you want to make a name for yourself today, you can do it on TikTok without having to hang off the railing of an overpass.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 30, 2023, 03:42:31 PM
Quote from: jdbx on January 30, 2023, 03:35:19 PM
I think I liked the "line the post with razor wire" method of anti-vandalism better than these sheetings.
Wasn't that only deployed in D7?
I think there was some out in D8 too.
Quote from: TheStranger on January 29, 2023, 04:25:44 AM
Quote from: pderocco on January 29, 2023, 03:18:08 AM
Is that the only BGS that has been modified so far? Have they put up any reassurance signs along Rice?
Per a commenter in that Freeways of Los Angeles group post:
Ben Collins
There was no new signage on southbound Rice as of yesterday. So far the southbound 101 has two signs with CA-1 decals, this and another sign closer to the exit
I just noticed saw the two referenced CA-1 signs yesterday (3/12/23). The other sign also has a too-large '1' sign, also crammed up against the street name. Other interchange sequence signs that include Rice Ave. do not yet have an CA-1 route sign on them.
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on February 04, 2023, 05:19:09 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 30, 2023, 03:42:31 PM
Quote from: jdbx on January 30, 2023, 03:35:19 PM
I think I liked the "line the post with razor wire" method of anti-vandalism better than these sheetings.
Wasn't that only deployed in D7?
I think there was some out in D8 too.
There is/was definitely some razor wire deployed in D8. First place I ever saw it was along I-15 in Barstow. They don't use it elsewhere because a) it looks trashy AF and b) it's dangerous for maintenance workers.
Quote from: TheStranger on January 25, 2023, 12:08:59 AM
BREAKING NEWS
As of today (January 24, 2023), the first ever Route 1 sign has FINALLY been placed on a BGS on southbound US 101 in Oxnard, over a decade after interchange work at Rice and 101 was completed, and over 13 years since the Ventura County Star had stated that the redesignation would occur in 2009.
Via Freeways of Los Angeles facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/FreewaysLA/posts/2614122915401837/?__cft__[0]=AZXZyOeoAwuxLqmacyQ7OH2rY5XK1KzOKvytcMZljrlkrtyDrkTYnyCCTwNCWa_BgVZ47hSws8CEs5HTVSuvKn136CPvccrpMyr0m27zowIO00glQqdcEL07MykaONxErfrTiyF36dOI0OjpMxxVZkOo61wQFcyJmhwCsIuDr38bRPuX5caO3NIFKWRL9lPQM7Y&__tn__=%2CO%2CP-R
Image courtesy Dontae Duncan:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52648180963_503feef212_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2odkFXZ)Rice Avenue Route 1 sign on 101 south - 1-24-23 (https://flic.kr/p/2odkFXZ) by Chris Sampang (https://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/), on Flickr
And funnily enough it's pretty messily applied, and seems too large relative to the text.
On a related note, isn't CA-232 supposed to be moved onto Santa Clara Avenue so motorists can seamlessly go from CA-1 -> CA-232 -> CA-118? Is that still planned?
Quote from: Quillz on March 20, 2023, 05:11:49 PM
On a related note, isn't CA-232 supposed to be moved onto Santa Clara Avenue so motorists can seamlessly go from CA-1 -> CA-232 -> CA-118? Is that still planned?
From a functionality standpoint, wouldn't it make sense to just route CA-118 onto Santa Clara and down to US-101, and de-commission Wells/Los Angeles Avenue (and "retire" 232)? If you're heading west on CA-118, it seems most likely you want to end up on US-101, unless you're a local destination.
Quote from: DTComposer on March 20, 2023, 07:58:46 PM
Quote from: Quillz on March 20, 2023, 05:11:49 PM
On a related note, isn't CA-232 supposed to be moved onto Santa Clara Avenue so motorists can seamlessly go from CA-1 -> CA-232 -> CA-118? Is that still planned?
From a functionality standpoint, wouldn't it make sense to just route CA-118 onto Santa Clara and down to US-101, and de-commission Wells/Los Angeles Avenue (and "retire" 232)? If you're heading west on CA-118, it seems most likely you want to end up on US-101, unless you're a local destination.
CA-118 serves more of a connection from points east to CA-126 than US-101. From Camarillo and Oxnard, CA-126 is almost on its own island unless you take surface streets to CA-118, which will then connect you to CA-126.
