US 66/US 99 in 1926

[707]

I have recently been doing research on US 99 in California for a future book I hope to write. Using ACSC strip maps, USGS Topographic Maps, a 1926 California State Highway Map, a 1928 Press Release from the AASHO, a 1934 State Highway Map of California and general overall knowledge of US 66, I have attempted to recreate the original concurrent US 66/US 99 routing from Los Angeles to San Bernardino. This routing appears to have followed Pasadena Avenue and Colorado Boulevard from Los Angeles to Pasadena and then made a short trip up Altadena Drive to where it headed east on Foothill Boulevard to San Bernardino. US 66 then cut north on Mount Vernon Avenue to Victorville, while US 99 made a stairway-like motion heading southeast towards Palm Springs. Although the street names have long since changed, the original routing still exists almost completely un-interrupted, except for a small section which now makes up residential streets. My research also told me that US 99 followed US 66 in this fashion until about 1935, when it was moved over to US 60/US 70.


This is close to what the concurrency looked like. There are portions where one is re-directed due to the change in road layouts, but at least 98 to 95% of this route is the original.

[sdmichael]

I'd like to take a look at the 1926 map and the 1928 press release for US 99. The routing around downtown Los Angeles has always perplexed me, at least from 1926-1935.  My biggest problem is where LRN 26, LRN 4, and LRN 9 all played into the alignment. As such, figuring out what LRN US 99 followed from San Fernando Road (LRN 4) to the Foothill Corridor (LRN 9) is still something of a mystery.

[NE2]

Chances are it was not a state highway between LA and Pasadena before 1933 (when LR 165 was defined). I don't think most state highways in big cities were state-maintained in those earliest days anyway.

[sdmichael]

The catch is that the State wouldn't be putting signs on a non-State route. Otherwise you'd fall into a maintenance issue and a liability issue. San Fernando Road was a State Highway, even though it went through towns.

[NE2]

The catch is that the State wouldn't be putting signs on a non-State route. Otherwise you'd fall into a maintenance issue and a liability issue. San Fernando Road was a State Highway, even though it went through towns.

Didn't ACSC post the signs?

And states definitely post signs on local roads, if only at interchanges with state roads.

[sdmichael]

ACSC would have posted the signs at that time, but a US highway is still a State route. Signs are posted at intersecting roadways, but not on non-State highways.

[NE2]

ACSC would have posted the signs at that time, but a US highway is still a State route.

I don't know what you're trying to say here. ACSC posted signs on local roads as well as on state highways.

Signs are posted at intersecting roadways, but not on non-State highways.

Really? What about all those signs for intersecting freeways?


Anyway, do you have any evidence to support routes having to be state maintained in cities in the 1920s and early 30s? This would have been different from how most states operated back then.

[NE2]

In 1925, the Legislature passed an act providing that whenever a State highway runs into or passes through any municipality which has a population of not more than 2500, as determined by multiplying the total number of registered electors at the time of the last gubernatorial election of such municipality by three and one-half, and when the city, by resolution, dedicates and turns over to the State such street, the Highway Commission shall construct or improve that street as a State highway in that city to the same width and of the same type, or equivalent thereto, as the highway approaching that municipality. The above mentioned act made it mandatory upon the Highway Commission to construct State highways within municipalities that had a population of less than 2500 when requested to do so by the city.

[sdmichael]

ACSC would have posted the signs at that time, but a US highway is still a State route.

I don't know what you're trying to say here. ACSC posted signs on local roads as well as on state highways.

Signs are posted at intersecting roadways, but not on non-State highways.

Really? What about all those signs for intersecting freeways?


Anyway, do you have any evidence to support routes having to be state maintained in cities in the 1920s and early 30s? This would have been different from how most states operated back then.

We're talking 1926... no freeways. The area I'm questioning with the OP's map (which is really done well) was between San Fernando Road (known LRN 4) and the Foothill/Colorado corridor (known LRN 9). I've just never seen a State Highway map showing the exact routing between those locations.

To signposting - Yes, ACSC did post signs on local roads. That isn't the issue. What would be is posting signs for a STATE highway on a local roadway (like signing San Fernando Road today as anything as it is all a local road). Highland Ave in Los Angeles is signed as State Highway 170, but non-state portions aren't (as they shouldn't be). So... signing US 99 on a roadway not maintained by the State would not be correct.

[Interstate Trav]

What I don't understatand about US 99's Routing, is why have it go east to Indio?  Why not have it follow where I-5 goes now to San Diego.

