About the signs near the 101S-152E interchange

[dbz77]

It is fairly well-known that the quickest road route between San Jose and Los Angeles is via US-101 S, CA-152 E, and I-5 S. And yet, none of the signs approaching the 152 E interchange advise motorists bound for the Los Angeles area to use 152 E. The distance signs to Los Angeles shows the distance along 101 S.

Why is that? Was this a relic from when the 152 through Pacheco Pass was a windy, two-lane road and thus was the slower route?

Should the highway signs be updated to advise motorists to use 152 E to reach Los Angeles?

[kphoger]

I say no.  CA-152 doesn't go to Los Angeles, whereas US-101 does go to Los Angeles. 

[TheStranger]

152 between 101 and 156 is still two-lane and congested (the four-lane segment doesn't begin until east of 156) as well, though a project to bypass this has been planned for years.

[sparker]

I say no.  CA-152 doesn't go to Los Angeles, whereas US-101 does go to Los Angeles. 

152 between 101 and 156 is still two-lane and congested (the four-lane segment doesn't begin until east of 156) as well, though a project to bypass this has been planned for years.

As a local who's on those roads quite a bit, I fully agree.  Truckers and other regional commercial traffic already know about 152 as a shortcut over to 5 and 99; no need to direct general traffic in that direction until such time as all of 152 east of US 101 is at least a 4-lane expressway.  Besides, for the uninitiated tourist, US 101 is an infinitely more pleasurable way to get down to L.A. (at least until you hit commute traffic somewhere around Carpenteria!) than schlepping down the monotone that is I-5 in the Valley while dodging trucks. 

If the long-discussed 152 projects actually come to fruition and the road becomes a relatively safe and pleasant corridor, then some signage before the 101/152 divergence indicating that 152-to-5 is an alternative route down to the L.A. area might be appropriate, as long as it isn't worded to encourage use of one facility over the other.  IMO, it's advantageous that interregional traffic disperses over several route options rather than crowd onto an arbitrary "best" routing.  Between the experience factor of commercial drivers and the saturation of GPS within the navigation scene, enough drivers will elect to use the shortest-distance option without directional signage; no need to disturb that calculus.     

[DTComposer]

It depends. From San Jose to Los Angeles, CA-152/I-5 is about 45 miles shorter than US-101, and if traffic is not an issue, then it should save you at least an hour.

But...a driver unfamiliar with the two-lane section of CA-152 may find it trepidatious, as well as the narrow, winding four-lane section climbing up to San Luis Reservoir. Then you get to I-5, which rarely is without congestion, making averaging 70 mph the exception rather than the rule. And you have little to no scenic interest nor cities of note along the route.

US-101, on the other hand, is at least four lanes divided the entire way (albeit with some narrower sections, and some expressway sections), with plenty of towns and cities for interesting rest stops and much more interesting scenery along the way.

My experience is I-5 will get me there about 30 minutes sooner (excluding stops), but if I was making a recommendation to a tourist, I'd send them down US-101 every time.

What I would do, once the CA-152 improvements are complete, is sign it as "CA-152 East/Los Banos/Fresno," supplemental guide signs saying something like "Use CA-152 East to I-5/CA-99" (don't mention Los Angeles), then have a VMS available that could guide Los Angeles-bound drivers towards one route or the other should traffic/weather/other hazards become an issue.

[TheStranger]

If the long-discussed 152 projects actually come to fruition and the road becomes a relatively safe and pleasant corridor, then some signage before the 101/152 divergence indicating that 152-to-5 is an alternative route down to the L.A. area might be appropriate, as long as it isn't worded to encourage use of one facility over the other.  IMO, it's advantageous that interregional traffic disperses over several route options rather than crowd onto an arbitrary "best" routing.  Between the experience factor of commercial drivers and the saturation of GPS within the navigation scene, enough drivers will elect to use the shortest-distance option without directional signage; no need to disturb that calculus.     

I would even say the best way of signing it is to more strongly emphasize Route 152 as "TO I-5" with no mention of anything else beyond that.