Total aside with CA 232, somehow that the fifth most viewed blog all time on Gribblenation. I know it's not a fluke/bot thing because of the analytics and reader comments suggest it got shared somewhere that took it serious. I have no idea why CA 232 out of all the blogs we've done on California took off like it did. The only California blog ahead of it for views is the San Juan Grade (which is number four).
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 20, 2023, 09:49:26 PM
Total aside with CA 232, somehow that the fifth most viewed blog all time on Gribblenation. I know it's not a fluke/bot thing because of the analytics and reader comments suggest it got shared somewhere that took it serious. I have no idea why CA 232 out of all the blogs we've done on California took off like it did. The only California blog ahead of it for views is the San Juan Grade (which is number four).
Well, they could extend 118 down Santa Clara to 101/1, and then turn 232 90 degrees and run it along Los Angeles, relinquishing Vinyard.
Quote from: pderocco on March 21, 2023, 03:06:37 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 20, 2023, 09:49:26 PM
Total aside with CA 232, somehow that the fifth most viewed blog all time on Gribblenation. I know it's not a fluke/bot thing because of the analytics and reader comments suggest it got shared somewhere that took it serious. I have no idea why CA 232 out of all the blogs we've done on California took off like it did. The only California blog ahead of it for views is the San Juan Grade (which is number four).
Well, they could extend 118 down Santa Clara to 101/1, and then turn 232 90 degrees and run it along Los Angeles, relinquishing Vinyard.
To me this doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If you're going to retain Los Angeles Avenue and then add Santa Clara Avenue, why not keep CA-118 on the former, and just move CA-232 onto the latter? This doesn't require any changes to CA-118, and CA-232 remains a short south-north route, albeit a few miles from its original alignment.
Quote from: Quillz on March 21, 2023, 03:39:04 PM
Quote from: pderocco on March 21, 2023, 03:06:37 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 20, 2023, 09:49:26 PM
Total aside with CA 232, somehow that the fifth most viewed blog all time on Gribblenation. I know it's not a fluke/bot thing because of the analytics and reader comments suggest it got shared somewhere that took it serious. I have no idea why CA 232 out of all the blogs we've done on California took off like it did. The only California blog ahead of it for views is the San Juan Grade (which is number four).
Well, they could extend 118 down Santa Clara to 101/1, and then turn 232 90 degrees and run it along Los Angeles, relinquishing Vinyard.
To me this doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If you're going to retain Los Angeles Avenue and then add Santa Clara Avenue, why not keep CA-118 on the former, and just move CA-232 onto the latter? This doesn't require any changes to CA-118, and CA-232 remains a short south-north route, albeit a few miles from its original alignment.
A big obstruction for swapping 118 and 232 is that it would require the Legislative defintions to be changed also. That's not per se impossible, but it could see it being enough of an annoyance that nobody wants to do the work to get a bill submitted. Moving 232 to Santa Clara wouldn't require a change of the legislative defintion.
According to an article published today in the Ventura County Star (https://www.vcstar.com/story/news/local/communities/oxnard/2023/03/21/rice-avenue-bridge-planned-for-site-of-deadly-2015-oxnard-train-crash/70003908007/):
- The bridge that is expected to carry CA 1 (Rice Ave) over the railroad tracks and CA 34 (5th St) is expected be finished in 2028.
- The financing of $117 million (up from original estimate $70 million) has been lined up.
- There have been some issues with property acquisition for a small parcel that contains a water well; while the well could remain, servicing it during and after construction would be tricky.
- City of Oxnard is the primary agency, and is wrapping up the design phase now; with funds released and projects opened to bid in about a year.
- The new bridge will be slightly east of the current crossing, so no long-term closure of Rice is expected.
So a direct junction with 34 will be gone?
Quote from: Quillz on March 21, 2023, 09:50:38 PM
So a direct junction with 34 will be gone?
I believe a connector road is planned between the two highways, but this article didn't mention it.
Quote from: GaryA on March 22, 2023, 01:09:29 PM
Quote from: Quillz on March 21, 2023, 09:50:38 PM
So a direct junction with 34 will be gone?
I believe a connector road is planned between the two highways, but this article didn't mention it.
The only thing I can see them doing here in order to use the least amount of land is create a diamond interchange (could be labeled Exit 114).