I know US 101 went south of Los Angeles but I never did understatnd that.

[sdmichael]

I'm not sure why either. The best idea I have is that US 99, being a major route, had to at least go to Los Angeles. It made the odd bend for the same reason any route did in Southern California - the geography. Thanks to the Great Bend of the San Andreas Fault, things get quirky here.

[NE2]

signing US 99 on a roadway not maintained by the State would not be correct.

If this is true (which I doubt) US 99 had a gap in signage, because there was no state highway between Pasadena and LA.

[sdmichael]

There was a State highway between Los Angeles and Pasadena. Its routing and signage is what I am uncertain about. I know about Figueroa St and most of its signage, but that was later. Hence my reason that I'd like to see the data the OP used to create that map. I agree with the routing, as I have seen other maps showing US 99 bypassing Los Angeles altogether.

[707]

The maps I looked at (1934 State Highway Map Los Angeles inset, 1912 National Old Trails Road from ACSC, 1926 USGS Maps, etc.) showed the right of way using Pasadena Avenue, Mission Road, Fair Oaks Avenue, Colorado Boulevard and Altadena Drive. Even if this wasn't a state highway, it is still most likely the routing the AASHO designated US 66 and US 99 down. But what does confuse me is where US 66's western terminus was at the time. I'm wondering if it started at the corner of San Fernando Road/Avenue 19 and Pasadena Avenue.

There was a State highway between Los Angeles and Pasadena. Its routing and signage is what I am uncertain about. I know about Figueroa St and most of its signage, but that was later. Hence my reason that I'd like to see the data the OP used to create that map. I agree with the routing, as I have seen other maps showing US 99 bypassing Los Angeles altogether.

Even in 1926, it seems that both highways used a piece of what is now Figueroa Street. The 1926 map shows it as being a section of Pasadena Avenue interestingly.

[NE2]

There was a State highway between Los Angeles and Pasadena.

Which legislative route was it? LR 165 didn't exist until 1933.

[sdmichael]

I so far have NOT found a State highway between Los Angeles and Pasadena until 1933. I'm still researching that part. What may have been the case, if indeed US 99 was signed along a non-State route, was signage for continuity only. Much like US 101 today, there could have been a route break. US 101 doesn't go over the Golden Gate Bridge as a State highway, but as a signed route. What I seek is actual physical evidence that US 99 was indeed signed between Los Angeles and Pasadena. I'd also like to see evidence it was signed east as well. With all the data available out there, it will be found.

[NE2]

I so far have NOT found a State highway between Los Angeles and Pasadena until 1933.

Neither have I, and I looked through all the laws defining routes. Notes here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S._Roads/California#Resources

What may have been the case, if indeed US 99 was signed along a non-State route, was signage for continuity only.

Just like you would have had in any city with population over 2500.

[sdmichael]

I've also been looking at photos of the area to see what I could find. I may also see if I can check with ACSC and Caltrans for any data as well.

[NE2]

I'd also like to see evidence it was signed east as well.

I don't think you'll find this, since, if I'm not mistaken, directional plates weren't used in those days.

[sdmichael]

I meant TO the east, not signed east. Sorry about that. A photo of Foothill Blvd with US 66 and US 99 shields shouldn't be tough to come by.

[707]

I meant TO the east, not signed east. Sorry about that. A photo of Foothill Blvd with US 66 and US 99 shields shouldn't be tough to come by.

I would like to see one of those myself.

[sdmichael]

So far, I haven't had much luck. I did, however, find a couple photos showing the Colorado/Foothill/Santa Anita section of Route 9 (66/99) from 1926 or 1928. No shields were visible, only the diamond ACSC directional signage.

[agentsteel53]

I've heard that CA first placed the shields in 1928.

[sdmichael]

The 1928 date for signage is correct. FWIW, I haven't seen any photos of a US 99 shield on the Ridge Route, and yet it was US 99 (and LRN 4). A photo or two will be found.

[707]

The 1928 date for signage is correct. FWIW, I haven't seen any photos of a US 99 shield on the Ridge Route, and yet it was US 99 (and LRN 4). A photo or two will be found.

I talked to someone who wrote a book about the Ridge Route in an e-mail once. He said that although the Ridge Route was designated as US 99, it was never signed as such. The reason being the construction of the Ridge Route Alternate (present day I-5) was going to begin around the time that the ACSC would have signed US 99 in that area. In other words, it was one of those "Why bother?" situations. But I really doubt that they would have refrained from signing US 66 and US 99 together, since that concurrency lasted until 1934 or 1935.