This situation (two valid parallel routings going to the same place) crops up a few other times elsewhere in California:

- I-5 vs. I-805/Route 163 to downtown San Diego, of which 805/163 is shorter but 163 involves the much older portion through Balboa Park built in the 1940s as US 395. 

- I-280 vs. US 101 in San Jose for traffic heading to San Francisco, US 101 northbound is signed for San Francisco as it bypasses downtown San Jose, while I-280 north is signed just for Downtown San Jose.  Conversely, from San Francisco, southbound traffic for US 101 gets the San Jose control city while I-280 is signed at the Alemany Maze for Daly City, only gaining the San Jose control city at the Route 82/San Jose Avenue split. 

Interestingly, Route 85 (the US 101 bypass through San Jose) itself is never signed for either San Francisco or Los Angeles, the long-distance US 101 controls in that area - I suspect it is due to the truck weight restrictions on that freeway.  At the north end of Route 85, the pullthrough does become "US 101 - San Francisco" for the last mile or so, similar to how the post-1989 pullthrough for I-80 west in San Francisco is "US 101 South - San Jose" rather than the mid-1980s US 101/I-80 cosigning that may have been derived from when the Central Freeway was planned to carry I-80 to the never-built Western Freeway.

- I-580 east vs. I-880 south at the MacArthur Maze for traffic heading to Hayward, 580 gets signed for Hayward/Stockton while 880 is signed for Alameda/San Jose (and is signed as a truck alternative for 580 as the MacArthur Freeway mostly does not allow truck traffic)

- Route 163 vs. Route 94/Route 15/I-15 to get north from downtown San Diego towards Escondido and the Inland Empire. 163 is signed for Escondido at the 163/5 interchange, while 15 is signed for Riverside only from its southern terminus at I-5 in Barrio Logan.

- Hollywood Freeway (170 then 101) vs. Golden State Freeway (I-5) in the San Fernando Valley for southbound traffic trying to reach downtown Los Angeles - 170 south is signed for Hollywood at 5/170 split with no mention of downtown Los Angeles, while 5 south is signed for Los Angeles

- Route 99 vs. I-5 between Sacramento and Wheeler Ridge.  On the south split, 5 north is signed for Sacramento/San Francisco while 99 north is signed for Bakersfield/Fresno, with 99 then becoming signed for Sacramento as early on as Bakersfield itself.  Between Stockton and Sacramento, the two routes are much closer together; from Stockton both routes are signed for Sacramento, while from Sacramento 5 is signed simply for "Los Angeles" and 99 signed for "Fresno" with no mention of Stockton at any of the midtown/downtown interchanges.

- I-10 vs. Route 60 between Los Angeles and Beaumont.  At the East Los Angeles Interchange, 10 is signed for San Bernardino eastbound while 60 eastbound is signed for Pomona (even though 10 also passes through Pomona).  From the eastern split, 60 is signed for just Riverside while 10 west is given San Bernardino/Los Angeles as controls.

- Route 73 vs. I-405 between southern Orange County and Irvine - IIRC, both routes have a Long Beach control from I-5.  From I-405, 73 is just labeled as "73 Freeway - SOUTH" with no mention of San Diego or anywhere as a destination.

[DTComposer]

Interestingly, Route 85 (the US 101 bypass through San Jose) itself is never signed for either San Francisco or Los Angeles, the long-distance US 101 controls in that area - I suspect it is due to the truck weight restrictions on that freeway.

Indeed, the control on US-101 South becomes "San Jose/Los Angeles" as it approaches CA-85 - I imagine, as you said, to keep long-distance trucks on US-101.

That said, on I-280, the control for CA-85 South is Gilroy - implying that drivers should use CA-85 to bypass San Jose. There is supplemental signage regarding the truck restriction, but it doesn't recommend the alternative (i.e. "Trucks: use I-280 to US-101 to Gilroy" or something like that).

- Route 73 vs. I-405 between southern Orange County and Irvine - IIRC, both routes have a Long Beach control from I-5.

As does CA-22.