Quote from: GaryA on March 22, 2023, 01:09:29 PM
Quote from: Quillz on March 21, 2023, 09:50:38 PM
So a direct junction with 34 will be gone?
I believe a connector road is planned between the two highways, but this article didn't mention it.
If not, we'll have another 210/83 situation.
Quote from: Quillz on March 22, 2023, 04:10:51 PM
Quote from: GaryA on March 22, 2023, 01:09:29 PM
Quote from: Quillz on March 21, 2023, 09:50:38 PM
So a direct junction with 34 will be gone?
I believe a connector road is planned between the two highways, but this article didn't mention it.
If not, we'll have another 210/83 situation.
83 doesn't touch 210 anymore.
Quote from: RZF on March 22, 2023, 01:52:35 PM
Quote from: GaryA on March 22, 2023, 01:09:29 PM
Quote from: Quillz on March 21, 2023, 09:50:38 PM
So a direct junction with 34 will be gone?
I believe a connector road is planned between the two highways, but this article didn't mention it.
The only thing I can see them doing here in order to use the least amount of land is create a diamond interchange (could be labeled Exit 114).
The "END 34" sign is located west of the intersection with Rice Ave, as opposed to the actual intersection, so I think a connector road is going to be built. Only problem is that anything south of 5th is outside of Oxnard city limits, and that farmland is protected by county legislation.
I was just looking at this in Google Earth, and I can't help wondering if it wouldn't be easier and cheaper to raise the railroad tracks over Rice Ave. It looks like there's room to temporarily move the tracks over, so they're right next to 5th St, then build a half-mile or so incline on each side of Rice Ave, a short bridge over Rice, route the trains over that, and tear up the temporary track. They wouldn't have to touch the road at all, or acquire any property.
Quote from: pderocco on April 17, 2024, 12:03:03 AMI was just looking at this in Google Earth, and I can't help wondering if it wouldn't be easier and cheaper to raise the railroad tracks over Rice Ave. It looks like there's room to temporarily move the tracks over, so they're right next to 5th St, then build a half-mile or so incline on each side of Rice Ave, a short bridge over Rice, route the trains over that, and tear up the temporary track. They wouldn't have to touch the road at all, or acquire any property.
Assuming the railroad is still active (meaning trains still run on it, not just that there are tracks sitting there) land would need to be acquired, even if temporarily to construct the shoofly. Railroads also don't like creating running grades where they don't exist currently, especially for a situation like this where a freight train could be longer than the up-and-over which would create a slingshot effect for the train as it passes through.
Lastly, FRA-recognized rail corridors generally take primacy over any crossing roadways (because they were there first) so whatever railroad it is would likely make Caltrans deal with the roadway instead of the RR modifying the tracks, i.e. Caltrans would need to get an encroachment permit to do work in the RR ROW as opposed to the RR needing to get one from Caltrans, since the RR technically controls the crossing.
Quote from: heynow415 on April 17, 2024, 12:13:41 PMQuote from: pderocco on April 17, 2024, 12:03:03 AMI was just looking at this in Google Earth, and I can't help wondering if it wouldn't be easier and cheaper to raise the railroad tracks over Rice Ave. It looks like there's room to temporarily move the tracks over, so they're right next to 5th St, then build a half-mile or so incline on each side of Rice Ave, a short bridge over Rice, route the trains over that, and tear up the temporary track. They wouldn't have to touch the road at all, or acquire any property.
Assuming the railroad is still active (meaning trains still run on it, not just that there are tracks sitting there) land would need to be acquired, even if temporarily to construct the shoofly. Railroads also don't like creating running grades where they don't exist currently, especially for a situation like this where a freight train could be longer than the up-and-over which would create a slingshot effect for the train as it passes through.
Lastly, FRA-recognized rail corridors generally take primacy over any crossing roadways (because they were there first) so whatever railroad it is would likely make Caltrans deal with the roadway instead of the RR modifying the tracks, i.e. Caltrans would need to get an encroachment permit to do work in the RR ROW as opposed to the RR needing to get one from Caltrans, since the RR technically controls the crossing.
Good points. But the land between the tracks and the road certainly isn't private property. It either belongs to the railroad already, Oxnard, or the state along 34, so I wouldn't think using it would be expensive, especially since it would be temporary.