From I-405, 73 is just labeled as "73 Freeway - SOUTH" with no mention of San Diego or anywhere as a destination.

Is that new? When I lived down there, on I-405 South it was signed "CA-73 South - San Diego via Toll Road."

[Max Rockatansky]

Hell I'd much rather take 25, 198 and 33 if I had the need to get to/from the Bay Area to Los Angeles via US 101/I-5.  Even CA 58 and CA 166 offer merit as much more enjoyable drives over 152 between US 101/I-5.  To offer a relevant point to this thread CA 152 from the Central Valley is signed as access to San Francisco from CA 99.  Interestingly the same cannot be said if I-5, Bay Area traffic is directed north towards I-580 rather than CA 152. 

The real I think that pulled with I-5 being built on the West Side Freeway rather than US 99 that it created much more viable shortcuts between the Bay Area and Los Angeles.  Really any state highway between 5 and 101 is viable for automotive traffic but 46 in addition to 152 has the most features that would be favorable to commercial vehicles.  152 had the most extensive realignment when the San Luis Reservoir was built.  I would suspect the signage reflects how things were back in the old days rather than how they are now with 152 being the preferred route between San Francisco and Los Angeles.  The signage on 99 certainly reflects 152 being the favored access point between San Joaquin Valley and the Bay Area dating back a much older time period. 

[TheStranger]

From I-405, 73 is just labeled as "73 Freeway - SOUTH" with no mention of San Diego or anywhere as a destination.

Is that new? When I lived down there, on I-405 South it was signed "CA-73 South - San Diego via Toll Road."

I remembered San Diego signage in past years, but here's what Google Street View has these days:

No signage at all at the actual 405/73 split
https://www.google.com/maps/@33.687556,-117.9061451,3a,75y,95.76h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sZJ_vdMndMMStTrr2R_IufQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DZJ_vdMndMMStTrr2R_IufQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D96.91%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

Looked southbound at the 3 or so exits before the 405/73 split and didn't see anything up there either.  Seems to be the direct result of ongoing construction

[TheStranger]

To offer a relevant point to this thread CA 152 from the Central Valley is signed as access to San Francisco from CA 99.  Interestingly the same cannot be said if I-5, Bay Area traffic is directed north towards I-580 rather than CA 152. 

Here is the "San Francisco" sign referring to 152 exiting off 99 (interestingly, no "San Jose" to go with that) -

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.0765862,-120.1997223,3a,17.6y,348.69h,96.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-l90fRvCwa4Flm69iOoORg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

At 152 going west towards I-5, I-5 north is signed for Sacramento/San Francisco and 152 west is signed for Gilroy/San Jose:
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.0567862,-120.9642675,3a,75y,272.18h,90.14t,0.69r/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8bvjlL2c3jn9kYf9Pf-PJA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.0568097,-120.9649328,3a,75y,257.52h,120.36t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEPMiErcKR5eZ5_-4XHZmCw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

I recall in the past (though can't find it on Google Street View) that 205 east (to 5 north and 120 east) is suggested as the all-freeway route to Modesto and implicitly 99, most likely to try to discourage use of Route 132 east of I-5...

yet 580 to 5 south is the road suggested for Fresno, which would require one to use 152 or another non-freeway road between 5 and 99!
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7394549,-121.5903286,3a,60y,85.27h,81.22t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sM74NViW5DdeVjmrk-6wi0Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Fresno for 152 east is signed off of I-5 south from a roadside sign and not as an actual 152 control city:
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.0621808,-120.9753624,3a,18.5y,148.35h,90.1t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0gDqjtZ6JLtMP41zYkGvcg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

[Max Rockatansky]

Suffice to say the signage likely ought to be updated on the whole. At minimum traffic heading south on 101 and north on 5 ought to be notified 152 is a viable alternate.  I suspect if 152 between Casa de Fruita and Gilroy ever gets upgraded the signage would likely change.  Interestingly most of the signage from 5 and 152 is fairly recent which would is somewhat vexing given it was the opportunity to sign an alternate route. 

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't much of the current expressway section of 152 east of I-5 date back to no later than 1950?  The corridor in San Joaquin Valley received a surprisingly early upgrade that has largely withstood the test of time aside from Los Banos not being bypassed. 

[TheStranger]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't much of the current expressway section of 152 east of I-5 date back to no later than 1950?  The corridor in San Joaquin Valley received a surprisingly early upgrade that has largely withstood the test of time aside from Los Banos not being bypassed. 

Looking at the CalTrans bridge log, the Merced County section of modern Route 152 dates to 1964-1969, with widening in Los Banos occurring from 1985-1987 and at the Chowchilla terminus ca. 2001.

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/structur/strmaint/brlog/logpdf/logd10.pdf

[Max Rockatansky]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't much of the current expressway section of 152 east of I-5 date back to no later than 1950?  The corridor in San Joaquin Valley received a surprisingly early upgrade that has largely withstood the test of time aside from Los Banos not being bypassed. 

Looking at the CalTrans bridge log, the Merced County section of modern Route 152 dates to 1964-1969, with widening in Los Banos occurring from 1985-1987 and at the Chowchilla terminus ca. 2001.

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/structur/strmaint/brlog/logpdf/logd10.pdf

I'm wondering where I heard that then?   Obviously I didn't think there was enough evidence to support the earlier claim on Gribblenation since I didn't comment on it when I did CA 152.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2017/10/california-state-route-152.html?m=1

[TheStranger]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't much of the current expressway section of 152 east of I-5 date back to no later than 1950?  The corridor in San Joaquin Valley received a surprisingly early upgrade that has largely withstood the test of time aside from Los Banos not being bypassed. 

Looking at the CalTrans bridge log, the Merced County section of modern Route 152 dates to 1964-1969, with widening in Los Banos occurring from 1985-1987 and at the Chowchilla terminus ca. 2001.

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/structur/strmaint/brlog/logpdf/logd10.pdf

I'm wondering where I heard that then?   Obviously I didn't think there was enough evidence to support the earlier claim on Gribblenation since I didn't comment on it when I did CA 152.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2017/10/california-state-route-152.html?m=1

There are a few 1950s bridges on the 152 expressway according to the log - and even a 1921 era bridge if I'm reading it correctly!

[webny99]

Should the highway signs be updated to advise motorists to use 152 E to reach Los Angeles?

I say no.  CA-152 doesn't go to Los Angeles, whereas US-101 does go to Los Angeles. 

It depends.

Los Angeles should not be the control city for CA-152 (since it doesn't go there), and the distance to Los Angeles should be calculated using US 101 mileage (since it does go there). However, supplementary signage, sort of like this, should be used to instruct drivers to use CA-152 EB to get to Los Angeles.

[mrsman]

It seems like the whole discussion is about where Caltrans wants traffic.  Caltrans is not going to encourage traffic on the mountainous roads, unless it has to.  So if you are traveling between San Jose and L.A. you are encouraged to stay on 101, even if its more mileage and even if its more time.  This is wise, IMO, because even if your overall trip from SJ to LA is shorter along 152, it is far better for the highway system to discourage a heavy traffic load on the mountainous roads.  152 should be kept as light as possible for those who really need it, San Jose - Fresno traffic.

From L.A. you are encouraged to stay on 101 for all coast cities and the southern Bay Area.  If your destination is north of I-580 or the San Mateo Bridge (like to SF or Oakland) you can conceivably take I-5 to I-580 and not take a mountainous road.

From north of Gorman (i.e. any area of the San Joaquin Valley like Bakersfield or Fresno), you have no realistic alternative to reach the coast or southern Bay Area other than taking some mountainous road.  So it is OK to direct traffic from I-5 on CA 152 for Gilroy and San Jose, and likewise direct traffic from US 101 on CA 152 for Los Banos and Fresno.  But if your destination is north of I-580 or the San Mateo Bridge (like to SF or Oakland) you can conceivably take I-5 to I-580 and not take a mountainous road.  So even from Bakersfield and Fresno, one should not use CA-152 if you are trying to reach the northern Bay Area.