I'm curious what this "slingshot effect" is. If a train is longer than a rise and equal fall in the elevation, I would think it would take some energy to start going over, but once the head is over, it would be more or less neutral (a mechanical siphon) until the tail starts to go over, at which point it would get back most of the energy it put in at the beginning. Is that bit at the end the "slingshot effect"? I think the grades would be about 1%, but don't trains experience that effect frequently in hilly areas?
Also, I'm not sure the railroad was first in this case. The 1904 USGS maps show a road where Rice Ave is now, and the rail line, but no road along the rail line. When I look at the various maps of the area I've downloaded from Rumsey and other places, I see the rail line existing in 1901, but not in 1897. Before that, the coast railroad connected to LA only along what's now route 126.
That said, I'm just thinking outside the box. It looks like building a half-cloverleaf there could be quite expensive, especially given the width of the road, and the rail bridge and its approaches could be a lot cheaper to build. The railroad might be induced to cooperate by giving it a cut of the difference.
That line is active, too. I've been on it, it's part of the Coast Starlight or the Surfliner, there are stations in Camarillo and Oxnard, you'll pass over CA-1 along the way.
Quote from: pderocco on April 17, 2024, 06:40:40 PMQuote from: heynow415 on April 17, 2024, 12:13:41 PMQuote from: pderocco on April 17, 2024, 12:03:03 AMI was just looking at this in Google Earth, and I can't help wondering if it wouldn't be easier and cheaper to raise the railroad tracks over Rice Ave. It looks like there's room to temporarily move the tracks over, so they're right next to 5th St, then build a half-mile or so incline on each side of Rice Ave, a short bridge over Rice, route the trains over that, and tear up the temporary track. They wouldn't have to touch the road at all, or acquire any property.
Assuming the railroad is still active (meaning trains still run on it, not just that there are tracks sitting there) land would need to be acquired, even if temporarily to construct the shoofly. Railroads also don't like creating running grades where they don't exist currently, especially for a situation like this where a freight train could be longer than the up-and-over which would create a slingshot effect for the train as it passes through.
Lastly, FRA-recognized rail corridors generally take primacy over any crossing roadways (because they were there first) so whatever railroad it is would likely make Caltrans deal with the roadway instead of the RR modifying the tracks, i.e. Caltrans would need to get an encroachment permit to do work in the RR ROW as opposed to the RR needing to get one from Caltrans, since the RR technically controls the crossing.
Good points. But the land between the tracks and the road certainly isn't private property. It either belongs to the railroad already, Oxnard, or the state along 34, so I wouldn't think using it would be expensive, especially since it would be temporary.
I'm curious what this "slingshot effect" is. If a train is longer than a rise and equal fall in the elevation, I would think it would take some energy to start going over, but once the head is over, it would be more or less neutral (a mechanical siphon) until the tail starts to go over, at which point it would get back most of the energy it put in at the beginning. Is that bit at the end the "slingshot effect"? I think the grades would be about 1%, but don't trains experience that effect frequently in hilly areas?
Also, I'm not sure the railroad was first in this case. The 1904 USGS maps show a road where Rice Ave is now, and the rail line, but no road along the rail line. When I look at the various maps of the area I've downloaded from Rumsey and other places, I see the rail line existing in 1901, but not in 1897. Before that, the coast railroad connected to LA only along what's now route 126.
That said, I'm just thinking outside the box. It looks like building a half-cloverleaf there could be quite expensive, especially given the width of the road, and the rail bridge and its approaches could be a lot cheaper to build. The railroad might be induced to cooperate by giving it a cut of the difference.
Since railcar couplers aren't a perfect/snug fit there's a gap within each set of couplers. Assuming the locomotive(s) are traveling at a constant speed, going uphill the cars are all being pulled but going downhill, particularly if the cars are laden, they can be pushing against the locomotives which end up functioning as a brake. So the "gap" in the couplers either opens up or closes. Multiply that by many cars and the length of the overall train expands and contracts. You can hear this in play when a freight first starts moving with the banging sound going down the line as the cars start being pulled. Over a long, constant grade it's not really a factor but for a short up and down it could be. Yes, rail couplers are designed to handle that kind of loading but to the extent it creates unnecessary wear and tear, I would venture the railroads would discourage it.