And in keeping with this, you don't see San Francisco as a control at all in the L.A. area until you are in Ventura or Wheeler Ridge.  The signage won't influence your choice while you are in Metro L.A., but once your die is cast (i.e. you've driven so far along 101 or 5 that you've chosen your route) the signs will guide you the rest of the way.  This is similar in the southbound direction as well, not seeing L.A. mentioned as a control along 101 or 580 until you are well beyond the point that you can choose the other option.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^
Of the cross-Coast Range highways, CA 46 encounters possibly the most benign terrain; no really heavy gradients or canyon-hugging segments like found on CA 152 just west of the summit.  And it's being upgraded one segment at a time east to I-5; it'll likely be all expressway (albeit with a few signals around Paso Robles); once that it done, it will likely -- despite a few miles longer -- be a viable alternative to CA 152 for commercial traffic. 

If and when the final stretch of CA 152 is improved from US 101 to Casa de Fruta, there will probably be an increase in traffic -- likely dominated by trucks even more than presently.  That narrow uphill stretch west of the summit will in all probability become a chokepoint, particularly if lines of trucks occupy the uphill right lane.  That will almost surely be the next project to be tackled to increase capacity on 152 (or keep up with increased usage) -- and it'll either involve carving out a good portion of the hillside or constructing a new "split" carriageway on new alignment -- in extremely difficult terrain! 

[Max Rockatansky]

^^^^^^^^^
Of the cross-Coast Range highways, CA 46 encounters possibly the most benign terrain; no really heavy gradients or canyon-hugging segments like found on CA 152 just west of the summit.  And it's being upgraded one segment at a time east to I-5; it'll likely be all expressway (albeit with a few signals around Paso Robles); once that it done, it will likely -- despite a few miles longer -- be a viable alternative to CA 152 for commercial traffic. 

If and when the final stretch of CA 152 is improved from US 101 to Casa de Fruta, there will probably be an increase in traffic -- likely dominated by trucks even more than presently.  That narrow uphill stretch west of the summit will in all probability become a chokepoint, particularly if lines of trucks occupy the uphill right lane.  That will almost surely be the next project to be tackled to increase capacity on 152 (or keep up with increased usage) -- and it'll either involve carving out a good portion of the hillside or constructing a new "split" carriageway on new alignment -- in extremely difficult terrain!

That segment of 152 west of Pacheco Pass barely fits the current four-lanes as is. Any additional capacity would likely entail somehow building a new cut south of Pacheco Creek.  Usually the uphill climb on 152 west isn't bad but going east is where that narrow terrain turns into a huge problem.  I've found myself using 25, 198 and J1 more often than not just to avoid the frustration of 152 eastbound.

46 on the other hand is arguably built to truck route standards.  The junction with 41 north is by far the worst spot on the highway and that's in line to get a proper interchange. 

[TheStranger]

And in keeping with this, you don't see San Francisco as a control at all in the L.A. area until you are in Ventura or Wheeler Ridge.  The signage won't influence your choice while you are in Metro L.A., but once your die is cast (i.e. you've driven so far along 101 or 5 that you've chosen your route) the signs will guide you the rest of the way.  This is similar in the southbound direction as well, not seeing L.A. mentioned as a control along 101 or 580 until you are well beyond the point that you can choose the other option.

There are a couple of roadside auxiliary signs for the MacArthur Freeway from I-80 west in Emeryville and I-80 east past the Bay Bridge that do list Los Angeles as a long-distance destination for 580, though it doesn't get mentioned again until the 205/580 split in Altamont.

[JustDrive]

I've only seen the one on the Bay Bridge that directs L.A. traffic on 580 and trucks on 880, but I haven't seen the one on WB 80.

Also, to the OP, the 101's mileage has always reflects the distance on said
Highway, not the 101-152-5 route.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^^
Back when I was a map-happy kid growing up in the '50's, a like-minded buddy and I sat down and calculated the distance (we didn't particularly trust the distance grids supplied with the maps) from the 4-level in L.A. to the US 40/50 junction with US 101 in S.F., and found that it was about 406 miles via US 99, SSR 120, and US 50 (via Fresno & Manteca) vs. 427 miles straight up US 101 (using Bypass 101 in the Bay Area).   Even with "cutting the corner" above Santa Barbara via SSR 154 and the then-unsigned Los Olivos shortcut (part of LRN 80), it was still 9 miles longer via the coastal route.  It was then that I realized the significance of the '57 I-5 reroute up the West Side -- cutting the distance between the urban giants even more (albeit at the expense of Valley population centers). 

[dbz77]

^^^^^^^^^^
Back when I was a map-happy kid growing up in the '50's, a like-minded buddy and I sat down and calculated the distance (we didn't particularly trust the distance grids supplied with the maps) from the 4-level in L.A. to the US 40/50 junction with US 101 in S.F., and found that it was about 406 miles via US 99, SSR 120, and US 50 (via Fresno & Manteca) vs. 427 miles straight up US 101 (using Bypass 101 in the Bay Area).   Even with "cutting the corner" above Santa Barbara via SSR 154 and the then-unsigned Los Olivos shortcut (part of LRN 80), it was still 9 miles longer via the coastal route.  It was then that I realized the significance of the '57 I-5 reroute up the West Side -- cutting the distance between the urban giants even more (albeit at the expense of Valley population centers).

Indeed the reroute of I-5 along the west side was significant.

According to Google Maps, the distance between the junction of Hollywood, Santa Ana, and Harbor Freeways, and the west endpoint of Interstate 80, is about 382 miles- about 20 miles shorter than using the 99.

Of course, sometimes in January and February, the 101 route is faster.

I did use Gogle Maps to find the road distance between Sacramento and Los Angeles along the 5 as compared to the 99, and the distance difference is only two miles! It is clear that traffic between the Bay Area and L.A. was the primary consideration is building I-5 on the west side- it would not have been done just to save two miles from the L.A.-Sacramento road trip!

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^
Yeah. when it comes to L.A. - Sacramento, I-5 & CA 99 are pretty much a wash.  Since I've been traveling 99 (back when it was a US route!) since I was a kid, I've always found it interesting every time I'm on it -- keeping track of the changes -- not only to the road but the environment through which it runs -- that I seem to see every time I'm on it (the last time being about 2 weeks ago).  OTOH, I-5 -- except for seemingly more amenities crowding around the various interchanges (Buttonwillow, Santa Nella, etc.) that have historically supported such enterprises -- remains the same: a long empty corridor.  Just for the fact that there's much more to see on 99, if at all possible I'll opt for using it rather than I-5.  The sole saving grace for I-5 is the In-N-Out at Kettleman City (CA 41 exit).

[ClassicHasClass]

As someone who does greater LA to Sact'o about monthly for business purposes, my mental health is much better on CA 99 than I-5. I don't like the long spaces between exits, it's dreary dull, it seems lousier with truck traffic, and it's just two lanes. Kettleman City used to be my go-to stop when I used I-5 for the Bay Area, but now that I'm all central I hop off in Selma or Fresno and enjoy a Rally's Big Buford with Bacon.

The exception is in Stockton - I usually cut over on CA 4 to I-5 and go in from there, since I tend to get hung up in Galt.

[dbz77]

As someone who does greater LA to Sact'o about monthly for business purposes, my mental health is much better on CA 99 than I-5. I don't like the long spaces between exits, it's dreary dull, it seems lousier with truck traffic, and it's just two lanes. Kettleman City used to be my go-to stop when I used I-5 for the Bay Area, but now that I'm all central I hop off in Selma or Fresno and enjoy a Rally's Big Buford with Bacon.

The exception is in Stockton - I usually cut over on CA 4 to I-5 and go in from there, since I tend to get hung up in Galt.

Interesting.

I remember when one of my friends, Danielle, used I-5 to drive to her family home in Rocklin (which is northeast of Sacramento). I asked her why she did not use the 99, as it passes by the east side of Sacramento. (Indeed, it would have been shorter by two miles.) She wrote in reply that the 5 is faster because it passes through far fewer cities.